Can one be an atheist for the "wrong" reasons?

[Alzael]

No.

Peace.

Yes. You will please respond to the question that you were asked. Moderator instructions are to be followed. And you are being instructed right now to stop dodging and stonewalling.

[jaimehlers]

I asked a question, and then star stuff responded with a question. I have no problem with that. Then I responded to his question with a question, and now everyone has a problem with that, including star stuff, who is the very person who started the whole thing by responding to a question with a question. It looks like double standards. Everything that can be said has been said and I won't waste any more of my energy on this conversation.

Did you consider that your answer to Star Stuff's question could have been directly relevant to his answer to your question?

[velkyn]

Indeed. And there is no evidence for anything but what we can observe and detect.  Therefore, since there is nothing demonstrating that there is anythign supernatural at work, there is no reason to accept a "God" and atheism is the supported stance.

I don't believe in supernatural gods. I don't even know how that would work.

Peace.

Johnny, I believe you have claimed that your god is part and parcel of  the universe, reality, whatever you'd like to call it.  However,  this is attempting to redefine the word "god".   If your god is simply the "universe" there is nothing divine or special about it.  It just is the "universe" and you have no differnt ideas than me. 

If you do want to claim that this god of yourse to be something other than simple reality, then your argument fails.  You have claimed, perhaps a better word is "implied",  that there is "something" that we can't detect, that the universe isn't simply the material. 

If someone was an atheist but based it on nothing more than looking around and feeling that it's all just material and that there's nothing else, who here would consider that a wrong reason?

what is this that is other than "materially" based that you find atheists have missed that makes this reason for atheism wrong as you seem to think it is?

[Hatter23]

I phrased this as intentionally vague, as I'm looking for personal opinions.

For the sake of argument, let's assume a hypothetical child encounters ideas of God from other folks, and after some indeterminate period of aging, decides to reject those ideas.  Would there be a scenario in which this child rejected those God ideas for bad (aka. illogical, irrational, incomplete, faulty, etc) reasons?

If "yes", please describe the scenario or reasoning

Yes, he or a loved one gets a disease and is angry at God. The issue with this senario they may say all the usual Atheist phrases and slogans and argue well, but at the core of it is their anger, which means they weren't an atheist.

Another person does not like the rules imposed upon them by religion, they like drugs, violence, and casual sex. Because of the restriction they shed "the whole God thing"

Every "Former Atheist" I've met falls into these one of these two categories.

[Dante]

Oooh! Drama!

Will Johnny relent, and answer the required question?

Will Alzael drop the ban hammer when he refuses?

Then again, who cares?

Remember, Johnny's only mission here:

I'm not here to defend my views. I'm here simply to give my two cents.

He lacks the intestinal fortitude, as well as the intellectual honesty, to be a long time participant on this forum. We all knew the day was coming.

[Strawman]

Sorry to repost my own comment but I've made significant editions that I feel are relevant to the current direction of the discussion. I'll delete the original...

My dog and cat are both atheists. Babies are atheists. It is only until reaching a certain age you have the requisite neural capacity to start pondering religion and "god/s"...

Religion and the belief in a bespoke deity, constructed from unexplained personal experiences, are wildly different.
Pigeons have been shown to form superstitions. Are they creating a god here?

The natural behaviour of the mind is to formulate answers as quickly as possible, even when only limited or invalid data is available; this trait is essential for survival in many circumstances but can often lead to incorrect conclusions. Therefore, God can be defined as an elegant place-holder: he/she/it is a faux entity constructed by combining all the unknown variables to allow a conclusion to be drawn in any situation where there is insufficient valid data. It is only through the development of logical reasoning that such hastily drawn conclusions can be avoided.
Consider the logical conclusion, if atheism were the default state of the human mind then Religion could only be the result of genuine revelation. Take into account the incompatible differences between religions and we must deduce that they can't all be genuine revelations, therefore, atheism is not the default mindset.

Returning to the original question, "Can one be an atheist for the wrong reasons?" This question requires an agreed premise on the definition of God. To reach an agreed definition, I need to pose two of my own questions: Can God be examined by science? And if scientifically proven, would God remain supernatural? It stands to reason that the answer to both these questions is a categorical "no". God is a supernatural being; if something can be explained via scientific methods it cannot be supernatural; so if we could explain God it would no longer be God, therefore, God cannot be examined by science. We must therefore conclude that God cannot be defined, this is because -- as I stated earlier -- God is merely the collation of unknown quantities and not a specific entity. If God cannot be defined then there can be no illogical reason for disbelief, because even the attempt to define what you do not believe in renders the illusion obsolete.

[Alzael]

Oooh! Drama!

Will Johnny relent, and answer the required question?

Will Alzael drop the ban hammer when he refuses?

Then again, who cares?

Remember, Johnny's only mission here:

I'm not here to defend my views. I'm here simply to give my two cents.

He lacks the intestinal fortitude, as well as the intellectual honesty, to be a long time participant on this forum. We all knew the day was coming.

I can't drop the ban hammer. I can only convince Hal or Pony to do it.

[Star Stuff]

Please respond to Star Stuffs question now.[/b][/color]

No.

Peace.

Wow.  Just.........wow.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Well for starters onmipotence would necessarily mean possessing the ability to go beyond the limits of logic and the natural world.

Also since two things cannot occupy the same space at one time, in order for god to be omnipresent he would have to be somehow able to co-exist as a conscious that has no physical presence. No physical presence means that he cannot be natural.

And he is supposedly all-knowing, which means he has knowledge of all things anywhere. Which would necessitate the possession of many supernatural abilities. Such as telepathy, and clairvoyance.

You say that god would have to be able to go outside the limits of logic and the natural world. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the limits of logic, and the limits of the natural world.

You also say that 2 things can't accupy the same space at once. Why do you say this?

You effectively say that no physical presence equals not natural. How come?

You also say that telepathy and clairvotance are unnatural. How are they unnatural?

Peace.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Yes. You will please respond to the question that you were asked. Moderator instructions are to be followed. And you are being instructed right now to stop dodging and stonewalling.

Sorry but no. I will not be bullied.

Peace.

[Alzael]

Sorry but no. I will not be bullied.

Peace.

You're not being bullied. You are being asked to adhere to the rules. As you well know. At no point were you bullied in the least to do such a thing, so trying to act as though you are falls rather flat.

You say that god would have to be able to go outside the limits of logic and the natural world. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the limits of logic, and the limits of the natural world.

Exactlly what I said. An omnipotent being must, by definition, be able to do the unnatural and the illogical.

You also say that 2 things can't accupy the same space at once. Why do you say this?

Because I understand science.

You effectively say that no physical presence equals not natural. How come?

Because everything known in the natural world is physical. If something is non-physical (whatever that would actually mean) it is not part of the natural world.

Again, the same answer above. Because I understand science.

You also say that telepathy and clairvotance are unnatural. How are they unnatural?

Because they are specifically called supernatural. Involve powers that do not exist in the natural world...do I really need to go on and explain this? Or are you done trying to play dumb?

[jaimehlers]

Sorry but no. I will not be bullied.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21732.0.html

It's part of the rules of the forum.  If you don't think it's appropriate, you can take it up at a higher level, but you did implicitly agree to obey the rules when you joined, and regardless of you thinking it's bullying, you don't have the right to ignore the forum rules (by refusing the follow the instructions of a staff member).  If you do break the forum rules (as you are doing), you and you alone are responsible for whatever consequences come about as a result.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Alzael, we obviously differ in our opinions about what is possible and what isn't. Not a problem, life's rich tapestry and all that.

Peace.

[Alzael]

Alzael, we obviously differ in our opinions about what is possible and what isn't. Not a problem, life's rich tapestry and all that.

Peace.

Not a differing of opinion. Another dodge on your part.

[jaimehlers]

Johnny:  If you're not here to engage in open and honest discussion, including answering the questions that other people pose to you, why are you here?  It is not interesting or useful to discuss things with someone who is not willing to answer questions asked of him, yet expects other people to answer his questions.  Yet that is what you seem to be doing here.  If you want people to answer your questions, you need to answer their questions as well.

[Graybeard]

Alzael, we obviously differ in our opinions about what is possible and what isn't.

I am sorry to say that it is not a difference of opinion, it is your denial of facts.

Gods, wizards, genies, fairies, leprechauns, goblins, elves and the like all are said to have magical powers. Their chief trick is to say a form of words and something material arrives, it may be a pot of gold, a spinning wheel, or the planet earth - it really doesn't matter.

This is called supernatural as matter cannot be created without concentrating a fantastic amount of energy. Do elves have this power? some people say "Yes!" And they say yes to the same thing about wizards and gods. But strangely, their god is nothing like other gods and fairies...

What else can these supernatural beings do? Well, they can cause disease. First-born die, people are afflicted with blindness, lameness, deafness, illness and, if none of them work, they can smite you dead on the spot. They do this by just pointing, or thinking, or saying some magic words.

This means being able to run the world, observe every living creature, hand out perfect justice and still have time to send someone blind by infecting them with a parasitic worm, bacteria or virus.

They also control the weather conditions. Have you any idea how that could be done by a non-corporeal being? I suspect you don't because you know that the universe is a closed system and energy cannot be created.  Well, I'll tell you - it's magic. Or what we call, "supernatural" powers; also known as "woo."

Not content with these powers, they have command over earthquakes and hurricanes. That the earthquakes tend to occur along natural fault lines is a pure coincidence. These dealers in celestial justice know that sinners live on fault lines.

As for hurricanes, they send them up Tornado Alley year after year because the people who live there are vile  and godless, However, places like New York don't have regular hurricanes and that is because, as every Christian knows that New York is a god-fearing city filled with people who are even better Christians than you.

You see, Johnny Spunkypants[1], if you do not agree with Alzael that the supernatural is garbage  used to entertain children and, in the real world, cannot exist, then you are simply wrong. Your facts are wrong, your way of thinking is wrong, and, before you say it, no, this is not an opinion at all.

However, there is fortunately no law to prevent you being stupid and believing in "the supernatural" or that the supernatural is really there[2] otherwise, you'd be serving 75 to life.

So, what we would like, is
(i) an explanation of why you think like this -
(ii) what need is there inside you that causes you to believe in gods, wizards, genies, fairies, leprechauns, goblins, elves and the like?
(iii) Why do you think that these imaginary creatures are real?
(iv) Why do you think there is magic controlled by timeless beings who are invisible?

1.	Dear me, what an hysterically funny name - and so tasteful
2.	like those Gods, wizards, genies, fairies, leprechauns, goblins, elves and the like

[Quesi]

Alzael, we obviously differ in our opinions about what is possible and what isn't. Not a problem, life's rich tapestry and all that.

Peace.

Are you genuinely unaware of how passive/aggressive you are being?

[Historicity]

As for hurricanes, they send them up Tornado Alley year after year because the people who live there are vile  and godless,

BTW, God did that about a year ago to try to kill Nick and He missed.

[Tinyal]

I suppose all we can do is just look at what we've got and try and make sense of it in whatever way feels right to us.

Conflict

No, absolutely not.  The part of your post I bolded is completely incorrect, and at a guess I'd say is a big part of your problem - human beings would be back in the Dark Ages if they kept trying to make sense of the world around us by 'whatever way feels right'.

That way brings - at the least - wrong answers about the world.  Wrong answers about what causes disease, wrong answers about what thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes  are, wrong answers about where the root of our feelings are (hint - it's not our hearts) - just wrong all around.

Just like most of the theists down south here in the USA, using 'what feels right to us' will set civilization back 500 years, and people (such as yourself) who do such a thing will never get right answers about the world around us.

Nothing could be less right.

[joebbowers]

I gotta go to work soon so I was just skimming to see if someone already posted this, and I didn't see it, so I'm sorry if someone's already said it.

Theists see their god(s) as the creators of all life and nature, they do not consider them supernatural. They do not have an understanding of the supernatural as we do, as they attribute any unexplained (and most if not all explained) natural phenomena to their god(s). That's why Johnny said that he doesn't consider God to be supernatural.

Added: To suggest that God is supernatural because he created nature and doesn't follow it's rules is nonsensical to them. After all, your mother created you and makes rules for you that she herself doesn't follow, right?

[Alzael]

I gotta go to work soon so I was just skimming to see if someone already posted this, and I didn't see it, so I'm sorry if someone's already said it.

Theists see their god(s) as the creators of all life and nature, they do not consider them supernatural. They do not have an understanding of the supernatural as we do, as they attribute any unexplained (and most if not all explained) natural phenomena to their god(s). That's why Johnny said that he doesn't consider God to be supernatural.

Not true at all. Most of them do acknowledge that god is supernatural. That's how they get away with not being able to prove him empirically. They rely on "other" senses and other means of looking at the world. I've heard very few Christians claim that he isn't supernatural. It's not that they don't think he is, it's just that they believe in the supernatural too. At least as it pertains to god.

For example, I did a quick google on god and the supernatural. These are what came up on the first page.

God's Supernatural Power
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1051

God's Miracles - The Supernatural In The Natural World
http://www.access-jesus.com/gods-miracles.html

Our Supernatural Knowledge of God
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/intro/know_god.htm

Keys to Moving in the Supernatural of God
http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/keys-moving-supernatural-god

God is Supernatural
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/item-by-category/changed-lives/item/711-god-is-supernatural.html

I advise not actually reading those sites however. Your IQ will drain very fast.

[joebbowers]

^^ That's because they're moving the goalposts, Alzael. They disagree with science with it disproves God, but then trot out the 2nd law of thermodynamics and claim see, science supports us? They do not believe God is supernatural in the same sense that we do. To them, God is nature. But they won't hesitate to use supernatural as a defense to explain why he doesn't abide by the laws of physics.

And since when do all Christians agree on anything?

[Alzael]

^^ That's because they're moving the goalposts, Alzael.

Of course they are. Don't they always?

They disagree with science with it disproves God, but then trot out the 2nd law of thermodynamics and claim see, science supports us?

Agreed, as I said it's used as an excuse.

They do not believe God is supernatural in the same sense that we do. To them, God is nature. But they won't hesitate to use supernatural as a defense to explain why he doesn't abide by the laws of physics.

Agreed that they don't use it the same way. My point was that their way of using the term does not preclude it from being a part of the natural world. They see the term "supernatural" more in the way that you get in comic books and sci-fi/fantasy stories. Where it exists as a part of the normal world, but there is still a natural and a supernatural side to things. The supernatural in stories is tangible and obvious. It moves things, summons fire, creates hulking demons, etc. It's just that the process of how it actually works tends to be mysterious and secretive. Only for a few special people to know. This is their idea of god being supernatural.

Whereas people like us understand that if comic book/sci-fi/fantasy/etc. style magics were real they would not actually be supernatural. They would be natural because they are verifiable and testable, however extraordinary they may seem.

[Graybeard]

Merriam-Webster: Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Synonyms: metaphysical, otherworldly, paranormal, preternatural, transcendent, transcendental, unearthly
Antonyms: natural[/quote]

Oxford English Dictionary:

A. adj. 1. a. That is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.

1772   J. Priestley Inst. Relig. (1782) I. 319   Testimony?declared in supernatural voices from heaven.
1865   W. E. H. Lecky Hist. Rationalism I. i. 77   The pestilences which desolated nations were deemed supernatural.
1866   H. P. Liddon Bampton Lect. (1875) vi. 296   Christianity is a supernatural religion.
1892   J. Tait Mind in Matter (ed. 3) 308   The Apostles considered supernatural power as something resident in Jesus.

The problem with "supernatural" is expressed in "The God of The Gaps"; once we know how something mysterious occurred, then it is no longer supernatural.

Prior to Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, supernatural beings were unquestioned; indeed they were supported by the vast majority. As knowledge of the world grew, fewer supernatural beings were required to be the perpetrators of various unexplained events.

Now, 300 years later, things have changed. Whereas before there was a whole slew of things that the supernatural did, disease, famine, war, earthquakes, floods, tornados, today we have explained these and what remains is so little that, by the same education that explained the others, we are confident that these too will turn out to be natural or non-existent.

So we arrive at the defintion of Delusion: “delusion” [dih-loo-zhuhn] (noun) = the incorrect assessment of a correct perception; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.

i.e we see something unusual happen and, instead of saying, "Ah, that is probably my brain trying to make sense of what I perceive." some say, "I saw that, it must be the work of God/the Devil."

We did "see" something, but we misinterpret it - this becomes a delusion, when we (i) refuse to accept the correct explanation or attribute the event to mythical beings without the slightest shred of evidence.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Is the existance of what we can observe made easier or harder to explain by suggesting the existance of things we cannot observe?
Please answer.  Easier, or harder?

Suggesting the existence of things that we can't see makes explaining the the existence of what we can see harder. Your question to me was relevant to my original question, whereas my question to you (after you asked yours) wasn't relevant.

Edit:From now on I'll just remove his little tagline myself. It'll cut down on his trolling attempts.

[The Gawd]

And humans think some other human - with abilities beyond mortal ken - is responsible for unexplained events.  It is no coincidence that gods and goddesses are depicted as having some variation on human form.

Let me describe the general attributes of the agent who, say, hurls lightning.  First off, he must be unimaginably powerful, to be able to handle something that can so easily kill a human if it hits him.  He must be able to go anywhere he wants at will, because lightning can happen anywhere a person goes.  He must also be able to live a really long time, since lightning has always been around.  There's three supernatural attributes right there without even having to think hard about them.

Lightning generally strikes tall objects; this agent must dislike it when something tries to raise itself up too high.  So if people lowered themselves before him, they were less likely to be struck, appeasing the agent.  They probably thought it was a good idea to abase themselves mentally as well by giving their time (worship) and property (offerings) in the hopes that it would please the agent, after all, can't be too careful.

Voila, instant religion, based on misplaced agent detection.  After that, it was pretty much a matter of constant one-upmanship to come up with the bigger, badder agent to deal with all these pretenders that other people worship.

It takes critical thinking skills to overcome the tendency to invent agents to explain phenomena that we don't understand.  That's one reason children are so susceptible to belief; they don't have the capability to understand why something happens, so they either ask someone who presumably knows why it does, or they come up with something to expain it to themselves.

I apoligize for the short answers and oft out of order. I'm posting from work and get enterupted lately as we're busy as hell.

To address the issue though. I see what youre saying, however youre more concerned, it appears, with agent detection and what occurs after, than the cause of agent detection or god creation (since theyre not necessarily the same). Your post still doesnt tackle the issue which is humans naturally look for answers to unknowns, that is =/= to humans naturally making gods. It may result in that, as to whether god making or simply listening to our fellow man is more responsible we'll probably never know. But we do know by looking at new religions how they spread. One man came up with this Mormon business, it wasnt a bunch of different people that dreamt up these golden plates. Makes me think its more likely that one man here or there created this notion of a god, and spread it.

Which supports the idea that we are naturally atheist, but prone to listen to others. We naturally look for answers to unknowns, now even disproving the god character which again suggests that we're not prone to making up gods, rather looking for answers. The problem comes up because we are prone to listen to those who raised us.

[velkyn]

so johnny, show that your claims are supported by evidence.  If you can't, you are just delusional along with every other theist and get the ridicule someone who is so desperate for external validiation deserves.

[Hatter23]

^^ That's because they're moving the goalposts, Alzael. They disagree with science with it disproves God, but then trot out the 2nd law of thermodynamics and claim see, science supports us? They do not believe God is supernatural in the same sense that we do. To them, God is nature. But they won't hesitate to use supernatural as a defense to explain why he doesn't abide by the laws of physics.

It is how "magic" poisons all thinking. If you allow for any smidgen of magic, which God is, you can make anything plausable, unless that magic has laws and limitations of its own. If there's an "Omni" in there, there are no laws or limitations.

And since when do all Christians agree on anything?

Well they agree the God is good, Christ died for sins, and we are completely wrong for questioning their magic story.

[Alzael]

Suggesting the existence of things that we can't see makes explaining the the existence of what we can see harder. Your question to me was relevant to my original question, whereas my question to you (after you asked yours) wasn't relevant.

This does not answer what you were asked.