I am an atheist because I cannot see any logical reason to be otherwise.
I was raised new age/pagan and used karma to explain why my life was such a mess as I became a heavy drug user and drinker.
I always enjoyed laughing at silly Christian beliefs, but once I gave up drugs and cleared my mind I started to turn that same skeptical eye on to my own beliefs, and found them just as laughable, if not more so.
Despite the 12 step program telling the world the only way to get clean is through god, I found that without drugs clouding my senses god became irrelevant.
Leela Moses
New Zealand
Moses makes one point:
1. After quitting drugs, she rejected new age/pagan and karma, using her skepticism; god became irrelevant, although she was pagan to start with; no logical reason for god.
Summary: Adult, no age given. Skeptic. First, rejected new age/paganism. Then rejected Theism with her logic (undefined).
9 comments:
I am an atheist because no one can make me a theist. Whether or not God actually exists is not as relevant as deciding that being an atheist is the best choice to be made. I can, for example, give myself the benefit of the doubt and say I am not subject to anyone's rules but my own.
Plus, I'm sure there is a good logical case to be made.
Finally, a more honest exposition.
So, Fred, I take it that you're an atheist or theist for similar reasons?
Debunkey Monkey,
Isn't existence itself a restriction and limitation on one's freedom?
I find it puzzling that atheists tend to associate theism with tyranny- "...I am not subject to anyone's rules but my own."
Law is precisely what makes freedom possible.
Hey, my simian friend, glad you are here. I hope you don't mind if I field this reply to you.
Chris- you ask:
Isn't existence itself a restriction and limitation on one's freedom?
Er, existence as opposed to what? If I don't exist, how can I have "freedom", or "bondage", or anything else?
Law is precisely what makes freedom possible.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "law" and "freedom". If, by "law", you mean something like the physicals laws that make our Universe an orderly place, I would be inclined to agree: "freedom" is only possible for living things (or can rocks be "free"?), and it seems likely to me that life can only evolve in an orderly Universe. But Monkey was talking about rules, presumably (correct me if I'm wrong here, dybukky) the rules laid out in various scriptures. These rules are not the same thing as physical laws, or at least must be demonstrated to be the same thing, which I have yet to see.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
"Isn't existence itself a restriction and limitation on one's freedom?"
As opposed to non-existence? If I didn't exist, I could not have any properties. Thus I could not have freedom. So, no, existence in and of itself is not the limitation of freedom, but a foundation.
"Law is precisely what makes freedom possible."
We shouldn't confuse laws with functions of the universe and rules decided by a person in power. We sometimes use the same words to describe different concepts, but sometimes this can make things confusing or muddled.
However, can laws from the government ensure freedom? Of course. Do all laws ensure freedom? Nah.
DM and Zilch,
Thank you for the response.
Would it be presumptuous of me to assume that you two fellas are both moral relativists?
It's interesting that theists and atheists (as well as political conservatives and liberals) both perceive the "other side's" view as innaccurate and likely to result in tyranny.
Freedom is one of those slippery words, yes? I think an important question is freedom of or freedom from.
Anyway, my position on ethical theory is that moral relativism is ultimately inescapable for metaphysical naturalists.
Chris- you're most welcome.
Yes, I would say that theism is "inaccurate", otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist. I don't think the term "accuracy" is as applicable to politics, however: particular political stances are not something that are "accurate" or not, but rather beliefs about how people should live, and how best to achieve that with law, government, etc.
And I wouldn't necessarily say that theism leads to tyranny. There are parts of many religious systems of belief that have been used to justify tyranny of many sorts, but the same is true of non-religious systems: Stalinism is a good example. I wouldn't even want to claim, although many atheists do, that the world would necessarily be a better place without religion- it's very complex and hard to say.
Basically, I don't care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
And as far as being a "moral relativist" goes, that too is complex. I'd have to say "yes", but that doesn't mean I think morals are a free-for-all. Some of our morals are part of our genetic heritage as social animals, others are part of our cultural heritage, and others are reasoned out by every person for themselves.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
"Would it be presumptuous of me to assume that you two fellas are both moral relativists?"
Yep!
Post a Comment