Why is belief necessary?

Why? Why would anybody want to be an atheist?

Hoo boy, anything but, as I've repeatedly stated for the past year. If I could be a theist, I'd be a lot happier, especially about misfortune.But I can't be a theist, because there's no evidence for the existence of God. If I tried to believe something I know is wrong, I couldn't be happy at all. As it is, I can be satisfied that I'm being honest with myself, which is good, but there's little comfort in atheism. It's not for sissies.Oh, and just so you know, "many different reasons" is not an answer to my question. Why don't you give me just one, for instance.

Isn't it the soul of self-aggrandizement, Jason, to quote yourself in your own signature?

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

Been there, done that.Of course, I predict you'll tell me I'm lying, or something, because "if you had done it right, God would have came to you" or whatever. Seeked. Didn't find. That's why I'm an atheist.

"Vanity" to me is the arrogant presumption that God created an infinite universe simply as a playground for one insignificant species.Atheism is the opposite of vanity.

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

I just did.

Just as many believe this to not be the case. This is lunacy. How can I "destroy" what doesn't exist?

When did I make that claim?We're speaking specifically of God, not anything else that is greater than myself. I'm honestly not all that great.

Because the testimony only proves that millions believe, not that what they believe in is true.The vast majority of that testimony, by the way, isn't exactly very certain. Most believers, when asked, would say something like "I can't prove that God exists, but I believe that he does." Even multiplied by millions, that's not evidence that God exists.And there's certainly thousands of atheists. What's their problem? And what about all the people in other religions, which taken together outnumber Christianity? There's a number of problems with the Mob argument, not the least of which is that any argument ad populum is fallacious.

I would disagree. Most believers know that they can't know for sure that God exists, but the believe he does.If anyone claims that they know for sure that God exists, then they're simply mistaken. That's not knowable. And what is the ontological basis for that knowledge? In what way is that basis distinguishable from just making things up?I'm not impressed by the idea that the only way to know that God exists is to pretend like you already do. I would point out that the knowledge gained from science works whether you believe in it or not. It's funny that you say that, because I started as a believer, but the evidence forced me to change my mind. So, I'm actually quite the opposite of who you say I am. What I had, actually, was a precommitment to Christianity. It was the evidence that convinced me otherwise. But, you know, please do go on trying to psychoanalyze me over the net. Your failure is quite hilarious. Well, we don't. That's not what atheism is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. Why do we have a lack of belief in God? Because there exists no evidence that God exists. They're simply all mistaken. That's not very surprising; it's not uncommon for very large groups of people to be mistaken about things.As I said before, the argument ad populum is still fallacious. That hasn't changed. Premises are not made true by the fervency or plurality of their supporters; rather, they are made true by evidence. Not so. No belief required. Atheism is the lack of belief, and it's the knowledge that there is no evidence for God. Of course, you might have known that, had you actually researched the position of the atheist, instead of attacking a charicature.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 01:30 AM

Well, my position is that the existence of God is not falsifiable, so I guess Popper and I agree. You, on the other hand, seem to disagree. The same evidence that convinces me that you exist. Of course, convincing me that God has all the properties that Christians say he does is an entirely different matter. I don't know how you would substantiate claims of infinite power with a finite display of power. Certainly the world we live in is not consistent with both benevolence and omnipotence, so one or the other or both of those are right out. For one thing, the fact that evil in the world is not consistent with a benevolent, omnipotent God. It's just not, under any circumstances. All the arguments to refute this rely on attempts to absolve God of responsibility for his actions and inaction, and that's even more evidence that God would not be benevolent - he doesn't take responsibility.There are other things, for instance, the fact that God does not, ever, intervene in any situation in a detectable, different-than-random way. If the Hand of God is at work, causing things, we should be able to detect it from its effects.Of course, there's the fact that Christianity has no fundamental difference than any other dogmatic belief in mythology. Its adherents are instructed in ways that promote circular thought and preclude genuine inquiry into the world; the only way the belief survives is through insularity. None of the qualities of religious belief, including Christianity, are indicative of belief in something true, but rather, belief in something deperately wanted to be true. I can, and will. There is simply no evidence that points to the existence of God that isn't more simply explained by other things. When you apply all the more likely explanations first, you run out of evidence that can only be explained by the existence of God. There is simply no such evidence. No way. Dan Carroll and MrHambre are always way funnier than me.I'm sorry you think I'm getting too serious. I was under the impression that this was a serious topic. Was I wrong?