I saw this post from Buzsaw in another thread, and it inspired me to make a new topic about it.
Basically, I would like this to be a thread where people can voice whatever it is they think is the weirdest or hardest part to being an atheist. I would like to answer those questions and explain why (for me, at least) being an atheist makes the most logical sense.
Disclaimer:
The following thoughts should not be taken as a rule-book for "all atheists". Atheists are all very different people who's only common trait is to not have religious convictions. The following are my personal thoughts as an atheist.
I will start with a response to Buzsaw's remarks from here:
Message 5
Buzsaw writes:
1. If I were an evolutionist, logic would call for some explanation for the wide gap of intelligence between humans and other living things (abe: relative to life and death).
I do not understand why such an explanation is logically required. There are certainly many people that show me everday that this gap isn't all that wide anyway.
3. If I were an evolutionist I might be bothered by the fact that humans have the power over all other living things to manage their lives in whatever way man determines to do. The reason this would bother me is that the Biblical record declares in Genesis that that would be the case.
This doesn't bother me in any way. The fact that the Bible is correct about a great many things leads me to believe that it was written by some very intelligent people. I do not see a requirement to add divinity.
2. If I were an evolutionist I would seriously pursue the phenomena of religion in that throughout the recorded history of humans all cultures have been religious. As an evolutionist this would be a puzzling thing in that this propensity has evolved exclusively into the human brain. This along with the phenomenon of good and evil would lead me to investigate the legitimacy of religions relative to life and death questions.
4. If I were an evolutionist the mystery of how evolvement of good and evil has affected humanity socially, morally and other ways would raise the pursuit of an explanation for this phenomenon relative to life and death of the intelligent human species.
I continue to seriously pursue the reasons behind religious motivations and thoughts every day. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've started this topic. I do not find the desire to have an easy-to-comprehend explanation for mysteries "puzzling", it seems to be our curious nature. I also find the phenomenon of good and evil to be described in a more pure sense when God and religion are left out. Appeals to authority do not strike me as very moral.
The legitimacy of religion relative to life and death questions seems to be the same as everyone's: no one really knows, and some people are very afraid of such unknowns. Belief in an answer can help calm those fears for many people, regardless of the actual ability to validate that belief. Myself, I do not find any comfort in unvalidated "answers".
These are a few concerns that would motivate me to search out the claims of major religions to determine whether this intelligence unique to humans equates into the likelihood of an immortal soulish aspect of humanity which has been designed in the image of a designer creator as the Bible states and thus what happens to the soul when the body dies.
A very good point. And these concerns certainly did motivate me to search out the claims of major religions. I simply found those claims... wanting. When I am faced with important decisions, I like to validate my information before jumping to a conclusion. Religious information seems to be very shy of being validated, to put it lightly.
Perhaps some or all of the above might serve to question, in the evolutionist mind, the ToE naturalistic PoV. Perhaps also this would be cause to worry about the (abe: life and death) consequences of insulting a supreme creator by crediting nature for what the creator designer expects and/or requires praise for.
I do question a naturalistic PoV. I am still waiting for anything to contradict that question, though.
I do not worry about the consequences of insulting a supreme creator. First there is the question of whether or not a creator even exists, supreme or otherwise. But even assuming existance, a supreme creator will be capable of understanding that I am simply being as honest and curious and true-to-reality as I can be, or that creator isn't really all that "supreme" anyway, and therefore doesn't deserve such praise and devotion.
™ Version 4.2