Is Atheism really the logical choice?

The definition of atheism is lack in belief in god or gods. Theism is belief, atheism denounces that belief.

So you have to subscribe to a pre-big bang theory, and that theory has to be spontaneous existence. Not just spontaneous creation which might work, I don’t care, but spontaneous existence.

Since there is no god, the big bang either happened because of

1) The deterministic universe wanted itself to exist (all hail the universe)

2) It happened completely randomly, just because. Which is to me is a lot less logical than believing in at least a deity.

So my question is, why are you an atheist?

Believing in spontaneous existence, that we are all here for absolutely no objective reason seems a little more far fetched than believing that we are the result of a decision.

I honestly think that you guys are just atheist because you want to enter the space age faster, and you think “God” is holding us back. Is this true?

Posted: October 18th 2010

Blaise www

Yes. Whether you are a believer or not, it is true that atheism is the logical choice. If you have to ask the question, you should do some research on what the word “logic” means…

Posted: October 20th 2010

See all questions answered by Blaise


No, it is not true that I am an atheist because I want to enter the space age (please define what you mean by space age) faster and think 'god’ is holding me back. Since you prefaced your query with honestly, let me do the same. I honestly do not know what you are trying to say. Try again, please. Thank you.

Oh, I am an atheist for the same reason I am an ateapotist. I don’t bother with celestial teapots or gods. There is no evidence for either. As far as I can tell, there is no connection between my wanting the space age to occur (whatever that urge may be) and my ateapotism.

Posted: October 19th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

George Locke

Atheists needn’t subscribe to any theory about what may have happened before the big bang — all that’s required of us is that we don’t subscribe to the theory that goddidit. Saying “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable position when there’s a lack of evidence. We do have to believe that the evidence for theistic creation is unconvincing.

There isn’t any direct evidence for creation, so the theist must take the position that naturalistic explanations are untenable. This is basically your position. You’ve thrown in a pleasant mix of false dichotomy and argument from personal incredulity. It’s a false dichotomy because you’ve missed some important alternatives, such as an eternal universe, or the possibility that the existence of our cosmos is made inevitable by some underlying constraint on physical law (as in some multiverse theories). A further possibility is that the universe was caused by something outside itself that in no way resembles a deity.

You make an argument from personal incredulity when you say “a lot less logical”: what you really mean is “a lot less appealing to me personally”. As bitbutter points out, there’s no real reason why it should seem more reasonable for a deity to exist “completely randomly, just because” than a universe though it is easier for many to swallow. Your dismissal of the first possibility is likewise mere fiat on your part.

This is all just to say that the case against a natural origin for existence is not convincing. So, there is no evidence whatever, neither direct nor indirect, that a deity is responsible for existence. Hence, there’s no reason to believe in a deity and every reason to embrace atheism.

Also: space? Where’d that come from?? I’m an atheist for no reason but my judgment that god most probably doesn’t exist.

Posted: October 19th 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke

Mike the Infidel www

I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in any gods. Anything else you try to tack onto it isn’t relevant. It’s not a matter of what I want. It’s a matter of the lack of evidence.

Posted: October 19th 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel

SmartLX www

You dismiss alternatives far too quickly. The Big Bang may have been the beginning, or it may have been one event in an eternal timeline, in which case no creator is ever needed. If it was the beginning, it may well have come from what we would think of as nothing (because, as cosmologist Laurence Krauss says, “nothing” is unstable). Maybe it happens all the time, and the spontaneous emergence of this universe was nothing special in the grand scheme of things.

You see spontaneous emergence as less logical than creation by a deity, but where did the deity come from? Another deity? Or had it always existed, which means there’s no real barrier to the universe always having existed? You solve nothing by adding a god to your model, you merely push the issue one step along and then stop because your god’s in the picture and you’re where you want to be.

Religion has held back scientific advancement for centuries, first by silencing scientists who reached conclusions contrary to dogma (back when it had the power to do so) and more recently by hindering any scientific education which might undermine the perceived necessity of gods or even the literal truth of scripture. That’s one practical reason to work to lessen the influence of religion, but it has nothing to do with whether or not there’s really a god. I for one am an atheist because I really don’t think there is a god.

Posted: October 19th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX

bitbutter www

The universe, in the context of philosophy, refers to everything that exists. If gods exist, then they’re part of the universe, which means we’re all in the same boat, theists and atheists; none of us is in a position to explain the universe.

Genesis and other creation myths naively try to explain how specific parts of the universe came into being, but none of them tell us why the creator gods, who are also part of the universe, exist. And even if they did, then whatever it was that gave rise to the creator gods would be subject to the same question.

The most important contribution of the Objectivists, in my view, was the recognition of the primacy of existence—that is to say we can’t get 'behind’ the brute, dumb, inscrutable fact of existence to explain it in terms of anything else (try it, and you’ll quickly find yourself begging the question).

The questioner may be unsatisfied by an atheist’s failure to answer questions about the 'why’ of existence, but theism does no better. An atheist might agree that on physicalism (for instance) the matter that comprises the universe exists for no reason, but they ought to point out that if any of the creator gods were real, they would exist 'for absolutely no objective reason’ too.

I’m an atheist because, given the way I see the world working, I reckon that it’s more likely that stories of invisible, magical beings are false, than they are to be true.

Posted: October 18th 2010

See all questions answered by bitbutter


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum