Strongest argument for atheism?

[yodachoda]

Hey guys, I'm 24 years old, became atheist a few months ago.  I've been agnostic for most of my life (but leaning toward theism), but raised in a Christian family.  Anyway, why did you become an atheist? 

For me, I think evolution is by far the strongest thing in favor of atheism.  I'm a biology student, and after learning about how genetics work, and how DNA molecules behave during sexual reproduction, it suddenly became much more plausible and believable, in my mind, that purely natural processes could turn a self replicating molecule into all life we see today.  In fact, after taking a genetics class, I realized that it's impossible for evolution to not occur, and evolution is constantly occurring today on Earth.  I have faith that molecules following chemical and physical laws were required to turn regular molecules into self-replicating molecules, and I have faith that physicists will eventually discover how the Big Bang occurred. 

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.  Anyway, why did you guys become atheists? 

[Asmodean]

There is a thread or three floating about with our variably tragic life stories.

I was born atheist and it never changed, it's really that simple.

As for the title question, is religion not reason enough to turn atheist?

[Whitney]

I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago

There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position

[Traveler]

I didn't become an atheist, I've always been one. I've never believed in god. It simply never made any sense to me. As a kid I was exposed to a variety of religions and they all seemed equally unlikely. It's pretty hard to go into a mosque, churches of various denominations, temples, and so on, and believe that any one of them has a lock on the truth. I've simply never understood the need for, the belief in, or the appeal of a god belief.

My father was a secular humanist who taught math and science. He grew up in a catholic family, but gave it up as a teenager when the priest tried to tell him what he could and could not read. My mother was raised a lutheran and gave it up when they said she shouldn't ask questions. In both cases, they felt very strongly that any religion that couldn't tolerate questions or other viewpoints couldn't possibly have the truth behind them.

I agree with them.

[xSilverPhinx]

I've always been an atheist, never believed in a living god and never really bothered about religion. Then I met a few theists and everything changed...

From not really bothering or caring about religion I became opposed to such beliefs and the way they make people think. It escalated from there.

I'm totally agnostic towards deistic gods, though. It's just the theistic ones that aren't supported by neither evidence or the power of theist's arguments that I'm much quicker to reject.

The strongest arguments in favour of atheism IMO are simply the rebuttals to the theist's best arguments. There's nothing else to go on, it's not like trying to disprove something that exists.
That coupled with the fact that people are extremely fallible and psychologically prone to being religious. The fact that it's also a result of cultural and geographical upbringing and indoctrination doesn't help their side either. Theistic versions of their gods look too human to be taken seriously, and in many aspects just like the believers themselves. Also, evolutionary psychology just makes way more sense than a theists claims. Of course that implies that even true believers are mistaken...

[Pharaoh Cat]

I use the term "3A" to refer to either (a) any person whose thinking combines elements of atheism, agnosticism, and apatheism; or else (b) the big tent community of all atheists, all agnostics, and all apatheists.

I'm 3A.  My personal need to think clearly made me so. 

First, I'm antifaith, not merely with regard to the supernatural, but in any and every conceivable context.  Absent empirical verification or logical necessity, I believe nothing, however much I may suspect.

Second, I'm a hard agnostic, as it is obvious to me that it is impossible to empirically verify that we live in a created universse, and equally impossible to demonstrate the logical necessity that we do so.  Empirical verification depends on our senses and/or our instruments, and our senses and our insruments can only apprise us of creatures.  Anything that is not a creature cannot be known by our senses or our insruments.  Thus we cannot empirically verify the Creator, even if such exists.  Meanwhile, brilliant minds have tried for millennia to demonstrate the logical necessity that we live in a created universe, and none of them have succeeded.  At some point, repeated failure implies impossibility.  I think, after millennia, we have reached that point.
   
A hard agnostic who is antifaith can only be an atheist.

I'm also a practical person.  In any life that ends after mere decades and has no seqel, time spent worrying or speculating about something we can never empirically verify or logically demonstrate is time wasted.  So of course, inevitably, I'm an apatheist.

[squidfetish]

I'm an a-the-ist in the same way I'm an a-fairy-ist. No evidence, no dice.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. 

I challenge this point. For purposes of full disclosure, I'm a Christian who accepts evolution.  Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process? And then why could that creator God not manifest himself in some manner to conscious, intelligent creatures such as us who ultimately evolved according to the laws the creator instituted? 

[Traveler]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. 

...Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process?...

I know a fair number of liberal/moderate christians who believe this. That god set things in motion, but isn't the micro-manager that conservative fundamentalists believe in. They also say the bible is allegorical rather than literal. Personally, if I believed such, I think I'd toss out the christian structure and just go with whatever made sense to me individually, but since I don't really understand god belief at all, I could be missing something.

[squidfetish]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

[Pharaoh Cat]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

Why an exercise in futility?  This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.

[Light]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.  Anyway, why did you guys become atheists? 

What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone?  Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?

But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.

So then what do you base that assumption on?  Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.

Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?   

Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*.  Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....

[Traveler]

...Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*...

Not for me it isn't. Atheism isn't a choice at all. It's a fundamental belief that I feel down to my core. Any logical justification for it is simply trying to explain after the fact to people who don't understand me. My lack of belief probably boils down to experience, which includes observations of nature and science and the actions of religious people. But that all adds up to a subconscious belief that had no particular first moment. I've never believed in god. Religion has never made any sense to me at all, even as a child. How can one make a choice to believe in unicorns when unicorns are obviously a fabrication? I see no substantive difference between gods and unicorns. And I never have.

[Light]

...Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*...

Not for me it isn't. Atheism isn't a choice at all. It's a fundamental belief that I feel down to my core. Any logical justification for it is simply trying to explain after the fact to people who don't understand me. My lack of belief probably boils down to experience, which includes observations of nature and science and the actions of religious people. But that all adds up to a subconscious belief that had no particular first moment. I've never believed in god. Religion has never made any sense to me at all, even as a child. How can one make a choice to believe in unicorns when unicorns are obviously a fabrication? I see no substantive difference between gods and unicorns. And I never have.

Ok.  So then for you it's a fundamental belief that you feel down to your core, which sounds like what I would call intuition.   So then you accept your intuition to be telling you a truth about this, and so some religious people do the same thing...

[Traveler]

Ok.  So then for you it's a fundamental belief that you feel down to your core, which sounds like what I would call intuition.   So then you accept your intuition to be telling you a truth about this, and so some religious people do the same thing...

I'm actually a big fan of intuition. As an artist it stands me in good stead. As for truth? I don't know for certain what the truth is. By the terms I've seen on this board I'm an agnostic atheist, or perhaps more an apatheist. I don't believe in god. I don't insist that I know the truth about it. And it doesn't really matter to me. If evidence comes along and I change my mind, so be it. I live my life as best I can with what I've got.

The difference between myself and many of the religious people I know (especially fundamentalists) is that I don't believe there is only one correct path through life. As long as religious folks don't stomp all over my country's laws, or on my rights and freedoms, they can believe anything they want. Right wing christians in the US don't accord me the same respect.