Someone give me a compelling argument as to why anyone would even want to be atheist?
Wrong question. It implies that an atheist believes what he does for some calculated, selfish reason, rather than because he believes it to be true.
The right question is: Why would anyone conclude that there is no God?
Recognize this, and you might get some good answers. Although they have already been given elsewhere many times.
So, by creating a deity which is outside of the system, then the interconnectedness of the system breaks down and you are left with little more than nihilism.
While I don’t take the holism to the extreme that Tu Weiming (and others) do, I still feel that the system is more-correct than incorrect and since the notion of God doesn’t square with it, why keep it?
I gave other answers in this thread
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … sc&start=0
Which I’d recommend you read. Below I’ve copied my post. The answer I gave above ties into reason #2 below.
Are you talking about the idea of the Christian God? If so how is he outside of the system since he created the system?
How does the idea of ultimate source no square with it? You yourself claim that your foundation of beliefs do not deal with sources so how is an incomplete idea as all Asian religions are not square with the idea of any religion that does deal with a ultimate source and Absolute?
BTW, I agree with Navigator, the OP’s question was worded poorly.
Outside of the system means prior to the system.
That doesn’t make sense when the system is the totality of existence.
Heck, making the system implies not being a part of the system.
why would anyone wanna be a Christian? or a Jew? or a Catholic?
(no I’m not an atheist btw)
What?
The system is not the totality of existence for the creator, just for us.
If I make something, part of me is in it as I used my mind to design it after my desires and need of use, how is that separate form me?
In addition, if there is a designer he had to come before the design, yes?
I truly don’t understand a word you say here nor does it make any sense.
I have a question then. If atheism really isn’t a choice, then why not simply put, I just don’t believe. No amount of evidence, or argument will prove otherwise. And admit you will have to fall into whatever you end up believing?
I am Christian because Atheism just doesn’t add up, it’s a life full of contradictions and inconsistencies. No one has shown me otherwise, niether have I been given good arguments as to why Christianity is false?
I mean look at it this way, as a Christian, we have the bible. Now, as we have seen if you look in context, the bible still has not contradicted any science. There hasn’t been any statements shown in biblical text that have been proven otherwise false by science, logic, etc.
I mean quite frankly, I have no reason to be atheist even if I wanted to be. I’ve been atheist in my lifestyle for many days at certain times, it’s nothing special, it’s depressing. But of course someone will be happy with what they have if they’ve never tried anything better… of course.
and christianity doesnt? there been nothing to prove it true either. thats why its a belief, not a matter of true and false. we cannot tell whether its true or not. we are only humans
That’s not true. Most atheists will convert to theism if something remotely scientific or logical was presented. The idea of purpose and universal truth is too tempting to pass over because of pride or ego.
I’m not a scientist, nor am I a theological scholar, but I’m pretty sure the scientific community doesn’t agree with the theory that man rose out of mud, or that the earth is five thousand years old.
Tristan
Things logical and scientific are presented all the time that have theistic implications. You’re assuming that atheists are atheists purely on the basis of the arguments they use to defend atheism. Surely you don’t extend this notion to theists?
Case in point.
Xunzian
Awesome, exactly the kind of positive atheism that needs to be expressed more often.
Where I would disagree with it is this- I don’t consider the system to be The Universe, since we don’t know hardly anything about that. You’re argument would work for a distant deism that presents God as a tool that got the system working, then had nothing further to do with it. Another reason the God of philosophy doesn’t work. However, a theistic God would be much more tied to the system than that, even if nature were the system.
The primary system I consider is me, and my relationship with everything that is not me. If you see the universe as a Self, and the things regarded by that Self, having a God that regards the universe as apart from Himself seems much more consistant with the system.
Who said anything about it not being a choice? It’s just not something people believe in because they WANT to, that’s all. It’s something people believe in because they think it’s TRUE.
That explains why you’re not an atheist, but it doesn’t explain why you’re a Christian. There are more positions on the subject than those two.
Kingdaddy:
The idea of a separate creator god does add complexity to the system that it doesn’t require. Although I’m not sure Xunxian would endorse this, we could say it comes down to the difference between transcendance and imminence. There are conceptions of God that make Him/Her/It one with the cosmos, rather than a separate creator of it, such as the Hindu idea of Brahman – which is not exactly God, though. More involved than that.
Actually, it comes down to what I once identified (elsewhere than here) as the four possible metaphysical positions: classical materialism, supernaturalism, idealism, and nonclassical materialism.
Classical materialism is the belief that all of reality is material, and that the nature of material reality is what ordinary perception, common sense, and (perhaps) Newtonian physics would suggest. An essentially lifeless, mechanistic, compartmentalized, deterministic view of material reality, than which there is nothing else.
Supernaturalism is basically classical materialism with a supernatural add-on – something impacting this cold, dead world from outside and giving rise to soul and life.
Idealism is the belief that all of reality is mental.
Nonclassical materialism is the belief that all of reality is material, but that the nature of material reality is radically different than what ordinary perception, common sense, and Newtonian physics would suggest. More holistic, organic, non-determinate, and life-friendly a conception of material nature than classical materialism would hold for.
Most atheists are classical materialists. Most traditional Christians are supernaturalists. God inserts Himself into the system from outside, in this view, at the creation and since then, necessarily so because matter itself is viewed as cold, dead, and spiritless.
But if you don’t begin with that view of material reality, then you don’t need that conception of God.
hahahahahah!!! sorry mate but… hahahaha!!! 
Why would this be funny to you? You eternity could be at stake here, and you laugh?.. What does laughing prove? That you have no arugments?
G.K. Chesterton, a man I strongly recommend you read. One quoted saying “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”
great quote.
I’m not sure what you mean. However in my mind is so simple and connected. God is the creator of all things known and seen, he is part of everything since he created it. He always existed and nothing else did, he simply was like the void of nothing. Now since his spirit is life and all life has this spirit he is directly connected to all life like an umbilical cord is connected to a fetus, this umbilical cord is his portal to connect with us and revel his Truth and you either deny it and make your own or accept it and submit.
Over.
You see, Club29, it’s statements like that, not any conflicts with science, that lead me to categorically reject Christianity.
Any God worthy of worship would encourage me to freely exercise my mind, not threaten me with eternal torture (which, by the way, is an absurdly inappropriate punishment for ANY crime whatsoever, no matter how heinous, let alone trivialities that are no crime at all) if I come to the “wrong” conclusions.
God, as envisioned by Christianity, is a loathesome, abominable tyrant, worse and more to be despised than any mere human monster who ever governed. I cannot believe in that God for that very reason.
It is not that belief in a higher power, or a Mind embodying the cosmos, is so difficult. It is that Christianity envisions that mind in such a primitive, barbaric, nasty, and unworthy form.
I say to you again: the choice is NOT between Christianity and atheism. I am neither of those. Nor would Jesus be.
Kingdaddy:
What I mean is that I am prepared to envision God only as being the universe, not as standing separate from it and creating it. Honestly, if a creator God did exist, the place would be better designed.