Why are atheists rational about God but not freewill?
923387
So you seem to be arguing for a purely deterministic illusion of free will?  Free will as an emergent property of  a net mass of neurons?  Is this an argument about "nature vs. nurture"? \n\nI'm not sure what your argument or question is, actually.  But I would say that your initial question is false, or at least unsupported. If you are saying that my illusion of free will is god's gift or something, then I disagree.\n\nAtheists generally tend to be more rational about most things.
735315
Those who follow rationality do not object to religion existing, but to the way the religious claim to have special knowledge.  In fact people follow religion without really understanding it or knowing why it exists.
626005
Humans have free will to turn their backs on God, it's a choice not a guarantee.
753281
It would be more correct to say that atheists do not think God is real.
866913
We are ALL born atheist, that is "without belief in gods".  That's called "implicit atheism".  Even if we're programmed to "search" for something to worship (which I highly doubt, by the way), we BEGIN without any actual knowledge of deities.  We are, by default, without belief and therefore atheistic.
47954
Sometimes.\nIf you think about it this way, sometimes a person might think that a very religious Christian or Muslim might be blind because they think from an exclusively religious perspective and has little room for the flexibility of an agnostic, or the freedom of a free-thinker.\nThis is because there is God, and end of story, everything has to go through the "there is a God" screening process and they can't bear to think how something, a siutation or thoery can be without the grace of God's work, or His presence in it.\nYet, when you think of this stubborness to step away from all that and see a bigger picture (meaning don't go from the ultra-religious viewpoint), try comparing it with an atheist.\nHe too, thinks from a ultra-stubborn point of view. "There is NO God!" He states.\nAnd everything runs through the "there is no God" screening process, and he can't bear to think that there might be the very real possibility of God encompassing the human being's life, that the very product of Science is the product of God's work.\nHe too, is stubborn, and often inflexible.\nThus, from this viewpoint, one can make a statement that the atheist is as blind as the religiously faithful.\nI'm not at all saying the agnostic triumphs. But an agnostic does not necessarily "sit on the fence", nor does the agnostic throws his hands up in the air and is confused.\nAgnostics constantly lean to one side of the argument, but leave a possibility of this other. An agnostic is constantly in transit, has room for ideas, no matter how outrageous and runs a balance of logic and faith, constantly he's in between following his heart and mind, and being guided spiritually by God, or an unknown force (maybe it's his conviction and rational belief?).\nEither way, yes, I do think an atheist is blind, but not in the absolute sense, he is blind in indignance, rebellion and the ego and accomplishments of mankind and his discoveries, relying most of his explanations in mankind's humble abilities in enquiry and research.\nAnd in the same way, an absolutist religious fanatic that cannot relate to human science is just the same, on blind faith.
651065
Not necessarily, I know some very compassionate caring atheists. Unfortunately many deny God either from bad experiences with religon or the cunning of human philosophies but not believing in God does not make you a bad person by default.
979534
I think that they are people that have their own specific reasons for not following after any particular god, or religion, or belief. Possibly many are just searchers?  Some are skeptics? Some maybe are just filled with hate for one reason or another & just declare non-belief?..the reasons for being an atheist are as varied as there are people's opinions. Personally I choose to believe in the Word of God, (Bible) & like Albert Einstein who was an atheist...and became a deist (believer in God) when he found a reason through knowledge; to believe!
850297
Because they believe that the world has a first cause that does not involve a god. Some believe that the energy that created the world is not in form of a god. They see an explanation for the world in science and nature. I respect whatever anybody chooses to believe.
432976
You are right. Inspite of the proofs--order in the universe, design in every living or non living things--some people choose not to believe. I really don't understand why. But I can only guess. Here are probable reasons:\n\n1. They were brainwashed into believing that big-bang theory. Just like putting metals into one big drum blowing them up with dynamite and presto you have a functioning car.\n\n2. These people just don't want to be governed by rules that don't fit their life styles.\n\n3. They just want to be different than the rest.\n\n   The Bible however gives us a perspective of their state of mind. "They say they are wise, but they are fools... Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, he has given them over to corrupted minds..." (Romans 1:22,28, Today's English Version )
697186
I know a lot of people are moral without believing in God. \n\nBut for me, for most of my life I didn't have much of a backbone, and I'm fairly certain I would have fell into some vices because of peer pressure if it hadn't of been for that last thread of 'no, this is against my religion' keeping me away from it.\n\nThanks
465793
My opinion of Atheism is each to their own. Why should you care about it? That's a tough one for me to answer. I could say that most people who would describe themselves as atheists are weak willed and too lazy to have the courage of a conviction. But then some smart cheeks will say that that can describe 90% of the believers. So in the end its important to know your options I guess.
320657
I've been on the other side where I thought that people who didn't believe in god must feel lost.  (I was raised to think they are evil.)  So, I can kinda understand why some religious individuals think that non-believers feel some sort of void or are immoral.  However, I also view that stance as an immature belief.  It doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize that agnostics and atheists are very content with their worldviews and live ethical lives.
906335
You miss, however, that I never said free will implied deity, only that lack of free will implies lack of deity.\n\nEstablish this in formal logic in the following manner:\n\nA = A deity exists\nB = Free will exists.\n\nIF (A) THEN (B).\n\nNotice that I use IF, not IIF (if, not, if and only if).  I assert that Deity is sufficient cause, but not necessary cause.  There could be a scientific principle of which we are not yet aware that could create free will without the necessity of a deity.\n\nHowever, since I establish deity as a sufficient cause (really, what kind of deity would create perfectly deterministic if stochaistic thinking beings?), if free will can be disproven, then deity is disproven by modus tollens:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus tollens)\n\nThis can be shown to be Modus Ponens via the contrapositive:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nIF NOT B THEN NOT A. (contrapositive).\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus ponens)\n\nThis also means that the deific hypothesis is testable -- it can be falsified.  Show that there is no free will, and you show that there is no deity.\n\nHow to test free will?  Can free will exist?  We've already discussed this in some detail.  If you suppose the three axioms of science are valid (and to invalidate any of the three, you invalidate the ability to have any knowledge at all: Math & Logic are valid, observations are valid if based on direct sensation or math & logic, the supernatural either does not exist OR does not interfere with the natural), then free will can rationally be discounted.  Such discounting can be done as follows:\n\nThe mind is an emergent, if still not understood, property of the physical and energetic nature of the human being.  (nonsupernatural causation -- a soul would be supernatural).\n\nThe state of any physical system can be stochaistically determined from its previous state and the current inputs.  However, the past is 'past' and therefore it is determined.  The consequence is that I can predict the next state with great precision but in a few thousand states, the precision may be nearly nill, and within a million states, it is as close to zero as you can get.  (mathematical principle).\n\nThe stoichasm is a consequence of quantum randomness.  If quantum randomness is redefined as an input to the process (ie: I'm going to kill that guy but a virtual electron/positron pair form in my brain with the cascade effect of me changing my mind), then the stoichaism is removed.  The situation is now deterministicly based on the current state and the inputs.\n\nDeterminism is incompatible with free will.\n\n-----\n\nI agree that to have perfect knowledge of state and inputs is impossible.  However, the feasibility of a computation does not change its computability.  RSA encryption starts with taking two prime numbers of significant size and multiplying them together, then ditching the primes.  The security of RSA is based on the infeasibility to factor the multiple.  But I can give you an algorithm, perfectly deterministic, for factoring that number:\n\nN = P*Q.  Discard P & Q.\nMAX = sqrt(N).\nfor COUNTER 1 to MAX:\n.. if N / COUNTER is integer\n.... P = COUNTER\n.... Q = N / COUNTER\n.. endif\nendfor\n\n100% guaranteed this algorithm will work.  It just happens that it'll take 10^85 years to run it on a 4096-bit key.\n\n\n-------------\n\nCogito Sum, I in no way object to your choice to reference me as you have.  Quite the contrary, I consider it a significant honor and compliment that you consider my view sufficiently curious to bring it up specifically.\n\n------------\n\nAs I understand your added comment (sorry for delay, went to lunch), you are saying that since I cannot know the state of your mind without you reporting it, I cannot perform the calculations at all.  However, this overlooks the idea that whether you or I can detect it, the state DOES exist.  For example, if I fill an olympic sized swimming pool w
904697
Of course, the real reason they don't want to believe that has more to do with the fact that if they deny supernatural causation of the mind, they cannot come to any other conclusion but that free will is only an illusion, that determinism rules (if only stoichasitically, taking quantum randomness into account).\n\nThey'll probably accuse me of being a nihilist for having aquired this understanding of the reality of the universe as if it's something evil.  Me, I consider deterministic nihilism the only logical conclusion when faced with the facts the universe provides.
872705
Hmm, interesting question, but I sense the premisse (and I could be wrong), that atheists do not care about other people, or are worried about the happiness of people.\nI do not believe in god, but I do believe in people, and I made it my job (I'm a teacher) to teach people to think for themselves. Not blindly following words, but testing them for their truth. I don't like to put all christians on a great big heap, I know there are smart christians and dumb christians, and I admire the christians (some of them are my friend) who not only believe in god, but put their faith to the test on a daily basis, just as I try to do with my ideas and convictions. When people parrot other people, there's a great danger, because a lot of things said are said beautifully or convincing, rather than true. And it is my believe to encourage *everyone* including atheists, christians, muslims or anyone else, to make up their own mind about things.\n\nSo in a way I do care if you don't believe in evolution and do believe in god, because I want to make sure you are truly convinced of this, and actually live your life the way you chose. Not because some book or some church or some philosopher or some politician told you so, but because *you* are convinced that it is right, and have checked all the options to make this choice.
1038457
As an atheist, I can say no. We make decisions, and can explain things, with fact and common sense. I do not need the faith that defines religion.