Why did God make you to be an atheist?

....and perhaps therein is your religion. So maybe you've proved yourself right in your statement "A believer might suggest that it was God's will that I be born and raised without a faith, so that I could late be converted or discover faith, for his greater glory and delight." with God in this case being whatever it is that decides the countless circumstances of an individual's life which are all totally out of the choice and control of that individual. Interesting answer, HF

I see religion as having two primary elements. The first is an institutionalised system with a set divine text, set doctrines of interpretation, and a hierarchy of leaders responsible for the inculcation and perpetuation of the faith. The belief is by default something that cannot be proven by empirical or logical means. The second is the mind-state of the believer which sees, either by familial and cultural indoctrination or by choice, the doctrine of the faith as truth in the absence of proof. It is this acceptance which makes it faith.

For me, atheism is not a religion for several reasons. It has no text, no doctrine, no fixed organisation or leaders, and no fixed set of ethics. It does not require imagination. It accepts only the kind of truth which can be proven by fact or logic.

Most atheists do tend to agree with science in its methods of exploring how the principles of physics and chemistry work, how the universe came into existence, and how life, humanity, consciousness and society evolved. Most atheists independently develop a broadly humanitarian set of ethics, and many now extend this to include animals and the Earth's environmental issues. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 21, 2017 7:44 PM MST

Quote: "...Atheism... accepts only the kind of truth which can be proven by fact or logic.
Most atheists do tend to agree with science in its methods of exploring how the principles of physics and chemistry work, how the universe came into existence, and how life, humanity, consciousness and society evolved...."

Most Atheist would like to think that but in actuality, modern scientist don't think we should exist at all, according to science, yet here we are. All you have to do is start off with the belief that there is no God and walla, for them there is no God.
Does it really seem reasonable to think that a chigger, platypus and a blue whale all have a common ancestor? Even Darwins famed finches never had offspring of anything other than birds. Once upon a time a couple of billion years ago some rocks crashed in to each other and the in a murky soupy mix some single cell organisms started developing and breeding and some eventually had offspring that branched out to fleas, guppies, hawks and hippos. So far science has not shown any of those having offspring other than of the same type of animal the parents were. The biggest dog type of animal never becomes a horse and the smallest dog type of animal never becomes a mouse. Even in controlled environments. The DNA simply isn't there.

Seems to me, the DNA is there.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

It doesn't require entirely new DNA, merely a few percentage points of changes, to have a different species.

In fact, scientists have recently found evidence that some modern humans have DNA from other "branches" of early human evolution.

Thanks Walt. Wasn't aware it was that similar. I suppose that we all have the same maker and all are made from dust. I also found this: [The DNA of animals and humans is remarkably similar. For example, the genetic makeup of chimpanzees differs from that of humans by only 1 percent. Still, that gap is ten times wider than the differences between the DNA of any two humans. Nevertheless, it is those infinitesimal differences that account for the many features that make each of us a unique individual.]

For me the problem with your approach starts with the implied presupposition that religion is bad per se. That approach naturally leads you to dissociate your value system from religion all together.

I would prefer the approach of identifying the things that are wrong or harmful with religion and seeking to challenge them.

Whereas “Most atheists do tend to agree with science in its methods of exploring how the principles of physics and chemistry work, how the universe came into existence, and how life, humanity, consciousness and society evolved.” you may know that the approach and methods of establishing facts which we call science today was actually inspired by religion and bore fruit in what has come to be known as the Golden Age of Islam which lasted nearly eight centuries [more than half the time of 14 centuries since the appearance of the Qur’an] Also whereas “Most atheists independently develop a broadly humanitarian set of ethics, and many now extend this to include animals and the Earth's environmental issues” these and other values like the rights of women and the condemnation of notions of racial superiority were introduced or emphasised by Islam.

Yes, I am aware of Islam's influence, especially what it has given the West via the numeral zero and it's decimal numbering system without which any real science would be impossible. It also offered us some of the earliest breakthroughs in medicine and astronomy. One of the best things about Islam is that it values education, logic and knowledge (variations of Wahhabi sects excluded.) I am aware that in Mohammed's time, his laws concerning women were breakthroughs in social justice which gave the women among the believers greater rights and protections, and that Islam is against all forms of racism.

I don't view religion as an intrinsically bad thing. It can and often does contain many good things, such as encouragement for people to develop an ethical lifestyle, mature forms of loving-kindness and altruism. It has also inspired some of the most magnificent architecture, music, poetry and arts.

But I do think one major problem with religion is that it is prone to human fallibility and corruption. One example is the manner in which the leaders of Buddhism in Myanmar are not taking a stand against the genocide committed by the government and many Buddhist lay people against the Rohinga. Another is the widespread sexual abuse of children committed by Catholic and Anglican priests and institutionally covered up and protected by the religious leaders all the way to the top. (The recent royal commission into this problem in Australia was the world's most successful due to its broad terms of reference and powers of investigation. It found that the over 10,000 victims of direct sexual abuse who came forward as witnesses were only the tip of the iceberg.) One of the things I like least is hypocrisy. Even though it is often very difficult for people to live up to the ethical demands of their faith, nevertheless, it seems to me that many make little effort to try. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 22, 2017 7:38 PM MST

TY HF I think we're fully on the same page there. I therefore expect you understand why I said "I would prefer the approach of identifying the things that are wrong or harmful with religion and seeking to challenge them." as that comes out strongly in your latest post. I think if we stopped blanket attacks on religion and doubled up our efforts on identifying the really harmful beliefs and practices in society and challenging them whatever their roots, religion or culture, then we will all stand to benefit.

Quote: "I think science offers the best evidence for how the world came into existence"
You may find this recent article of interest:

https://nypost.com/2017/10/25/the-universe-shouldnt-exist-according-to-science/

https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-concluded-that-the-universe-shouldn-t-really-exist


(These all say basically the same thing but I think one of them had a video?)

Lol
Maybe someone should ask: "Why did evolution make you to believe in God"? This post was edited by texasescimo at December 22, 2017 3:34 PM MST