There are reasons why I have become an atheist and I am going to explain them. My personal experience has led me to atheism as well as naturalism which is the idea that there is no supernatural (God, spirits, afterlife, heaven, hell, etc.) and I am very skeptical of the idea that God exists and that the afterlife and supernatural exist. So I am going to explain and question those things. However, I should also leave my atheism/naturalism out to question as well for others. I have struggled with depression and I think it is my depression that has given me a rational view of life which made me an atheist and a naturalist. Now I am also going to question my atheism/naturalism as well since it might be an irrational emotional conviction. Or maybe what I am thinking here is rational. So I am now going to begin: We have Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, and Sean Carrol. These are very famous and highly intelligent scientists. As a matter of fact, I think they are the most well known and famous ones along with Bill Nye and perhaps others as well. They are naturalists and think that the natural is all there is and that there is no supernatural. But we then have other intelligent people as well such as William Lane Craig. He thinks that there is every reason to believe in a God, afterlife, and the supernatural. William Lane Craig along with others debate these intelligent scientists. No definite conclusion has been reached and nor do I think there will ever be a definite conclusion. The debates are just something there for us the learn and whatnot. However, I have every reason to think that it is far more reasonable to be a naturalist than it is to be a supernaturalist or someone who is in between being a naturalist and a supernaturalist. Correct me if I am somehow wrong on this. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure those famous scientists even said the same thing. I am not sure if the scientists have the biased opinion or if the supernaturalists have the biased opinion. From an unbiased observer's perspective, which side is biased and which is not? But aside from that, I am really thinking here that these scientists have the rational mindset while the religious believers such as William Lane Craig have the irrational mindset and make logical fallacies. You have to be a very intelligent person to point out the logical fallacies of Craig since he conceals them very well. We know that the natural world exists, obviously. It is obviously here and there is empirical scientific evidence to support its existence. But there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of the supernatural. When people say that there is scientific evidence such as people having strange experiences or seeing ghosts, then this scientific evidence is being pointed to where it shouldn't be pointed which would be the supernatural. This scientific evidence should only point towards the natural. In other words, these people were only having hallucinations. The scientific method of things gets the job done right. It comes up with the right evidence and applies that evidence correctly. Whereas, supernaturalists are doing it all wrong and are misapplying that evidence. The only thing we can really do here in an attempt to support the existence of the supernatural would be through philosophical arguments since we do not have any scientific evidence to support the supernatural. William Lane Craig makes a whole bunch of such philosophical arguments and he makes the supernatural at least seemingly true through his philosophical arguments. But here's the thing though. I could use the same method of William Lane Craig's to support the existence of any other random idea such as the idea of the toothfairy, flying teapots, etc. I could make these ideas just as or even more seemingly true through philosophical arguments. But just because I make something seemingly true through argumentation does not make those things true at all. I am doing nothing more than just making random ideas appear to be true. But science makes things very likely to be true through empirical scientific evidence. Therefore, to think that you have every reason to believe in the supernatural would be no different than thinking that you have every reason to believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the toothfairy, flying teapots, etc. since you can make these other random ideas just as seemingly true as the existence of the supernatural. So really, you have no reason to think that the supernatural exists just as you would have no reason to think that those other random ideas exist either. Therefore, since I have pinned up the idea of the supernatural against those other random ideas which has cancelled out the idea of the supernatural, then the only thing left here is naturalism. Therefore, naturalism is the only thing here very likely to be true. Any questions you have regarding the natural world that you think points towards the supernatural, then I would kindly inquire of you to study up on science and how we have science that explains basically everything we need to know about the natural world and how things work. We have many textbooks and whatnot that explain basically everything we need to know about the natural world and how it works. Many people have a misconception of science. They think that it is nothing more than some subject learned in school and just nothing more than one of the many carrers people can pursue if they are interested in becoming scientists. These are the types of people who are religious/supernaturalists who live their lives mainly adhering to the belief in God and the supernatural. They think that science is secondary and nothing more than just some learned subject. So they think that supernaturalism is primary while science is secondary when, in reality, it is the other way around. Supernaturalism is secondary and is nothing more than just superstition. As for the bible, this is all make believe. People were never inspired by a God to write it since there was never a God in the first place. It is all deluded people who have written it. I don't deny that there might of been a man named Jesus, an ark, etc., but as for all the mystical aspects being presented in the bible such as a giant flood, talking snakes, miracles, demons, Satan, etc., these are all deluded lies. As for things like psychics and mind reading, there is nothing supernatural about this either. It is all using logic. When you talk with a psychic and they actually "read your mind," then they are just simply using logical and other techniques. They don't actually have supernatural mind reading abilities. Now there are things that cannot be explained by science yet. But to conclude that these unexplained things imply a supernatural would be a "God of the Gaps" argument. Or in this case, a "Supernatural of the Gaps" argument. This is a logical fallacy (a false way of thinking). Science is still in progress and we will eventually, I am quite sure, be able to explain these things as well. We have disproven Thor the God of Thunder and other such mythical superstition through science. So what makes the idea of God or the supernatural so special then? Now many people would also say to me that the supernatural has to exist since they have had so many strange coincidences happen to them. This is not true either. Coincidences are also explained by science as well. I would kindly direct you to a youtube video of Richard Dawkins who explains the idea of coincidences. He performs a coin toss experiment in explaining all of this. We as human beings are hardwired for survival and not rational thought. We think certain things are true when, in reality, they were not true at all. They are just irrational thoughts to aid in our survival. Irrationality is something to aid in our survival because if we had time to think, then we would get killed and eaten alive. But we do have a rational thinking part of our brains that we can tap into in order to think rationally. It is for this very reason why I am an atheist/naturalist while my mother and father believe in God, the supernatural, and the afterlife. I keep telling my mother that these things don't exist and I present to her rationality. I present to her rational reasons. But he/she still insists that they do exist and that spells and such mystical things are real and do work. Now what type of person would it take to reject rationality? The answer here would be someone who thinks irrationally. Her reasons for believing are not rational at all since there can never be a rational reason for believing in such things. Rationality is the very essence of truth while irrationality is the very essence of falsehood. Therefore, this proves right here that I would have to be right and my mother and father would have to be wrong. NOTE TO READER: THIS POST IS CONTINUED BELOW!!!
Even after I present this very packet to my mother and other people, they would still give me the usual response of: "Welp, I still believe in the supernatural anyway. Personally, I think there is more to life than just the natural reality." Why do they still think this way? Again, it would be because their brains are wired irrationally. Their brains keep going back to the irrational mindset of belief while mine keeps on going back to the rational mindset of disbelief. If only they wired their brains rationally and studied up on science to eliminate any ignorance sustaining their beliefs would they be very likely to see the world my way here. Sure, there are even intelligent scientists who believe in the supernatural, God, and an afterlife. But I and many other rational scientists have every reason to think that they are wrong. When we have scientific theories such as evolution which have empirical evidence supporting them, then this means that it is very likely to be true. Theories in the world of science are the absolute best. They have no evidence against them. But theories in our normal average everyday life are just merely speculation. Let me tell you how likely it is that any scientific theory is false. It would be no different than saying that there is a bear outside my home and that I would get mauled by it. There is no bear. We have empirical scientific evidence to support the idea that there is no bear in my backyard. It is extremely unlikely that there is a bear. Maybe that is not an exact analogue. But you can see where I am going with this. Supernaturalists/religious believers, on the hand, are different. It would be like them saying that the bear is there outside in my yard and them giving philosophical arguments to only make it seem true. Now you could say something to me such as: "Life is all about balance and not one thing or the other. If I eat too much junk food, then it will be bad for me. But if I eat too much healthy food, then I am also missing out on something very sweet and delightening. So in that same sense, if there were no natural world/universe and nothing but the supernatural, then that wouldn't be good. But at the same time, if the natural is all that exists, then I am missing out on something special after I die (the afterlife)." Now you have to understand here that things within the universe do not apply to the universe and reality as a whole. So even though that quoted statement regarding the healthy food and junk food applies to our daily lives, it does not apply to the universe/reality as a whole. This is the very statement made by Sean Carrol I am quite sure in the recent debate between him and William Lane Craig. In this debate, it seems as though Craig's arguments were completely refuted. If I were to summarize this debate, it would be that Craig was making all his arguments, but Sean Carrol would then point out in return that this is not how it works and how we now have new scientific insight about the universe. Craig's arguments are ancient arguments made by philosophers in the past. But it is the new that casts out the old. Old technology and ideas are being replaced as science advances. So in that same sense, I think that Craig's philosophical arguments are cast out by the new scientific insight we now have in this day and age. Finally, one last thing I would like to say here is that the idea of the supernatural has been around for so long that we had plenty of time to make it seemingly true through philosophical arguments and whatnot. But I ask of you. Do the same for other random ideas and see if they can turn out to be just as seemingly true or even more. Only then would I think you would see just how random the idea of the supernatural is then. But if those other ideas cannot be made just as or even more seemingly true, then there must be some sort of convenience factor for the idea of the supernatural that allows it to be more seemingly true. However, this convenience factor is nothing supernatural. To say that this convenience factor implies the supernatural would be the "Supernatural of the Gaps" argument and would also just be as random as supporting the existence of any other random idea. On a scale of 0-10, 0 being that I absolutely do not think there is the supernatural, God, afterlife, etc. at all and 10 being that I absolutely think that those things do exist, I would have to be a 1. Even the most intelligent naturalist scientists in the world would have to be at a 1 because to say that you are a 0 would mean that it is absolutely a proven fact that those things don't exist. You cannot say that. So I am a 1 with the toothfairy, a 1 with Santa Claus, a 1 with flying teapots orbiting Jupiter, and a 1 with God, the supernatural, and the afterlife. I am now also going to present to you a few quotes (messages) stated by some naturalists/atheists that supports the idea that naturalism is very likely to be true: Quote #1: "William Lane Craig is a good debater because he sets up his arguments under very confined questions and circumstances which virtually make it impossible to refute him. He employs a lot of false dichotomy's and flawed premises and then won't accept any answer that doesn't follow his originally flawed requirements. He also does a lot of research on his debate counterpart and will use excerpts from their own works in attempts to discredit them when they've backed him into a corner. He also seems to know most of their moves and prepares for them ahead of time, which makes him seem invincible under the right conditions. He's a very good orator and obviously a very intelligent man, which lends even more credence to his bullshit ideas, especially in front of crowds biased in his favor. I've only seen one or two debates of his where I walked away feeling like he was soundly beaten, and that's openly admitting my bias against him, which I think says a lot. He knows how to play the game and is very good at it." Quote #2: "The problem with creationists is that they're committed to a singular conclusion: "Creationism is correct because the Bible tells me so," and any conclusion other than this is, by default, wrong. Where they invariably go wrong is when they try to defend their position by going outside the Bible and attack their arch enemy, evolution, on its own turf: science. One of their biggest mistakes is their methodology which is nicely illustrated by this old cartoon: The Scientific Method: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them? The Creationists' Method: Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it? Add to this, simple ignorance, purposeful deception, deliberate obfuscation, outright lies, and a host of other dishonest tactics and there is simply no way your evidence and reason will ever win them over. Problem is, they have too much at stake in their faith to admit Biblical creationism could be wrong. Moreover, they aren't really looking to convince the evolutionist that they're right as much as continually convincing themselves. This why they care so much about evolution, whereas scientists don't give a fig about creationism---believe whatever you like---EXCEPT when its foisted on public schools. Institutions such as Craig's Discovery Institute would love nothing better than to get creationism taught in public school science classes. So don't look to win anything. Arguing with creationists is not unlike trying to explain something to a four-year-old kid who keeps asking "why?" It's a no-win situation." Quote #3: "It is important to understand that W. L. Craig presents arguments in one way to popular audiences (i.e., inaccurate, overly-simplistic, and/or obviously wrong) and another in his scholarship. He even wrote a technical critique of the physicists he has relied on in popular works to promote the popular version of his kalam argument and others he uses to reach the same conclusion. He's simply dishonest, and I've seen the results of this here when those relying on his popular presentations (spoken or written) find themselves confronting the actual logic and reasoning he uses when addressing any audience whom he knows won't buy such simplistic drivel."
Wrong. The evidence should point where it points. Also wrong. Science is far from explaining everything. (As you explain later). Wrong. Science cannot show that a supernatural world does not exist. It's just that no valid use of the scientific method has yet shown that it does. Only about Gods that are defined. Science cannot disprove every concept of God, and in fact proves that some concepts are true. If I define God as a certain volcano, I do know that exists. No, not general "philosophical arguments", what specific arguments? Philosophical arguments should be taken seriously. What was the mistake of logic that made that particular argument invalid? Logic is just as powerful as scientific evidence. Hardly, he's a fool who's easily refuted. The rest of your post is pretty much true. Welcome to atheism, my friend! (I'll show you the secret handshake later).
