Reasons not to believe in God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I want you to elaborate on this a bit more:
Why?
You seem to think that the default for everyone is to believe in God, and that lack of belief or disbelief are secondary, willed states.
How so?
Evolution is incompatible with the belief in a creator God.
BBT is incompatible with the belief in a Creator God that created the Earth.
To fundamental literalists, much of the scripture in the bible is incompatible with scientific data. Such as that the Earth orbits the Sun and is not flat.
It doesn't seem to be that easy with you.
i agree that a fundamentalist literalist creation story is incompatible with current scientific data. Not sure how that shows anything about a creator who used techniques that accord with our observations to achieve it's aim. I understand that that adds nothing to the science, discussing the creator isn't science, just as saying "the world is good", or "people are the worst animal evolution created so far", says nothing about the science.
Leaving out a fundamentalist literalist version of the creation story, what scientific principle or data is incompatible with a belief in a creator God or other Gods? So let's say i propose a God who somehow threw in an extra earthquake or tidal wave here or there, to load the dice of evolution, is that incompatible with specific scientific principles or data? I would say no. As long as i don't teach that idea as a scientific one, I am pretty sure science has nothing to say about that proposal, any more than it can tell us whether people are the worst or best thing that has happened to the universe.
edit -
you said "It doesn't seem to be that easy with you."
i mean literally tell me if something i am saying is not what you believe or mean to say. It is perfectly fair for me to ask for clarity, and my way of asking for clarity is to pick at nits, that way you only have to clarify the things i don't understand or agree with, rather than trying to restate things 10 different ways.
It may be because it wasn't direct. I pointed out that it was irrelevant if there is a pattern because such a pattern would require a Creator God to have chosen to make it appear as though he simply was not involved in our evolution. Therefor, a pattern would only suggest there was something that made a pattern but it would lend no support to a creator God.
When I said "thief," it was in humor. Sometimes my quirks don't always go over well when I don't use tongue out emoticons and the like.
So- sorry if that came across wrong.
I've outlined why several times- including above.
Refer above and ask if you need clarification.
You're misunderstanding the intent.Whenever you ask a modern atheist why they don't believe in God, they are most likely to say ''lack of evidence'', yet here you are clearly side-stepping anything that could imply at least some kind of intelligence. Why do I get the feeling that before you believe in God, hell would have to freeze over (FOS)?
1.) There is no evidence of any intelligent pattern. Acting as though you've suddenly proven or even implied any intelligent pattern is absurd.
2.) If it was established that there was a pattern, it would show that something was causing a pattern, not necessarily intelligence.
3.) If it was established that there was an intelligent pattern, it would not demonstrate the God of the Bible or ANY major religion, excpet maybe some forms of Hindu...
4.)There is no side-stepping. You asked "what if there's a pattern?" - You established nothing. The thing is, there still is no evidence of a Creator God. If you come along and shift the goal posts, I can see that you have shifted the goal posts instead of providing evidence. If you shift them so far removed from what we can observe or test, it only shows that you're cunning enough to protect your belief, even if not cunning enough to realize that you shifted the goal posts to where your God can no longer exist as you described him to be originally.
And it gets to that point where after he's been removed further and further from observation - why bother trying to believe anymore when it then becomes insane rationalization, instead of faith.
It's not that cut and dry- but for the most part- strong observational evidence supports rational conclusions.
Ummm, no... They hatch from observed fly eggs. Your rather silly attempt here is to say that because ignorant people made crude observations and then leapt to fantastic conclusions that somehow, observational evidence does not have merit.
By your reasoning, all police detectives must be absurd.
Because "That God" is described as the Creator, is described in a very contradictory manner and is described differently depending on the culture that describes it. He is described as Omniscient and Omnipotent.
1.) This demonstrates an invented God, based on the wants of the believers. The description of him evolves over time, depending on whose opinion describes him. An Omniscient and Omnipotent God, as described that declares what human behavior should be would not evolve in that manner- if he changed at all.
2.) Evolution, well supported by an extensive fossil record, genetics and demonstrated confirmation of such show a complete lack of intelligent design.
3.) Cosmology has demonstrated that many of the old ideas are wrong and BBT/Cosmology demonstrates a lack of intelligent design to the Universe. The best a creationist can do is point to the Event prior to BBT and claim that is God. To have God removed to 14 billion years ago and lacking ever since is too absurd to me.
4.) Psychology of claims: People observe that they feel is validation for their belief, such as a baby surviving an earthquake while ignoring the many babies that did not survive. Validation of belief is shown to be rather heavily biased and absurd. Personal accounts of "feeling Gods Love" etc are nothing more than wishful thinking; the individual takes any concept to validate their belief whether it actually has merit or not.
Because of this complete lack of evidence for the Divine or supernatural; one must conclude that either God keeps it hidden to test our faith or there is No God.
I find the "God hiding it" too irrational and absurd.
Are you suggesting that if someone does not believe in what you believe that they must be "cold?" I'm the kind of person that catches a bee and releases it outside (Or spider) rather than wantonly killing- because I respect life. I'm giving and charitable. Just because I'm a non-believer does not mean that I don't feel anything anymore or that I don't care about anything anymore. In fact, it's rather more pronounced since I no longer believe that there is a God. I care because I care, not because a God made me. I do what I do because I care about others, not because God told me to. I screw up and I get mean, just as a Christian does, but I feel bad about it later if I feel I was wrong, not because God told me to feel bad about it.
You don't know my life's story and I'm not going to dump it all out on this thread. You made an assumption- it's better that you avoid those assumptions.
That there is no Divine, supernatural God or other fictitious/fantasy creatures.
Our discourse shows a hell of a lot of thought and that's the tip of the iceberg to a lifetime of consideration and examination so far.
Possibly, yes. If I conclude that a rock will break when I hit it with a hammer and you conclude that the rock will turn into jello, I may question what caused you to reach that conclusion.
If I say I have an invisible elf in my backyard and you do not believe there is one, I might challenge you to prove that there isn't one.
Since it's an invisible elf with no evidence that he is there, you have no reason to believe that he is there. Whatever you do, I can explain away your failures to prove he isn't there. You cannot prove a negative.
An agnostic might conclude, "Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't."
An atheist would conclude, "There is no reason to believe there is, so I won't bother with it."
A believer would conclude, "There must be one or this guy wouldn't be so adamant, I must accept his word that he knows something I do not. Perhaps, one day, that elf will show himself and prove all the doubters wrong."
Proselytizing nonsense.
She said vaguely, without any intent of stating specifically where my logical fallacy was.
See my response to Jan Ardena. To believe in a God that deliberately created everything to appear as though he was utterly absent and even that contradicts the very idea of a creator God is absurd.
You asked, what is incompatible and I told you what. You then disregarded and used an example where one can claim we don't know if a God caused a certain event.
The problem with "leaving out" the literal interpretation of the creation story (or any other biblical tale that is contradicted by modern science) is two-fold: One, I've yet to see anyone on your side provide a good metaphorical alternative for these tales; and two, without that literal interpretation, the foundation of your faith is quicksand. In other words, the creation myths are meant to be the bedrock of your faith, the explanation for how you came to be and a demonstration of your creator's awesome power. Without those items, what do you have? What's the basis of your faith? What is it you even believe? It would be like Spider-Man without the radioactive spider; are we supposed to believe there's just some guy who happens to have spider-like abilities? Even in those ancient times, God's existence was never simply assumed, but believed in because of what passed for evidence and common sense in those days.
There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn't a literal explanation of how the universe came to be. Except, of course, our modern understanding that it is not at all how it came to be. So in order to believe that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, one must already believe that it represents the truth. But how does one arrive at that belief? What is the foundation for said belief? Where do you get the idea that your creator can create that extra earthquake to "load the dice" if not for stories such as the ones you claim to be metaphorical? It's circular.
no that is illogical. If God created everything to appear "utterly" absent and uninvolved, he failed. It seems that humans have spent quite a bit of time talking about this "utterly" absent thing. So, no, we could say God created a system where belief and unbelief were somewhat balanced. Somebody goes out into nature and is overwhelmed by it and calls it "God's work", there is no science that says they are incorrect. Maybe inaccurate. Maybe incorrect. Maybe correct. Perhaps all meaning is just organisms picking out patterns from the stochastic field. That is fine to think, but let's not pretend science requires that idea.
you gave an example of what is incompatible with fundamentalist literalism. I would like an example of what specific scientific data or principle is incompatible with the proposal i stated regarding God, not what data disagrees with a literalist method that is already getting ready to drop off of some religions, Buddhism first, Christianity to follow.
Wrong. Yes, to people who don't understand how everything works, it could be said that there is, in places, the appearance of design, but Neverfly is referring to what the universe looks like to those who have some understanding of it. In other words, to see the universe for what it actually is is to look into something that has no appearance of design on intent.
are you kidding me? Hundreds of philosophers and theologians (more) have been talking about metaphorical ideas in the bible non-stop since at least the 18th century. The fringes and mystics have been doing it for far, FAR, longer. EDIT - millions and millions of people do this every day, apparently that is not "good" alternative to literal interpretation?
the creation myths are definitely not the bedrock of christian faith. You could drop it, and then God would just be an unexplained highest power. And nobody need think a non-literal interpretation is any less meaningful. Little red riding hood might be a more meaningful story than a news story of something bad happening, it may represent MORE things to MORE people, and thereby be MORE meaningful. I am far from sure as to what the line is on exactly what was literal and not literal in the whole bible, but even if the whole thing were a story with no basis in reality, plenty of people would find it meaningful, and people do think that it is just a story, and they do base their religious lives on it anyway, in real life. I am not sure what this need for magic is amongst certain people, but it may have to be dropped eventually. So what?
i assume these stories point at something humans of the time could not explain, that doesn't mean there is nothing out there. The foundation of belief is the philosophical, non-scientific, feeling that there is more than meets the eye, or that there is an objective truth beyond each centuries' human consensus, and the bible just gives us one metaphorical explanation that points us in the direction of something we already feel is happening. You assume the story is the thing that needs propping up, but i will say the story is the prop, and the thing is something else.
picking out patterns in stochastic noise is clearly a human trait - a creator would have to eliminate that, i.e. create things differently, to erase doubt. The universe looks full of patterns to pretty much anyone who cares to see them. Finding fractals in nature can be described as meaningful or non-meaningful. They can be described scientifically and also described metaphorically, and also philosophically. I am far from advocating a science of religion, and i suggest to atheists that they stay away from that as well, since illogical ideas such as "bad" mutations come up as proof of some "science" of Nogod. Any person can simply say, "the chance that we would exist is so small, the fact that we exist is meaningful, i choose to call that meaningful" and carry that wherever they wish to go, from theism to humanism. It isn't science. It is philosophy.
Oh, here comes the straw man. I didn't say there weren't metaphors in the bible. I said that I haven't heard a good metaphorical alternative for the creation story. But since people have been doing this for centuries, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide even one of those alternatives now. Preferably the one you subscribe to.
Oh nonsense. Without a claim to creation, God would have no claim over humans, and therefore no authority to dictate the rules. It's the basis for man's dominion over the earth, as well as a male's dominion over woman.
I never said it was. I said the non-literal interpretation robbed the faith of its core concept.
That's fine and true enough, but Little Red Riding Hood does not mandate faith in a higher power, so the analogy falls down. If Christianity were merely a philosophy rather than a religion, that would be one thing.
More nonsense. Without a basis in reality, there's nothing to believe in, and thus no religion. Yet we both know that people who believe in God do so literally. I mean, you're not about to tell me you don't literally believe in God, do you? And you base that belief on the foundational texts, do you not? Of course you do. So at some point in your life, you took those words to be literal truth. Maybe you don't anymore, but then I don't really believe that's true, either. I'm sure you do believe the bible at the very least represents the truth, and that God really did create the world. You may now say that it could just be morality tales, but I think you're simply paying it lip service. Or maybe your'e not, and you retain your belief in the way Pascal did.
No, but it means that the stories do not represent whatever that "thing" is (or isn't) and is nothing more than superstition.
You're mistaking the ignorance that makes us susceptible to superstition for the actual basis for a belief in a particular faith. Unless you're suggesting that we only believe in a given religion because it got to us before the others did...which actually makes sense. Hey, maybe you're onto something!
But in saying that, you're left with nothing of substance. In other words, your Christian faith is superfluous and incidental, and therefore meaningless.
The "thing" is superstition. If the sum of your claim is "I'm superstitious," then you'll get no challenge from me. It's when you say "I'm a Christian" that I have questions. But you've just admitted that you're not really a Christian, but a superstitious person who believes the first thing that comes along.
This makes no sense. First of all, just because we are pattern-seekers doesn't mean we find patterns in everything.
This is so much white noise.
Again, gibberish.
Hard to say. The times and cultures in question come to mind. There are accounts of people expressing symptoms of shock merely by touching the robes of priests of bishops, or receiving the sacraments from them. In modern times, you still see people claiming to be cured by faith healers. And you see throngs in tears in coliseums jumping and shouting "Praise Jesus!" almost like they're on PCP at a rave. Add all of the motivation to launch the 8 (or 9) Crusades -- the unending carnage over almost 300 years--the carnage of the Inquisition, the carryover to the decimation of indigenous people and enslavement of Africans, up until the unfinished reconciliation of present day -- basically all done "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" -- well, it's such a huge grassroots movement that it's hard to imagine when or where people ever doubted the religions they were indoctrinated into. Considering the very extreme rituals humanity has been dragged through since the dawn of culture, you think folks would finally decide that enough is enough.
But there was a specific example that came to mind concerning one early culture. I'm thinking of Ashereh figurines found recently by the hundreds in excavated villages of ancient Hebrews. (Ashereh was an unknown term in the Bible until the translation of the Ugaritic texts revealed that she is a goddess.) Considering the polytheistic superstitious roots of Judeo-Christianity alone, you think folks today would at some point wake up and smell the coffee. But I think this is one example of widespread devotion back in the day. In fact, it appears that the Hebrew people were quite different in their beliefs than Fundamentalists might presume.
Certainly the wealth of Christian art, literature and architecture shows a solid 1500 years of their submission to their belief. This is not to say there weren't heretics. It was rampant, even in the early Christian era. If anything Christianity is a rebellion against the Jewish leadership under the scourge of Rome. Gnosticism was another viewpoint of Christ that may be as old (or even older) than Christianity itself. And each of the hundred or so Christian heresies that rose up when the Church began to organize (and probably the reason for its organization) are probably examples of people standing up to defend their local priest or bishop.
Of course, in any society that believed you would bring the wrath of the god raining destruction and disaster merely for not following the local taboo, it could be that peer pressure may have forced more people into compliance than could ever happen in a liberated society of individualists.
My point is that there is no default since the notion of un/certainty of god's non/existence is so deeply rooted, our culture paints every individual with a perspective on the matter.
IOW for as long one is talking of individuals as well educated/socialized as rocks and chairs, fine, but the moment you step outside of that, reason and other tools of philosophy are at the fore.
Alternatively one could speculate about the nature of a society with no notion of god/transcendence (or the basis that religion - or the affirmation of its non-existence/uncertainty - is merely a cultural option that one need not invest in) but we have never seen a society develop in such a manner (even though I vaguely recall some one saying that there are records of isolated tribes with no conception of things as elementary as days of the week or mathematics or something like that ...... but I think one would have a hard time presenting them as intellectually/culturally advanced - IOW the argument that society could develop in the complete absence of any notion of transcendence ( as opposed to the politically surcharged atheism of communism or the new atheists) tends to see such a society as functioning on a low threshold of cultural advancement
The reason we've never seen a society rise with no conception of god is because atheism as an intellectual position is a relatively new phenomenon. In that sense, the idea of belief as a default is in some ways true; we tend to be superstitious, and so in absence of knowledge we will substitute myth.
What we have seen is a society founded on philosophy rather than mythology. Western society is secular. Its principles and practices are based on reason and concepts of justice rather than faith. This is what human societies going forward will tend to look like. Religion may always persist, but it will never control society the way it once did.
What we have seen is a society founded on philosophy rather than mythology. Western society is secular. Its principles and practices are based on reason and concepts of justice rather than faith. This is what human societies going forward will tend to look like. Religion may always persist, but it will never control society the way it once did.
Do you count natural theology (ie. less or more philosophical conjecture about God and related matters) as a form of theism?
Conditioned life is constantly in a state of absence of knowledge. IOW the notion of knowing enough about everything so that one can surmount myth/faith/trust is more futile than trying to jump over your knees.
As for atheist movements, their vision statements are all strongly driven by what they are setting out to exclude, avoid and/or disdain (like any other good antithesis you care to mention ...) so they never really have the scope to move beyond a mere intellectual position.
Unless you can provide some empirical test that actually provides a uniform result, you cannot even justify "all humans are equal" without heavily relying on transcendental philosophy ... much less explain why if we are not all equal, justice/human rights should be applied in a uniform manner.
IOW its the nature of human existence (with the complex nature of mortality, collective co-operation, inclination to philosophize - which is kind of a fancy way of saying disagree with each other - etc) that issues of transcendence (or alternatively, power structures based on immanence .... if you want to start splitting hairs) develop along with those for, against and somewhere inbetween
If it has some bearing on the nature/question of god, it can't help but be some form of theism .... even if its atheism