A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

[PJM]

Would you be so kind as to educate me

On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?

Thank you,

Patrick

 

[undead_rat]

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist; you just have to take it on faith."
Woody Allen

I always liked this quote because it points out that Atheism is a choice just as religion is a choice. The difference is that Atheism can never be proven, but those who choose religion find proofs all the time (at least I do.)

 

[Rhubarb]

I withhold judgement or numerous reasons.

1. The ubiquity of religion - Religion is found all over the world for as long as there’s been man. But there’s no real consensus about how that religion works. History shows us that religion has gone back to the start of writing in no form that we recognize as worshipped now. Proto-Canaanite religions have the seeds of what is Judaism but they aren’t close beyond that. Proto-Hinduism again has the seeds of Hinduism as we know it, but it isn’t the same.
2. Evidence seems to point to the major religions of at least the the west, near-east, and subcontinent as having very similar roots in the language used and practices which seems to point to them all growing out of an older prehistoric religion. Religions such as these are suspected due to ceremonial burial and other rite-like finds found in archeology.
3. Assuming that one or a few of the religions are correct (in that they actually describe how the world works) it seems to me rather impossible to tell which one could be the correct one or few. With any degree of epistemological certainty beyond belief.

Now I’l focus on the faith traditions I grew out of

1. Christianity has clear bases in Judaism. Which evidence shows enough to me has clear basis in Canaanite polytheism. Which again, seems to hint at having grown out of an ancient pre-historic religion that the mentioned religions all have roots in. In other words, I don’t see a solid foundation in the lineage of these religions.
2. Naturalistic explanations for supposed supernatural events - I haven’t heard anything that religion has claimed that is both 1. unable to definitively demonstrate veracity AND 2. Doesn’t have at least one, if not many, natural explanations. I’ve read all the proofs and seen the trains of thought. I don’t see anything conclusive in them.
3. Blatant and obvious errors in religious texts - The Exodus is but one example. There is absolutely no /hard/ archaeological evidence for it, and, the story is loaded with anachronisms.
4. And perhaps the most important - I haven’t ever had a religions experience that makes me feel like I should dismiss my doubt. I believe in the power of these experiences felt by others. And I don’t fault anyone for having them. But I haven’t had one yet so I see no reason to dismiss what appears to be pretty solid evidence that I can’t know which religion, if any, is correct.

 

[undead_rat]

Imagine that your supposed destination is 1000 miles away. You could walk, ride a bicycle, drive a car, take the bus, train, or airplane. Each of these modes is very different and each will work.
But if you just sit around trying to decide which is the correct way to travel, you will never arrive.

In my view, there is no “correct” religion, and there is no “incorrect” one either.
Faith doesn’t come easy; one has to work for it. As our teacher said:
**
“To the one who has will be given more. But to the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” **

 

[KnowtheSilence]

On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?

Mostly from the fact that I don’t find the evidence and arguments in favor of theism to be compelling, but I do the evidence and arguments for some form of naturalism. Add to this the fact that a lot of the intuitions, the “gut-level” feelings I have when approaching these things seem to differ from those of believers in pretty significant ways and it’s not really surprising that we end up in different places.

Some of my biggest points of departure from most theists I’ve spoken to would ideas like that a personal being with a mind can exist as a brute fact, that a mind can exist without any sort of physical brain, or that something mental can bring physical reality into existence from physical nothingness.

And those ideas go against even more broad concepts of God like deism. When it comes to even more specific concepts of God like Allah or YHWH, I find even more reasons to disbelieve.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist; you just have to take it on faith."
Woody Allen

I always liked this quote because it points out that Atheism is a choice just as religion is a choice. The difference is that Atheism can never be proven, but those who choose religion find proofs all the time (at least I do.)

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here. What do you mean by “proof?”

 

[undead_rat]

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying here. What do you mean by “proof?”

What I take to be a “proof” is an unlikely dream that turns out to take place in the real world.
Another type of proof is the existence of something miraculous, something that scientific analysis is unable to explain. The Image on the Shroud of Turin is a perfect example…
Another is ancient prophecy that comes true in our modern world. See Isaiah 3:17-24

 

[KnowtheSilence]

What I take to be a “proof” is an unlikely dream that turns out to take place in the real world.
Another type of proof is the existence of something miraculous, something that scientific analysis is unable to explain. The Image on the Shroud of Turin is a perfect example…
Another is ancient prophecy that comes true in our modern world. See Isaiah 3:17-24

I meant something more like “what is your definition of the word ‘proof’” rather than “what are some example of what you consider proof,” but I can work with this.
What you’re calling proof seems to be more in line with what I call evidence. Which may raise a problem for me when you said that atheism can never be proven; would you then be saying that there can never be evidence in favor of atheism?

 

[truetofaith]

I meant something more like “what is your definition of the word ‘proof’” rather than “what are some example of what you consider proof,” but I can work with this.
What you’re calling proof seems to be more in line with what I call evidence. Which may raise a problem for me when you said that atheism can never be proven; would you then be saying that there can never be evidence in favor of atheism?

Terrible things that happen to people can serve as “evidence” that if there was a God, He would not allow them to happen.

I believe there are more examples of people being saved in terrible situations, and provide more evidence for proof that it was the hand of God that intervened.

 

[newcalling]

I withhold judgement or numerous reasons.

1. The ubiquity of religion - Religion is found all over the world for as long as there’s been man. But there’s no real consensus about how that religion works. History shows us that religion has gone back to the start of writing in no form that we recognize as worshipped now. Proto-Canaanite religions have the seeds of what is Judaism but they aren’t close beyond that. Proto-Hinduism again has the seeds of Hinduism as we know it, but it isn’t the same.
2. Evidence seems to point to the major religions of at least the the west, near-east, and subcontinent as having very similar roots in the language used and practices which seems to point to them all growing out of an older prehistoric religion. Religions such as these are suspected due to ceremonial burial and other rite-like finds found in archeology.
3. Assuming that one or a few of the religions are correct (in that they actually describe how the world works) it seems to me rather impossible to tell which one could be the correct one or few. With any degree of epistemological certainty beyond belief.

Now I’l focus on the faith traditions I grew out of

1. Christianity has clear bases in Judaism. Which evidence shows enough to me has clear basis in Canaanite polytheism. Which again, seems to hint at having grown out of an ancient pre-historic religion that the mentioned religions all have roots in. In other words, I don’t see a solid foundation in the lineage of these religions.
2. Naturalistic explanations for supposed supernatural events - I haven’t heard anything that religion has claimed that is both 1. unable to definitively demonstrate veracity AND 2. Doesn’t have at least one, if not many, natural explanations. I’ve read all the proofs and seen the trains of thought. I don’t see anything conclusive in them.
3. Blatant and obvious errors in religious texts - The Exodus is but one example. There is absolutely no /hard/ archaeological evidence for it, and, the story is loaded with anachronisms.
4. And perhaps the most important - I haven’t ever had a religions experience that makes me feel like I should dismiss my doubt. I believe in the power of these experiences felt by others. And I don’t fault anyone for having them. But I haven’t had one yet so I see no reason to dismiss what appears to be pretty solid evidence that I can’t know which religion, if any, is correct.

I love your answer. I was a practicing eclectic pagan high priest and an interfaith minister for many years partly because my own study of religion and culture led me to these facts, and more. Everything except your 7th point I can relate to. However, I have had innumerable spiritual experiences, which is why I went the interfaith route and always kept some contact with religion. It was precisely two intense spiritual experiences which brought me to the Catholic church. I would wander too far from the thread topic to fully explain my new perspective on Catholicism, so I’ll suffice it for now to say that the Catholic church echoes many cultures and traditions.

 

[PJM]

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist; you just have to take it on faith."
Woody Allen

I always liked this quote because it points out that Atheism is a choice just as religion is a choice. The difference is that Atheism can never be proven, but those who choose religion find proofs all the time (at least I do.)

VERY GOOD!

Thanks for sharing

GBY

Patrick

 

[Kaninchen]

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist; you just have to take it on faith."
Woody Allen

I always liked this quote because it points out that Atheism is a choice just as religion is a choice. The difference is that Atheism can never be proven, but those who choose religion find proofs all the time (at least I do.)

It doesn’t explain why one should give the hind quarters of a member of the species ‘rattus rattus’ about it though.

 

[undead_rat]

I meant something more like “what is your definition of the word ‘proof’” rather than “what are some example of what you consider proof,” but I can work with this.
What you’re calling proof seems to be more in line with what I call evidence. Which may raise a problem for me when you said that atheism can never be proven; would you then be saying that there can never be evidence in favor of atheism?

No. It seems that all of the evidence is in favor of Atheism, particularly in this age of science. The universe has been determined to be such a huge place that it is difficult to believe that some kind of intelligent Creator is behind it all.
Furthermore, we don’t directly see that Creator in our day to day lives. When a miracle does present itself, it’s easily dismissed. The Shroud of Turin is a good example of this, having appeared out of nowhere in 1357, condemned by the local bishop, and then carbon dating to that same period (a valid sample, BTW.)

One really has to put aside rationality and decide to believe in the irrational. That is what faith is all about. Having made that choice, one then finds support for that decision. Once again, the Holy Shroud of Turin is an example.
Digging deeper one notices that:

1. The Shroud actually does have a history going all the way back to AD 33.*
2. The intensive scientific investigation of the Shroud has not been able to determine how the image was made, only that it is not a painting or burn mark.**
3. The smug professors who presented the C-14 dates of 1260 to 1390 were misrepresenting to actual dates which are 1193 to 1448. These dates form a linear progression from the edge of the cloth which indicates that the mechanism which formed the image also affected the C-14 content of the linen. ***

*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
** REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[KnowtheSilence]

One really has to put aside rationality and decide to believe in the irrational. That is what faith is all about. Having made that choice, one then finds support for that decision.

“Once you stop deciding that you need reasons to believe things, you can start to believe anything you want and justify it to yourself any way that you want.” That’s what I’m hearing from you here. Is that at all accurate?

 

[drblank1]

Going back to the original question of morality, I would venture to say that a great many agnostics and atheists do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor their fathers and mothers, ect.

God is our source of morality. And Jesus is the only Way. But since they believe there is no God, the question I would like answered is, “Does morality exist?” And if so, who’s moral standard is correct?

 

[PJM]

I withhold judgement for numerous reasons

Re: A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist STRING

By Rhubarb, religion Agnostic post #3 Non Catholic Religions FORUM …My 1st reply

WOW! This is a POST that expresses clearly you’re position yet fails to IMO, fully, logically, or accurately justify it. THANKS for sharing & opening our discussion.
Due the length of my reply I am just referencing your lengthy POST for others to read.
Allow me to take a bit of a different approach in my reply, Rather than address each of your points separately; I will take a broader perspective that logically provides evidence of GOD, and WHY humanity even exist; which then in an absolute sense requires RELIGION.

You indicate that you have read the bibles account of Genesis and creation, and find therein much to disagree with. As well you [all] should.
While everything in the bible is TRUE, NOT everything is factual. Such is the case of the STORY of Creation. What we are to cull, accept and believe in this STORY is in summary:
There is just One True God

That this God CREATED [to make something out of nothing /the first cause] the universe and humanity for a precise purpose

That The Universe itself, along with humanity are the indisputable evidences of God [singular]

That GOD Created Adam & Eve [humanity] in His Image for a precise reason [they may have been named Sam and Sally?] Gen 1:26-28

Gen.1: 26 – 28 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Then let’s look at John 4: 23-24 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth"

So from the apparent teaching s of the bible, GOD is a SPIRIT, and man from observation seems to be just Mortal. Can these two teachings be reconciled?

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING

[1] In all of the Universe’s BILLIONS of things, only one; only planet earth can be proven to sustain the many life forms we know of

[2] On planet earth with its MILLIONS of living things, only one, ONLY HUMANITY is rational, and can know and choose good or evil, can know God or choose to deny GOD.

[3] In order for man to be able to do these things requires a mind, intellect and freewill.

[4] Each of these infused attributes are literally “spiritual realities”, and that is HOW humanity alone can and does emulate our SPIRITUAL God.

[5] If you doubt this quantify for us your freewill. Its existence is logically indisputable. What is its shape, size, color and weight? We can’t say, yet it exist. It is a fact that every HUMAN -Soul [for this discussion being defined as that thing which animates Life], has exclusively these spiritual realities permanently attached to it. And it this, what I have come to term; “our other self” that survives the mortal body, and faces eternal judgment; and hence explains the existence of God, the Universe and humanity.

[6] These exclusive SPITITUAL gifts have to logically have an origin and a reason to exist. Science tells us that “Like must come from Like”. God is SPIRIT, man alone possesses his “other self” in emulation of GOD and is the fulfillment of Gen 1:26-28.

[7] WHY does humanity exist? And HOW can we and the universe exist without a first cause?

The bibles book of Isaiah 43: 7 & 21 answers that very question.
Isa.43: “everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." & the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise”

What is notable here is:

It explains WHY humanity even exist; to be able to freely choose to know, love, and serve our God OR to freely choose to hate and disobey God. This then is evidence of the reality of an afterlife and a final Divine Judgment, and of a supremr power that we term “Our GOD.”

The Universe itself exist solely so that humanity can [MIGHT] know of t God and actually come to know GOD. HOW can this be?

Here is the SHORT answer’s key points for consideration

1 The organization of the universe and its complexity. To assume that this is accidental would be like one believing that we could take all the separate parts of a Bowing 707 airplane and drop them from a mile up and expect them to reassemble themselves in midair. This very complexity of the universe leads logically to just one source for its being. We choose to know and call that source our God.

2 Planet Earth and it exclusive ability to sustain life-forms, and the essential role of the sun and the moon to accomplish this,

3 The natural laws of air, motion and gravity can’t have “just happened”

4 Good and evil. Good being the design and Divine Will of God and evil man’s freewill rejection of it. Only these evidences can explain logically the existence of a GOD and humanities presence on earth.

5 Here is a site that amplifies what I just shared; PLEASE take the time to read it

COLOR=“Blue”]Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

I’ll end here to get your response.

Blessings,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Mostly from the fact that I don’t find the evidence and arguments in favor of theism to be compelling, but I do the evidence and arguments for some form of naturalism. Add to this the fact that a lot of the intuitions, the “gut-level” feelings I have when approaching these things seem to differ from those of believers in pretty significant ways and it’s not really surprising that we end up in different places.

Some of my biggest points of departure from most theists I’ve spoken to would ideas like that a personal being with a mind can exist as a brute fact, that a mind can exist without any sort of physical brain, or that something mental can bring physical reality into existence from physical nothingness.

And those ideas go against even more broad concepts of God like deism. When it comes to even more specific concepts of God like Allah or YHWH, I find even more reasons to disbelieve.

To begin our discussion PLEASE READ my reply on POST #16

Then share if you can still logically hold your views? I’m OPEN to discuss your points.

Blessings,
Patrick

 

[KnowtheSilence]

To begin our discussion PLEASE READ my reply on POST #16

Then share if you can still logically hold your views? I’m OPEN to discuss your points.

Blessings,
Patrick

-]
Something apparently went wrong with the formatting in that post and my eyes rebel a bit when I look at it, but I’ll pick through it and give my response. Can I inquire as to the source? Did you write it, or is it a copy-paste from someone else?/-]
Nevermind, I see what happened.

 

[PJM]

I meant something more like “what is your definition of the word ‘proof’” rather than “what are some example of what you consider proof,” but I can work with this.
What you’re calling proof seems to be more in line with what I call evidence. Which may raise a problem for me when you said that atheism can never be proven; would you then be saying that there can never be evidence in favor of atheism?

As the OP allow me to interject here.

By “proof” on this STRING I [and I assume we] means logical evidence

And by default [see my POST reply #16], I concur that their can never be logical evidence that sustain there positions which seem to Me [a personal observation] are based more on emotions and desired conclusions than logical facts.

Blessings

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Terrible things that happen to people can serve as “evidence” that if there was a God, He would not allow them to happen.

Perhaps, but that is an emotional, not a logically supportable conclusion

I believe there are more examples of people being saved in terrible situations, and provide more evidence for proof that it was the hand of God that intervened.

If by “saved” you mean eternal salvation, and not merely some physical miracle; we certainly agree. BOTH flow from God’s Divine Mercy:thumbsup::

GBY
Patrick