Athiest, how can you not believe in God?

[dolphinlove]

This question has been burning in me for sometime now.
How could you not believe in God?
I mean, how do you explain not only how human life begun, but where do you think we get our feelings, thoughts, ideas etc from?
Granted, nature is pretty clever, but not clever enough to not only invent ‘humans’, but millions of other species of life onto one planet.
If there was no God, where do all these things come from?
I just cant understand it, please try and explain it to me.

 

[Mirdath]

(blah blah, I’m agnostic, not atheist )

How can I not believe in God? First and foremost, because a supreme being is not evident to me. I do not have this capacity for believing in the unseen that theists do; and while many say they have witnessed things they can only explain by virtue of a deity’s personal action, I have no way of knowing whether their testimony is accurate or whether a more mundane explanation fits.

How did human life begin? Through a process of evolution. That’s kind of a non-answer, though, so let’s backtrack: how did life begin? Science is beginning to show us how that might have occurred, but we don’t completely know; and the same goes for the question ‘how did anything begin?’ We simply do not know – yet – and aren’t afraid to admit it.

Feelings, thoughts, ideas? I’m afraid I’m not all that familiar with theories of sociological development.

So let’s get back to God for a minute. If such a being exists, I do not know it, because it has not chosen to reveal itself to me and its nature and existence are beyond my feeble human grasp. I cannot work out God through logic; the mere attempt to do so seems to me an act of cosmic hubris, as if a deity would be subservient to human Reason! And I have not, as yet, received any sort of direct revelation; so I do not know God.

 

[Peregrino]

So let’s get back to God for a minute. If such a being exists, I do not know it, because it has not chosen to reveal itself to me and its nature and existence are beyond my feeble human grasp. I cannot work out God through logic; the mere attempt to do so seems to me an act of cosmic hubris, as if a deity would be subservient to human Reason! And I have not, as yet, received any sort of direct revelation; so I do not know God.

Both a humble and rational answer. As an atheist, I couldn’t work out God through logic (something about not being able to avoid an infinite reductionism). As a theist, I still can’t work out God through logic! As you have so eloquently put it, why would a deity be subservient to human reason? Nice answer.

 

[dolphinlove]

Oh, and i forgot to mention in my first post…
No attacking!!!
Im just curious as to why people dont believe.
Not saying that Mirdath and Peregrino have attacked, im just pointing out the obvious…

 

[scottm]

This question has been burning in me for sometime now.
How could you not believe in God?
I mean, how do you explain not only how human life begun, but where do you think we get our feelings, thoughts, ideas etc from?
Granted, nature is pretty clever, but not clever enough to not only invent ‘humans’, but millions of other species of life onto one planet.
If there was no God, where do all these things come from?
I just cant understand it, please try and explain it to me.

I’m not an atheist but I’ve had more conversations with atheists on this very issue than I can ever count. The refutation of God is actually quite simple.

1. 
   *]Theists cannot agree as to what God says, or even as to God’s nature. We’ve got Jews, Hindus, New Age, Unitarian, Mormon, JW, Islam, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and 32 billion varieties of Protestants all telling us contradictory things, and they’re all equally sincere about it. Equally sincere. Say that again: they’re all equally sincere. By what measurement can I objectively rule out all but one of them, huh? Objectively, I said. “I’m a Catholic because grandma was a Catholic, and grandma wouldn’t lie to me” doesn’t fly. My neighbor is a Jew for the same reason. My other neighbor is a Moslem for the same reason. My other neighbor is a Southern Baptist for the same reason. My other neighbor – oh, you get the point. I’ve got no reason to favor one version of God over another. If God can’t get his story straight then hey, either he doesn’t care or he’s incapable of communicating with us, or he’s not even real. It’s one of those three choices.
   *]Looking at Christianity just for a moment, Jesus wasn’t a very good communicator. Come on now, it would have been very easy for God to work out better media coverage for the resurrection. Instead of waiting a couple decades for the first Gospel to be published, he could have had the story printed right then and their. Instead of entrusting it to no-names in a no-name spot of the earth, he could have sent out a fabulous media campaign. But noooo – instead we have what look like contradictory and factually inaccurate stories (there a numerous weaknesses in the Gospels that atheists jump on) written decades after the events, and we can’t even decide with certainty who wrote them! And you call that “God” ? You’ve got to be kidding!
   *]For Jews and Christians only – Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Need I say more?
   *]For Jews and Christians only – atheists say that Noah’s Flood could not have occurred the way that it is portrayed in Genesis. Therefore, the Bible is inaccurate. Couple this with the creation account and doubts as to the Easter resurrection, and we no longer can trust anything in the Bible. Hey, if it can’t get big things like that right, we cannot rely on it to get anything else right.
   *]God is not necessary for the creation of life. First, to say that “God made life and God is self-existing” looks like this in the abstract: “[blank] made life and [blank] is self-existing.” All we have to do is fill in the blank. I’ll fill it in with, say, matter. If God can be self-existing then so can matter. Various branches of science are working on the problem of how life evolves from matter and what “life” even is. It’s no bother to scientists that they don’t have all the answers today.
   *]Religion is not necessary for morality. First, look at all the fighting that people do in the name of their religion. There’s room to argue that religion is actually an impediment to morality. Second, ethicists have, and continue to, define systems of morality that compete quite nicely with anything a theist can come up with.
   Put it all together and it’s a strong case.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I’ve heard it before too. The list is an atheist’s version of “verse slinging”, based on numerous assumptions and sarcastic attacks. It makes a strong case only by the “overwhelming” nature of being bombarded with multiple attacks from various directions at once.


When dissected and dealt with methodically, they all fall apart.

There’s a fellow writing a book that aims to do just that; “The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.”

From reports by the author, it’ll come from a more secular than religious perspective, to avoid the usual “religious quack” objections from most atheists that pass for “answers” to being scrutinized and taken apart.

I think I saw pre-order status on Amazon.

Chris

 

[AgnosTheist]

(blah blah, I’m agnostic, not atheist )

How can I not believe in God? First and foremost, because a supreme being is not evident to me. I do not have this capacity for believing in the unseen that theists do; and while many say they have witnessed things they can only explain by virtue of a deity’s personal action, I have no way of knowing whether their testimony is accurate or whether a more mundane explanation fits.

How did human life begin? Through a process of evolution. That’s kind of a non-answer, though, so let’s backtrack: how did life begin? Science is beginning to show us how that might have occurred, but we don’t completely know; and the same goes for the question ‘how did anything begin?’ We simply do not know – yet – and aren’t afraid to admit it.

Feelings, thoughts, ideas? I’m afraid I’m not all that familiar with theories of sociological development.

So let’s get back to God for a minute. If such a being exists, I do not know it, because it has not chosen to reveal itself to me and its nature and existence are beyond my feeble human grasp. I cannot work out God through logic; the mere attempt to do so seems to me an act of cosmic hubris, as if a deity would be subservient to human Reason! And I have not, as yet, received any sort of direct revelation; so I do not know God.

AMEN!

 

[AgnosTheist]

Put it all together and it’s a strong case.

my goodness, scott. youve said that more convincingly than a lot of atheists I met.

whats your religion?

 

[dcharlesworth]

I think one of the hardest things an atheist or agnostic has to explain is an objective moral law. In fact I have yet to hear any explanation that actually will address this glaring deficiency in atheistic views.

Right and Wrong, Good and Evil how do you explain?

 

[AgnosTheist]

When dissected and dealt with methodically, they all fall apart.

really? care to give an example?

 

[AgnosTheist]

I think one of the hardest things an atheist or agnostic has to explain is an objective moral law. In fact I have yet to hear any explanation that actually will address this glaring deficiency in atheistic views.

Right and Wrong, Good and Evil how do you explain?

objective moral law? simple. the golden rule. its something each person learns from growing up. thats the basis of the modern concept of human rights.

Human rights: if only religion had come up with it.

 

[dcharlesworth]

objective moral law? simple. the golden rule. its something each person learns from growing up. thats the basis of the modern concept of human rights.

Human rights: if only religion had come up with it.

That wasn’t an answer at all I am afraid. And if you think the question is simple, you have not understood it.

If Atheism is true, ultimately there is no moral law. Any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. And there is no moral law reflective in this universe, anything that deals with good and bad is purely the product of your environment or your culture.

Take for example the holocaust. The Nazis changed the laws that made jews less than human. It was then okay under law to exterminate them. During the Nuremburg trials the defense was given that they were operating under the laws. But the question had to be asked, is there not a law above our laws? You are saying the answer is no.

Take for example if evolution is true, then we are simply animals. When one animal kills another, we do not call it murder. Why then do we call it murder when one human kills another? Suppose aliens were to visit the planet earth tomorrow. And the came and enslaved the human race, and tortured everyone, and deprived us of the rights that we had come up with for ourselves. Would there be anything wrong? Again, we could be seen as animals in their eyes.

Human rights are based upon human dignity. Find me and objective reason for human dignity?

These are all questions that the Christian world view has good answers for. You might not accept them, but they do make sense. Often times it is hard for an atheist to come to grips with the idea there is a God. Aldous Huxley said in his book ends and means, that he did not want there to be a God, so that he was free to indulge his own erotic pleasures. This is what an Atheist has to come to grips with.

 

[Father_of_8]

Maybe an analogy would help explain why so many people believe in God. Before all of us were born, we were conceived and lived for several months in our mothers’ wombs. We had very limited knowledge about life beyond the womb. Research has indicated that we could hear, and later recognize, voices from people other than our mothers. We could sense other things like heat, cold, pressure, etc. But our young minds weren’t capable of understanding things in great detail. Then a life-changing event happened. Each of us experienced being born into a new state of existence, a new life so to speak. We left our former existence behind, never to return. In the coming days, weeks, months and years our knowledge far surpassed anything we knew in our mothers’ wombs. Now as adults, we still don’t know very much at all about anything. Each new discovery or answer leads to many more new questions. But when we die, is that it? No, we believe that we will be born again to a new life where we will be united with the One Who created and loves us, just like when we were born as babies with our mothers. Believing in God and in an afterlife cannot be proven by scientific facts or research. But the world is full of many details, like this analogy, that paint a picture that becomes clearer as you study it with an open mind and heart. I believe God will give any person the grace he or she needs in order to discern Him. So it is ultimately grace and faith that leads a believer to God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

If Atheism is true, ultimately there is no moral law. Any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. And there is no moral law reflective in this universe, anything that deals with good and bad is purely the product of your environment or your culture.

can you show me where atheists are actually arguing that? and can you please show how it is an opinion held by all atheists.

But the question had to be asked, is there not a law above our laws? You are saying the answer is no.

i dont think its a question of above & below, but a question of humane or inhumane.

Take for example if evolution is true, then we are simply animals. When one animal kills another, we do not call it murder. Why then do we call it murder when one human kills another?

because we are a cut above the rest of the animals. only we are sentient, self aware, & rational.

Suppose aliens were to visit the planet earth tomorrow. And the came and enslaved the human race, and tortured everyone, and deprived us of the rights that we had come up with for ourselves. Would there be anything wrong? Again, we could be seen as animals in their eyes.

indeed they would, as white christians saw the rest of humanity as animals. but if they are rational, then as white christians realized the implications of the golden rule, so would these aliens.

Human rights are based upon human dignity. Find me and objective reason for human dignity?

the golden rule.

Aldous Huxley said in his book ends and means, that he did not want there to be a God, so that he was free to indulge his own erotic pleasures. This is what an Atheist has to come to grips with.

and why do you think some priests out there feels free to indulge in erotic pleasures even to the extent of raping altar boys? my friend, with or without religion good people will do good things & bad people will do bad things. but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

 

[Mirdath]

If Atheism is true, ultimately there is no moral law. Any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. And there is no moral law reflective in this universe, anything that deals with good and bad is purely the product of your environment or your culture.

If there is no God, it only means there is no divinely-handed-down moral law. Objective morality is certainly still possible. AgnosTheist was in fact right to point to the Golden Rule – it is perhaps overly flexible, but it is still a universal moral law that does not involve a deity. A better example would be the Categorical Imperative, which is explicitly not tailored to the individual at all.

The Categorical Imperative is roughly this: act always by that maxim whereby you can will it becomes universal law. If it isn’t right in some situations – no matter what they are – it isn’t right for any.

Human rights are based upon human dignity. Find me and objective reason for human dignity?

Enlightened self-interest: I get ahead if we all get ahead. I lose out if I cause you or anyone else to stumble, even if I may gain in the short term.

These are all questions that the Christian world view has good answers for.

They are answers; I would stop well short of calling them ‘good’ answers, since they generally offer little depth or explanation beyond ‘God says don’t do it’. And they are not the only answers by a long shot.

Often times it is hard for an atheist to come to grips with the idea there is a God. Aldous Huxley said in his book ends and means, that he did not want there to be a God, so that he was free to indulge his own erotic pleasures. This is what an Atheist has to come to grips with.

Nonbelief is not motivated by carnality. Attachment to ‘sins of the flesh’ may make someone want to disbelieve in a God who condemns such activities, but ultimately whether one professes belief is a function of faith or its lack, not of libido. Please refrain from assuming that people do not believe because they are shameful libertines; you do not know why they might not believe, unless they tell you directly – and then, hedonism probably isn’t the answer.

 

[dcharlesworth]

can you show me where atheists are actually arguing that? and can you please show how it is an opinion held by all atheists.

***They don’t have to argue it, or even be aware of it for that statement to be true. ***

i dont think its a question of above & below, but a question of humane or inhumane.

Err, I disagree.

because we are a cut above the rest of the animals. only we are sentient, self aware, & rational.

What makes us a cut above? Again, you are making a moral judgement that being sentient is better than not.

indeed they would, as white christians saw the rest of humanity as animals. but if they are rational, then as white christians realized the implications of the golden rule, so would these aliens.

I don’t think you understand where I am driving at with a comment like this

the golden rule.

Once again, that is not a sufficient answer, in that the golden rule supposes its own moral framework. You assume that doing nice things to others is in and of its self “good.” I could come up with a subjective reason that doing unto others as I would have done to me is in fact not a kind thing to do.

and why do you think some priests out there feels free to indulge in erotic pleasures even to the extent of raping altar boys? my friend, with or without religion good people will do good things & bad people will do bad things. but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

***What kind of a statement is this? All you are is badmouthing religion for no good reason. What would you like to hear, that religion has been abused? That the human heart is not pure?

Indeed it does take religion for good people to do bad things, because without God (religion) there is no one good nor bad.***

 

[maryannashworth]

I didn’t read all the blogs but I did read one that I thought I might could answer a wee bit. I forget who said there are only three possibilities and really there are more than that. The one I would put forth is that Jesus did communicate and God has communicated through the Jewish nation somewhat that is to say the seat of Moses which was head of the Jewish Church just as our Pope is head of Catholic church but why so much confusion in what God is saying. remember Free Will and our ability to disobey. Remember the angels and how Satan fell and carried others with him because he didn’t want to obey. Remember that he is a liar. We are on a road to finding God and sometimes it takes a life time. While I did have a few experiences with God I found Him in His word, the Gospel, which I tried to understand and couldn’t until finally Catholics explained it to me and yet it still took me three years of study, prayer and God leading me to different people to help.But I kept searching until there was nowhere else to go. Actually I didn’t have problems with many questions some did but neverthe less I had many problems finding God even though I knew he was there. My comfort was reading Bishop Sheen’s “The LIfe of Christ” when he said when all seemed dark and you couldn’t see God he was more with you than others because he knew you couldn’t see and needed him more. He knew you were trying. That consoled me all those years while I was seeking. Keep looking The Catholic Church has the answers but some times they are hard to find and also God has to work with you to open your mind slowly most of the time. Another reason there is so much confusion is that a lot of people aren’t looking as you said they are what they are because that is all they have been exposed to and they feel comfortable. many Catholics are the same way. They are in the right church but don’t exactly know why so they can’t explain it to anyone. Too bad. mary ann I hope this helps.

 

[AgnosTheist]

They don’t have to argue it, or even be aware of it for that statement to be true.

Its just you then. I knew it! I have met atheists who are very nice people.

i dont think its a question of above & below, but a question of humane or inhumane.

Err, I disagree.

LOL! Thats it?

because we are a cut above the rest of the animals. only we are sentient, self aware, & rational.

What makes us a cut above? Again, you are making a moral judgement that being sentient is better than not.

which reminds me, murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. animals are not persons, and they dont have any laws.

indeed they would, as white christians saw the rest of humanity as animals. but if they are rational, then as white christians realized the implications of the golden rule, so would these aliens.

I don’t think you understand where I am driving at with a comment like this

i dont think you liked being reminded with the fact that white christians treated the rest of humanity like animals. a proper analogy with your ‘alien analogy’.

the golden rule.

Once again, that is not a sufficient answer, in that the golden rule supposes its own moral framework. You assume that doing nice things to others is in and of its self “good.” I could come up with a subjective reason that doing unto others as I would have done to me is in fact not a kind thing to do.

you can bend any rule, even religious ones. the fact remains that the golden rule is objective and it does a lot LOT LOT LOTmore good than harm. Why is it objective? Because just about anyone can verify it for themself. If you are nice to people, people would often be nice to you. If you are rude to people, people would tend to be rude to you too.

 

[Greg27]

For me, these are some of the traditional arguments against theism which are quite compelling:

1. The argument from evil and suffering. Why is there so much evil, pain, suffering and injustice in the world? Why are good people often rewarded with bad fortune, while the evil often flourish? Assuming God exists, and he is infinitely powerful, wise, knowing, good, morally perfect and beautiful, then why:
2. Does he not stop evil and suffering from happening?
3. Improve the order of creation so that natural disasters, disease, decay, death, war, poverty, crime, injustice, etc are removed?

If a being is unable to stop numbers 1 and 2 above, then God is not omnipotent. But if God is not omnipotent or infinitely good then God is either finite, unable or unwilling to stop evil, or non-existent. But if God is finite then he is no longer the God of traditional theism. Or, a being with these properties may simply not exist at all, or does not exist. Therefore at least it is possible and rational to conclude God is finite, flawed (unable to stop evil) or non-existent.

The argument against design and teleology.

It is argued that the features of the world (the universe, either as a whole or in its parts) are ordered in such a way that they are beautiful, organised, and in a harmony. This order could not have arisen due to some stochastic (chance based process) alone, by blind necessity (natural deterministic laws operating over time and space) alone, or by stochastic processes and necessity acting together. Therefore, the universe must have been designed, formed, and created and brought into being from absolutely nothing (as nothing can come from nothing) by a supremely wise, powerful, good, and perfect creator, whose goodness, perfection, beauty and wisdom are reflected clearly in the ordered, created cosmos. This creation was also made with the ultimate plan of the creation of human beings, for which the universe was made as the arena for their creation, fall, salvation and redemption, and ultimately, so they may have eternal happiness in the vision of God’s glory.

However, the arguments against:

1. Science explains many structures in the visible and knowable universe purely in terms of both random chance (stochastic probabilities) and natural laws (blind necessity) acting over very long periods of time to create order at various levels in the universe. These laws and the effects they have, and the forms they take, do not seem to necessarily require explanation from a higher order of explanation. Why could they just not be eternal, or have come into existence with the beginning of the universe? Why is God needed, when quantum mechanics, general relativity, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, classical electromagnetism, classical mechanics and thermodynamics (formulated as mathematical laws) can explain the phenomena we see in nature, at least at the physical level? How exactly can a God or Gods add any explanatory value to any scientific theory? How can we know when and where God is acting in the universe, and at what times and spaces, and in what sort of forms? Is God making hydrogen here, a spiral galaxy there, a butterfly here? (It is fairly easy to see in this line of argument what sort of problems this approach creates, treating God as a scientist would treat a scientific theory such as relativity).

 

[dcharlesworth]

Its just you then. I knew it! I have met atheists who are very nice people.

LOL! Thats it?

What do you want me to say? You didn’t originally formulate a unique thought on the idea.

which reminds me, murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. animals are not persons, and they dont have any laws.
What makes us not just animals?

i dont think you liked being reminded with the fact that white christians treated the rest of humanity like animals. a proper analogy with your ‘alien analogy’. **It wasn’t an analogy, just an illustration, as for speaking to what I do or do not like to be reminded of, you are simply getting off topic. **

you can bend any rule, even religious ones. the fact remains that the golden rule is objective and it does a lot LOT LOT LOTmore good than harm. Why is it objective? Because just about anyone can verify it for themself. If you are nice to people, people would often be nice to you. If you are rude to people, people would tend to be rude to you too. Again, you are saying this does a lot more good then harm. I agree, but where do you get your basis for good! You are assuming being nice is good. What reason do you have for that? because it helps you stay alive? Again you are supposing that being alive is better than being dead

The fact of the matter is, that you have danced around the topic, and haven’t given us any objective reason at all for good vs evil. Just that being nice to people is good. But What makes it good?