Athiest, how can you not believe in God?

[Greg27]

Isn’t it possible that the universe might have been designed or made by several Gods or powerful beings? What reason do we have for believing only one God made the universe? What reasons do we have for believing this being or entity has any analogy to human thinking, nature or intelligence? What evidence do we have that this being is concerned with the fairly trifling goings on in a tiny planet on the edge of a rather mundane spiral galaxy that is a p(name removed by moderator)rick inside a giant supercluster of millions of galaxies, in visible universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, which itself is probably infinite in extent (thus having an infinite number of galaxies) and itself might only be one of an infinite set of possible or actual universes? What reasons do we have for believing this being is only concerned (out of all these objects and times) with the happiness of only a tiny, weak creature such as man? How can we know this infinite universe which appears to us is concerned or designed in any way for our prescence or happiness? Isn’t it simpler to believe the universe just is as it is in the form it appears to us, not needing any further explanation? Isn’t it at least logically possible? Even if we try to find further layers of explanation, can we really find any? If so, how? Therefore it is simpler and more economical (by the principle of Ockham’s Razor) to simply believe the universe has no purpose, no design, no point, and therefore no creator at all, and is purely explicable in naturalistic terms.

The argument from culture/anthropology:

Humans follow many religions and believe in many Gods. The evidence suggests each culture follows a different God or Gods, usually made in their own image. Therefore, God(s) are human inventions, made to fulfil some social function, psychological need, or mythical story. Therefore God is an invention of the human mind, made in man’s image, to fulfil certain human needs, but does not exist in reality.

The argument from harm to society/culture or from history

Followers of religions have done or are doing various kinds of dangerous, damaging harm to people in many ways down through history. Suicide bombings, crusades, witch burnings and crazes, superstition, religious wars, psychological abuse, restrictions on creativity, human rights and freedom of conscience, and on the progress of inquiry and knowledge can be blamed on religion, the ideas it inspires, and those who implement them. The result through history (from ancient times to now) has been incalculable human suffering and misery. Therefore God is a dangerous idea which needs to be purged, if humanity is to become better morally speaking.

The positivist argument from meaninglessness:

Religious language and metaphysics, or propositions which are formed to affirm religious or metaphysical statements, lack cognitive content and are totally meaningless, as they cannot be verified by experiment, observation, or experience. Therefore any assertions about ‘God’ are factually and cognitively devoid of content, and the arguments worthless.

The argument from evidence:

We have no direct evidence that a God exists. We also have no firm logical proof or argument to suggest God exists. Therefore on the lack of evidence and proof, it is rational to believe God does not exist or his existence is extremely improbable.

The argument from freedom (Sartre):

God’s existence and demands and man’s absolute freedom are not compatible. As it is self evident that man exists, but not evident God does, the concept of God is imaginary and puts false limits on man’s freedom. Therefore it is man’s duty to stop believing in God, if he is ever to be free.

The argument from social oppression:

God is an invention of the ruling classes made to keep the status quo in society. Therefore when the revolution occurs and is complete, the religious elite will be swept away, as will God. Human beings will at last be free, at least when they stop believing in God.

The argument from bad conscience/repression (Nietzsche): Belief in God and Judeo-Christian morality repress man with a false asceticism which kills the natural joy and life of man which makes him an existential failure. Man can only truely be free by affirming life joyously, throwing the mortifying shackles of ascetic morality and enjoy and affirm his immense potentiality to become something much greater under his own power. Therefore man must throw off the idea of God, to truely realise himself.

 

[AgnosTheist]

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?

I define ‘good’ as something that promotes life in the long term. Being nice is good because it encourages social harmony. as such it promotes human life in the long term.

my friend, almost everything that we do is for human preservation. whether its science, politics or ethics. even religion.

 

[dcharlesworth]

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

1. The argument from evil Again, this is the problem in your argument, you raise the concept of evil. If you acknowledge such a thing as evil you must also recognize good. There must also be a moral law on which to differentiate between good and bad. And that is hard to come by without God. If you are trying to disprove God, you can’t borrow from a moral framework to do so. 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?

Your question self-distructs.

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).

Ever heard there is nothing neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so? I say that is false, however to ask your questions here, you have to say that is true. But if it is true, you can’t raise questions about Good and Evil. They are purely products of the environment.

 

[dcharlesworth]

I define ‘good’ as something that promotes life in the long term. Being nice is good because it encourages social harmony. as such it promotes human life in the long term.

my friend, almost everything that we do is for human preservation. whether its science, politics or ethics. even religion.

Again you are just assuming that Life is Better than death. WHY?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Again you are just assuming that Life is Better than death. WHY?

LOL! oh my god, are serious? even christianity promotes eternal life. why? why do people want to live forever? oh my god, i cant believe you had to ask me that. You have to learn the answer yourself. I will not help you on this one. hey try asking your fello w catholics.

 

[dcharlesworth]

LOL! oh my god, are serious? even christianity promotes eternal life. why? why do people want to live forever? oh my god, i cant believe you had to ask me that. You have to learn the answer yourself. I will not help you on this one. hey try asking your fello w catholics.

All you can do is laugh? Okay, I concede I obviously have no idea of what I am talking about. But you just sidestepped the question completely. I am a dummy, please enlighten me.

You obviously know a whole lot more about I in regards to this Meaning of life stuff. Could you please give me a reason why life is better than death?

 

[ricmat]

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.

Hi Mirdath,

I think you misunderstand the term “objective morality.” Think of what is meant by “objective reality.” This means something that really exists, and is not a product of the human imagination - a “being of reason.”

Objective morality as used above refers to laws of morality which are just as real, and just as much a part of this created universe as gravity and magnetism. They are a real part of creation, and not just a consensus, or feelings, or whatever.

I’ve recommended these books before, but I don’t recall if it was on a thread you were in. You might enjoy them.

1. The Science Before Science.
2. 50 Questions on the Natural Law.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You obviously know a whole lot more about I in regards to this Meaning of life stuff. Could you please give me a reason why life is better than death?

im sorry for laughing. hmmm actually the answer is not so simple. why is life better than death? why is it that all forms of life fight for survival, from the smallest bacteria to the largest whale. why must life go on? i dont think the answer can be fully explained in words, this is something that has to be experienced. hey maybe its all for the experience!

anyway, since life demands that life must go on, that means that atheists would keep craving for life just like everyone else. the only difference is that you believe there is an after life, they dont.

 

[Mirdath]

Hi Mirdath,

I think you misunderstand the term “objective morality.” Think of what is meant by “objective reality.” This means something that really exists, and is not a product of the human imagination - a “being of reason.”

Objective morality as used above refers to laws of morality which are just as real, and just as much a part of this created universe as gravity and magnetism. They are a real part of creation, and not just a consensus, or feelings, or whatever.

Ah, alright then. I use the term ‘objective’ to signify uniform perception; what you’re talking about seems it would be more aptly called ‘natural morality’ – or, for that matter, ‘natural law’.

The complaint usually made of non-theist stances is that they disallow objective morality (the way I mean it) – commonly the example given is ‘well, Hitler thought he was right!’ This complaint, of course, is in error: it is perfectly possible to define a universal moral code without any supernatural involvement, and the Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative are two shining examples. Adherence to such a code is naturally not guaranteed, but then that can be said of a ‘natural’ moral code as well.

‘Natural morality’, then, is problematic: various religions insist it exists, as you say, just as much as the physical laws of gravity. But where gravity can be plainly demonstrated, any natural moral law cannot. Its existence is something taken on faith, and that a faith that is not universally shared. Worse yet, while one can follow the derivation of the Categorical Imperative, there is little, if any, such explanation behind a natural moral law beyond ‘God said so’ – and there is nothing stopping someone from manufacturing a ‘natural law’ and passing it off as divinely created.

In the end, fiat morality is far inferior to reasoned morality.

 

[ricmat]

‘Natural morality’, then, is problematic: various religions insist it exists, as you say, just as much as the physical laws of gravity. But where gravity can be plainly demonstrated, any natural moral law cannot. Its existence is something taken on faith, and that a faith that is not universally shared. Worse yet, while one can follow the derivation of the Categorical Imperative, there is little, if any, such explanation behind a natural moral law beyond ‘God said so’ – and there is nothing stopping someone from manufacturing a ‘natural law’ and passing it off as divinely created.

In the end, fiat morality is far inferior to reasoned morality.

Properly reasoned morality leads one to the Natural Law. The book I mentioned goes through that process. The fact that religions in general, as well as other reasoning institutions, come to almost the same conclusions is because it IS immanent in nature.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this. I’m not smart enough to understand all the arguments, and even if I were, I don’t have the time to go through point, counter-point on all the issues. But generally, I’m one of the bunch who is willing to do 20% of the work to obtain 80% of the benefit. Not perfect, but practical. And yes, that means that the 80% must be bolstered with 20% faith to reach the 100% level.

If you are truly smart enough to understand both sides of all the issues, and actually have the time and will to investigate it all, then I pity the curse that you have been saddled with! You will never find peace.

IMHO.

 

[Mirdath]

Properly reasoned morality leads one to the Natural Law. The book I mentioned goes through that process. The fact that religions in general, as well as other reasoning institutions, come to almost the same conclusions is because it IS immanent in nature.

In all honesty, I would reverse your first sentence: ‘natural law’ (as a theory, not as an object) is derivative of reasoned morality. However, it forsakes the latter’s emphasis on thought and method for mere authoritarian fiat – an effective means of controlling a society, certainly, but an unsatisfactory system of ethics.

And to be sure, controlling a society is how ‘natural law’ got started, way back in the Old Testament. The Israelites needed a law; and what better lawgiver than their deity, since they had no king? In fact, all but three of the Decalogue are not religious laws at all, but a social contract.

Certain elements of ‘natural law’ also show that it is not something to be properly reasoned out. The prohibition on masturbation, for instance, makes no sense unless one accepts it as a divine command: thou shalt not do this. In terms of social effect, it is entirely negligible: a personal action, usually performed in private, that harms no-one and causes of itself nothing more than sloppy fingers. Yet because a religion has said that God thinks the only way to relieve one’s sexual impulses is within the bounds of marital intercourse, it is held to damn one’s soul eternally.

It is no wonder that religious and secular principles both coincide on so many questions: no matter their beliefs, people are people, and have similar wants and needs. People like to be alive; they don’t like to be killed or assaulted. They like owning property; they don’t like theft. And so on. But since we are social creatures, we do not only dislike having these ills befall us – we have a vested interest in ensuring they do not befall others. That which harms anyone harms the society, and that effect comes down to every person.

If you are truly smart enough to understand both sides of all the issues, and actually have the time and will to investigate it all, then I pity the curse that you have been saddled with! You will never find peace.

 

[ricmat]

In all honesty, I would reverse your first sentence: ‘natural law’ (as a theory, not as an object) is derivative of reasoned morality. However, it forsakes the latter’s emphasis on thought and method for mere authoritarian fiat – an effective means of controlling a society, certainly, but an unsatisfactory system of ethics.

And to be sure, controlling a society is how ‘natural law’ got started, way back in the Old Testament. The Israelites needed a law; and what better lawgiver than their deity, since they had no king? In fact, all but three of the Decalogue are not religious laws at all, but a social contract.

Certain elements of ‘natural law’ also show that it is not something to be properly reasoned out. The prohibition on masturbation, for instance, makes no sense unless one accepts it as a divine command: thou shalt not do this. In terms of social effect, it is entirely negligible: a personal action, usually performed in private, that harms no-one and causes of itself nothing more than sloppy fingers. Yet because a religion has said that God thinks the only way to relieve one’s sexual impulses is within the bounds of marital intercourse, it is held to damn one’s soul eternally.

It is no wonder that religious and secular principles both coincide on so many questions: no matter their beliefs, people are people, and have similar wants and needs. People like to be alive; they don’t like to be killed or assaulted. They like owning property; they don’t like theft. And so on. But since we are social creatures, we do not only dislike having these ills befall us – we have a vested interest in ensuring they do not befall others. That which harms anyone harms the society, and that effect comes down to every person.

You know so much. And so little.

 

[maryannashworth]

Properly reasoned morality leads one to the Natural Law. The book I mentioned goes through that process. The fact that religions in general, as well as other reasoning institutions, come to almost the same conclusions is because it IS immanent in nature.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this. I’m not smart enough to understand all the arguments, and even if I were, I don’t have the time to go through point, counter-point on all the issues. But generally, I’m one of the bunch who is willing to do 20% of the work to obtain 80% of the benefit. Not perfect, but practical. And yes, that means that the 80% must be bolstered with 20% faith to reach the 100% level.

If you are truly smart enough to understand both sides of all the issues, and actually have the time and will to investigate it all, then I pity the curse that you have been saddled with! You will never find peace.

IMHO.

 

[maryannashworth]

maryannashworth:
I am a new member and really don’t understand how to use this stuff. I have not blogged before anywhere. But In Scripture it says we have no excuse because we can see God in creation and he puts his laws into our hearts. or some such. Anyway we can find all kinds of good in people because of this whether they are Christian or not. Most people don’t see God because He says something they don’t want to hear, not all but many. As for the suffering, when we break God’s law suffering comes about whether to us or to others. By sin suffering came into the world. Jesus died to save us from hell but not temperal suffering. It does make us question. I love the C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and I can’t think of that other writer who wrote the Father Brown mysteries. They are really good at speaking to Athiest. Actually you call your self an Agnostic which if I understand it rightly means you would like to find God you just can’t at the moment. As for Evolution with any guidance from God that is pretty far fetched since we are so ordered. I haven’t seen any creature change from one to another yet and it seems far fetched that things in different parts of the world with different environments would end up the same. evolutionist will never explain the order that we have or be able to create something from nothing. Sorry. I am not totally against evolution but it sounds too phony to me. You use a lot of big words and grand ideas but yet you have a long way to go to find the truth. I am just a 73 year old grandmother with out a college degree but yet I have experienced many things, read many things a lot that I have forgotten but I praise God over and over that I found something that I could call truth and also that I believe in an afterlife expecially since some people have made this life pretty miserable and humanity is destroying itself as fast as it falls away from God’s truth. He doesn’t have to punish us. It just happens when we break the rules. By the way since you suggested a better world, I would be delighted to hear your plan for that. I am a creative person and I like to hear creative ideas. mary ann

 

[Nepenthe]

ricmat:

If you are truly smart enough to understand both sides of all the issues, and actually have the time and will to investigate it all, then I pity the curse that you have been saddled with! You will never find peace.

We are and we do. Although I suppose by ‘understanding’ you mean ‘believing your religion and agreeing with you.’ Perhaps we do not understand ALL the issues, but I dare say you do not understand ALL the issues either, nor does anyone.

As for peace, we’re very peaceful, happy, fulfilled people, Mirdath and I. Save your pity for someone who needs it.

ricmat:

IMHO.

Don’t bother with that. The words and tone of your post were anything but humble, and verging on condescending slur. Saying ‘no offense’ either before or after saying ‘you are (ugly, stupid, vile, etc)’ hardly makes it inoffensive. Charitableness, I have heard, is a tenet of your faith. It’s also a rule of this forum.

Although Mirdath just pointed out to me that you may well not have been entirely serious, in which case…carry on!

 

[maryannashworth]

I have to quit but I will say one more thing. I do not think there is any such thing as a private sin. Why? Because what we do even in private changes the way we are and how we occupy ourselves with higher or lower things. I also think we can lift ourselves above our human weaknesses to greatness with the help of the grace of Jesus Christ who points us to higher things. I know sometimes Heaven sounds boring the way some people say it is but I happen to think Heaven is going to be very exciting. i hope there is football, lots of good food, great weather and all the good things I like here on earth and more including flowers, and real love of each other. No more hurting, no more sickness, no more war. I really can’t wait. I am very glad I can dream of such things. Trying to find our happiness here can be very frustrating not to say the least depressing. mary ann I must go for now. Check back in tomorrow. I do love to talk about things and no I don’t feel superior to you just luckier for some reason, God pulled me into his truth in spite of my shortcomings and for that I am grateful but I would try to get others to see for the sake of the world and my grandchildren. I want to see some of God’s Kingdom here. I have to say that those that are trying to obliterate God are leaving us a very nasty world whether they know it or not.

 

[ricmat]

We are and we do. Although I suppose by ‘understanding’ you mean ‘believing your religion and agreeing with you.’ Perhaps we do not understand ALL the issues, but I dare say you do not understand ALL the issues either, nor does anyone.

As for peace, we’re very peaceful, happy, fulfilled people, Mirdath and I. Save your pity for someone who needs it.

Don’t bother with that. The words and tone of your post were anything but humble, and verging on condescending slur. Saying ‘no offense’ either before or after saying ‘you are (ugly, stupid, vile, etc)’ hardly makes it inoffensive. Charitableness, I have heard, is a tenet of your faith. It’s also a rule of this forum.

Although Mirdath just pointed out to me that you may well not have been entirely serious, in which case…carry on!

I was entirely serious when I said that I don’t understand everything, And that I don’t have time to figure everything out. And that I’m too lazy to investigate things to the 100% level. I absolutely, positively mean that with absolute sincerity. And those comments weren’t just limited to the realm of religion - they apply to almost everything across the board.

I know folks, religious ones at that, who will never be satisfied until they know 100% of EVERYTHING about God. I can say in the same way that they won’t find peace either.

Having to know everything before one can make a decision is indeed a curse. Because you can never know everything and therefore never make a “final” decision. It’s called paralysis by analysis.

I don’t pity you because you’re an agnostic or an atheist - I pity you because you’ll never know everything, and therefore never be at peace.

PS - if you disagree that “you’ll never know everything”…then, perhaps that would be a good conversation in another thread

 

[ricmat]

I am a new member and really don’t understand how to use this stuff. I have not blogged before anywhere. But In Scripture it says we have no excuse because we can see God in creation and he puts his laws into our hearts. or some such. Anyway we can find all kinds of good in people because of this whether they are Christian or not. Most people don’t see God because He says something they don’t want to hear, not all but many. As for the suffering, when we break God’s law suffering comes about whether to us or to others. By sin suffering came into the world. Jesus died to save us from hell but not temperal suffering. It does make us question. I love the C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and I can’t think of that other writer who wrote the Father Brown mysteries. They are really good at speaking to Athiest. Actually you call your self an Agnostic which if I understand it rightly means you would like to find God you just can’t at the moment. As for Evolution with any guidance from God that is pretty far fetched since we are so ordered. I haven’t seen any creature change from one to another yet and it seems far fetched that things in different parts of the world with different environments would end up the same. evolutionist will never explain the order that we have or be able to create something from nothing. Sorry. I am not totally against evolution but it sounds too phony to me. You use a lot of big words and grand ideas but yet you have a long way to go to find the truth. I am just a 73 year old grandmother with out a college degree but yet I have experienced many things, read many things a lot that I have forgotten but I praise God over and over that I found something that I could call truth and also that I believe in an afterlife expecially since some people have made this life pretty miserable and humanity is destroying itself as fast as it falls away from God’s truth. He doesn’t have to punish us. It just happens when we break the rules. By the way since you suggested a better world, I would be delighted to hear your plan for that. I am a creative person and I like to hear creative ideas. mary ann

Hi Mary Ann, welcome to the forums.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you that experience is valuable - and sometimes difficult to put into words.

To make it a bit easier for us to read your posts, it would be better if you put some blank lines between paragraphs, or between key thoughts.

.

 

[maryannashworth]

Hi Mary Ann, welcome to the forums.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you that experience is valuable - and sometimes difficult to put into words.

To make it a bit easier for us to read your posts, it would be better if you put some blank lines between paragraphs, or between key thoughts.

.

Thanks I will try to do better. I am a person that rambles but I can at least leave space between paragraphs. mary ann

 

[Mirdath]

You know so much. And so little.

I have never claimed anything to the contrary

Having to know everything before one can make a decision is indeed a curse. Because you can never know everything and therefore never make a “final” decision. It’s called paralysis by analysis.

I don’t pity you because you’re an agnostic or an atheist - I pity you because you’ll never know everything, and therefore never be at peace.

Oh, let me assure you that it does not work quite how you suppose I am indeed at peace: at peace with what I know, and with what I do not. I accept that there are some, perhaps many questions I will never know the answer to – and you know what? It doesn’t bother me. I don’t need to know everything. As a strong agnostic, I hold that the question of God is one such unknowable. But if God exists and wishes me to know he exists, he’s more than capable of letting me know!