Does atheism even make sense?

[Abelardo]

It seems to me that people nowadays reject religion mostly because of arrogance. They see how much science and technology has accomplished (information that is readily available virtually anywhere), and because humans have slowly begun to discover the wonders of the human body and to explore space (for example), the “wonderful” begins to wither away for some. Don’t get me wrong, many atheists will say they wonder every day at the intricacies of nature and its inner workings. However, because they are able to see and explain a lot of it in detail, they are no longer able to speculate, as the ancients did, about the how. They no longer need to make stories, as the Israelites did, for example, attempting to explain how we were created.

For some reason, they equate believing in God with believing in myths. They forever associate God with ignorance (our ancestors were ignorant, i.e. they did not know how it all happened) and cannot cope with a system in which a complex God creates a complex universe with complex beings. In essence, modern atheism can only see God as “that man with a beard up there.” They reject the myths of the ancients as gross examples of ignorance and as real affronts to their intellect, and yet, faced with the idea of a creation worthy of the human intellect (evolution, etc), they also find issue with it simply because this idea would supplant the image of the bearded old man as God in the creation stories of the ancients.

In the end, the “proof” that God exists is there for anybody to see. It is neither not hidden or hard to see. Our lives depend on the law of cause and effect. Something had to be outside of that. As designed beings, our existence necessitates a designer. (See Thomas Aquinas’ Quinquae Viae for more).

Atheists normally see primitive peoples’ beliefs in different gods as evidence that belief in a god is just a manifestation of an emotional need for a higher power. I challenge that view. The belief in different gods seems also to be a manifestation of these primitive peoples’ basic understanding that they owed their existence to higher power. How could they possibly be there without one? They then worshiped the sun, because the sun is the sun provides warmth and helps the crops grow, etc… Even though they worshiped the sun and not the being which created it, their belief in a higher power is evidence not only of an emotional need, but one that is attached to an understanding of the basic reason for their existence–a being with the capacity to give life.

 

[cheddarsox]

Many atheists I know and communicate with via forums like this, DO acknowledge that there is a higher power…the Universe. but they don’t worship it or deify it. They can reasonably see that there are things bigger and more powerful than humanity and themselves, but they don’t see those things as needing or requiring some sort of personal recognition.

They don’t practice a religion, or some form of intentional submission to or reverence to “something”.

But I’ve very rarely heard any thinking person deny that we must have come from somewhere, or that there are things more powerful than us in the Universe.

I think most do feel that the various ways humans have “dressed up” the powers beyond are control are ridiculous and without factual basis. And they can see where humanity has used these myths to support ridiculous behaviors.

I don’t think most Atheists are fighting higher power as much as they are fighting humanity’s tendency to characterize it in such stupid ways.

And the more information we have, or seem to have, about the way things actually work, the stupider and more useless most of the characterization of higher powers appear.

To an atheist, it is like we have real information, that we can use, and instead people keep pulling out a puppet and saying “ignore that, listen to me! Bo Bo has all the answers for you”
and they can see the hand making the puppet move, and wonder why others can’t see it as well.

It’s not that atheists don’t accept that there are powers higher than us, its that they don’t accept most of humanities explanations for them…because there are better one’s that make more sense and fit reality.

And those answers are natural, not supernatural.

I’m a pantheist…I believe in the Universe. Most theists would consider me an atheist because I don’t believe in the supernatural or a deity of any kind. Most atheists say why bother to even say “I believe” because the Universe doesn’t care. I know that…but I care, so…I practice it for me.

 

[cazayoux]

To me, atheism makes no sense whatsoever.
It is very illogical.

An atheist tells me that I believe in God, but there is no proof.
This is what I call faith.

However, the atheist has no proof for his position, either.
He has no proof that God doesn’t exist.
You could say that they take it on faith that there is no God

They hold their position without proof for it, just like Catholic me.

At least I can respect the reasoning of an agnostic that says “I don’t know, there is no proof either way”. This is honest.

Atheism just makes no sense.

michel

 

[kristie_m]

I heard an interesting homily a couple of weeks ago that addressed this. The basic idea was this…within each of us there is a hunger for something inexhuastable. If this “something” (God) didn’t exist, then life would make no sense.

To put it another way…if there were no such thing as liquid, why would any of us ever get thirsty? It makes no sense, right? So if God doesn’t exist, why do we have this hunger for that which we can never attain on our own? No amount of money, or fame or even friendship will ever fully satisfy us. There must be something else.

He said it much more eloquently, but that was the general idea.

(Thanks Fr. P–I WAS -paying attention!!)

 

[cheddarsox]

I heard an interesting homily a couple of weeks ago that addressed this. The basic idea was this…within each of us there is a hunger for something inexhuastable. If this “something” (God) didn’t exist, then life would make no sense.

To put it another way…if there were no such thing as liquid, why would any of us ever get thirsty? It makes no sense, right? So if God doesn’t exist, why do we have this hunger for that which we can never attain on our own? No amount of money, or fame or even friendship will ever fully satisfy us. There must be something else.

He said it much more eloquently, but that was the general idea.

(Thanks Fr. P–I WAS -paying attention!!)

But what of those that DON’T thirst for that “something” you call god? What does their lack of thirst prove? I mean…if you find that particular argument compelling.

To say…there must be a god, because a lot of people want there to be, and long for there to be is a weak argument. Lots of people long for lots of things that don’t come to pass, like world peace, no more illness and suffering, etc. Wanting a thing doesn’t necessitate it’s existence.

Many people’s lives make sense to them without your God, but that neither proves or disproves the existence of your God.

I agree that atheism is a position of faith/belief…and therefore just as valid or nonsensical (depending on how you want to look at it) as any other.

We get up each morning and live based on what we know, what we fear and what we hope and what we believe…it’s the human condition.

 

[Flying_Bison]

I would have to say that Atheism is non-sensical.

First many argue for Atheism based on not being able to prove God by science and that we must have proof etc.

Well, as one who is trained in science, any scientist should tell you that since (speakig as a Catholic) we view God as supernatural, attempting to prove God with science which deals with the natural world is just incorrect.

You can’t prove something with a system that was never meant to prove a certain thing. For instance one can not prove the velocity of an object using Biology. It is a science, but does not deal directly with motion abd force. One needs physics a system built to answer the question to find the answer.

Also, physics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So, by definition the creation of the matter in the universe is supernatural. So there must have been some supernatural force and by reason must have been intelligent to think of creating the matter of the universe.

Additionally, the science favor the concept that the universe is not random. The certain forces in the universe (I will be vague) are so perfectly coordinated that pure chance is inconcievable, by scientific definition. An certain intelligence must have coordinated the precise physical condition to make the universe possible.

So, It seems to me that those who make the claim of Atheism and bring science into the fold are really not scientifically trained. Science does favor the idea that an intelligent creative force that was supernatural made the universe, but as this force is supernatural cannot prove it with science with deals with observation of the natural world. Einstein even believed in this., and he was pretty scientifically trained.

 

[VociMike]

But what of those that DON’T thirst for that “something” you call god? What does their lack of thirst prove? I mean…if you find that particular argument compelling.

I think the “thirst for God” includes the thirst for those attributes we theists associate with God, such as goodness, truth, beauty, justice, mercy, self-giving. It is the stuff of idealism, which can be driven by the best motives (at the core, the search for God), but which, if pursued “outside of” God, will nearly always disappoint and leave one unfilled.

 

[Mannyfit75]

atheism doesn’t make sense. It’s a self-centered belief based on pride.

 

[ribozyme]

atheism doesn’t make sense. It’s a self-centered belief based on pride.

Atheism is a lack of religion or belief in God.

 

[Crumpy]

I like GK Chesterton’s quote about atheists: He says that atheists are people who believe there is no God – he says he doesn’t believe there are any atheists. (touche)

His Holiness John Paul II in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope addressed unbelief this way. He says that people don’t want to accept how God has revealed himself. That statement indicates the general idea of pride or arrogance of the previous posters.

When I go outside of religion, which I don’t like to do very much, I realize how people can forget about God or ignore God to a great extent.

In all these cases, it has to do with self-centeredness in the extreme. In other words. a person says that HE doesn’t believe in God – everything is centered around himself. God in the Judeo-Christian system is the opposite of that – where we are called to devote our whole heart, soul, life and resources, and mind to God.
We no longer live, but, as Paul says of himself, Christ lives in us.

We must love our neighbor – which includes the atheist. We must be kind and generous.

 

[packermann]

Atheism is a lack of religion or belief in God.

That is what Atheist want us to believe, because then they can challenge the believer to come with proof for the existence while they do not have to prove that he does not exist.

But this statement is easy to refute. If Atheism is merely a lack of religion or belief in God then how is that it is different than agnoticism? Since the agnostic also lacks the belief in God, then in what way is an atheist different from an agnostic?

 

[mflaschner]

That is what Atheist want us to believe, because then they can challenge the believer to come with proof for the existence while they do not have to prove that he does not exist.

But this statement is easy to refute. If Atheism is merely a lack of religion or belief in God then how is that it is different than agnoticism? Since the agnostic also lacks the belief in God, then in what way is an atheist different from an agnostic?

I may be wrong, but I’ve always understood that an agnostic isn’t sure whether god(s) exist(s), while an atheist wholeheartedly accepts that there is(are) no god(s).

–

 

[Chris258]

That is what Atheist want us to believe, because then they can challenge the believer to come with proof for the existence while they do not have to prove that he does not exist.

But this statement is easy to refute. If Atheism is merely a lack of religion or belief in God then how is that it is different than agnoticism? Since the agnostic also lacks the belief in God, then in what way is an atheist different from an agnostic?

I may be wrong, but I’ve always understood that an agnostic isn’t sure whether god(s) exist(s), while an atheist wholeheartedly accepts that there is(are) no god(s).

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is not as clear cut as it is often put forth.

A subscriber of either weak agnosticism (that currently available evidence concerning the existence of a god is inconclusive, i.e. any such god(s) is/are currently unknowable but may be knowable in the future) or strong agnosticism (that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is absolutely unknowable) is by proper definition an atheist – one who lacks a positive belief in a god.

However, there are so-called “strong atheists” who positively assert that “there is no god”. I have heard Richard Dawkins state that he is on the fringe of this, but does not assert positively that “there is no god”. It is this position, of course, that is the most vulnerable to ridicule, because it is the absolute assertion of a negative. A “strong atheist” would certainly not be an agnostic of any kind, weak or strong.

 

[Chris258]

They forever associate God with ignorance (our ancestors were ignorant, i.e. they did not know how it all happened)…

They reject the myths of the ancients as gross examples of ignorance and as real affronts to their intellect, and yet, faced with the idea of a creation worthy of the human intellect (evolution, etc)…

Atheists normally see primitive peoples’ beliefs in different gods as evidence that belief in a god is just a manifestation of an emotional need for a higher power…

"[T]here is, of course, one question sufficiently solid and separate to be treated briefly, but by itself; I mean the objective occurrence of the supernatural… [M]y belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.

The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism-- the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence–it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.

But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is–that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.
–Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

Just discovered him recently, and I’ve fallen in love with his writing style.

 

[Abelardo]

To put it another way…if there were no such thing as liquid, why would any of us ever get thirsty? It makes no sense, right? So if God doesn’t exist, why do we have this hunger for that which we can never attain on our own? No amount of money, or fame or even friendship will ever fully satisfy us. There must be something else.

To say…there must be a god, because a lot of people want there to be, and long for there to be is a weak argument. Lots of people long for lots of things that don’t come to pass, like world peace, no more illness and suffering, etc. Wanting a thing doesn’t necessitate it’s existence.

Kristie, nice post. The reason why I disagree with you, cheddarsox, is because it is not a matter of simply “wanting” there to be a god. Many people who believe in God would rather there not be one. Why do even the simplest and most primitive civilizations have gods? Why do they not simply go about their evolutionary business (survival)? The reason is that they have at least a basic understanding of cause and effect; they know that they are not simply there just because…

Many atheists I know and communicate with via forums like this, DO acknowledge that there is a higher power…the Universe. but they don’t worship it or deify it. They can reasonably see that there are things bigger and more powerful than humanity and themselves, but they don’t see those things as needing or requiring some sort of personal recognition.

A belief that the most powerful thing is in the material world, or more accurately the material world itself (the Universe) lacks substance. You are reverting to the belief that the universe created itself. The universe is the created thing and the universe is also the higher power. This makes little sense. If the universe, the material world, is finite and decaying, just as you are, then you are saying that your “higher power” is nothing more than you are. The universe itself does not need any personal recognition exactly because it is material and no different from us.

I don’t think most Atheists are fighting higher power as much as they are fighting humanity’s tendency to characterize it in such stupid ways.

And the more information we have, or seem to have, about the way things actually work, the stupider and more useless most of the characterization of higher powers appear.

These words, cheddarsox is exactly what I meant in the beginning of this thread. You make a strawman of our characterization of God. You aren’t really talking about the God we believe in, but about the Old Man With A Beard. The more information we have, it is true, the dumber the idea of the old man with a beard sounds. This is exactly why we don’t believe that God is an Old Man With a Beard. But seem keen on believing we do.

If I am incorrect, please tell me how the real Catholic characterization of God (who we Catholics believe God is) is so stupid.

 

[cheddarsox]

The reason why I disagree with you, cheddarsox, is because it is not a matter of simply “wanting” there to be a god. Many people who believe in God would rather there not be one. Why do even the simplest and most primitive civilizations have gods? Why do they not simply go about their evolutionary business (survival)? The reason is that they have at least a basic understanding of cause and effect; they know that they are not simply there just because…

Many people who don’t believe in a god would rather there was one. I’ve met many who earnestly sought a deity, practiced a theistic faith, and came up empty hearted and sorrowful. So wanting/not wanting seems not to determine much of anything.

People have gods because they are constantly trying to answer “why”, it is how our brains function, seeking cause and effect. Are we using the standards of primitives to judge the “reason” of faith? If so…then it seems that polytheism must be more reasonable…otherwise why would so many cultures have made the assumption there are many gods, and different gods for different peoples and places. Is it because they have a basic understanding of that truth as well?

A belief that the most powerful thing is in the material world, or more accurately the material world itself (the Universe) lacks substance. You are reverting to the belief that the universe created itself. The universe is the created thing and the universe is also the higher power. This makes little sense. If the universe, the material world, is finite and decaying, just as you are, then you are saying that your “higher power” is nothing more than you are. The universe itself does not need any personal recognition exactly because it is material and no different from us.

Hmm…but does not your theology teach that God needs no creator? then why assume the Universe does?It makes sense to you that there can be something that needs no creator…yet for some reason you think it is nonsensical for others to hold the same belief.You are misrepresenting my beliefs. I don’t claim the Universe is a created thing…that is what YOU claim about it.

We have very different understandings of the nature of reality, mine make no sense in your belief system and yours make little sense in mine. Our beliefs will not seem reasonable to one another, because our perceptions and experiences differ. We don’t inhabit the same Universe, you inhabit one created by your god, I do not. In your life, your god is your higher power, in my life, it is not. So, by the very nature of our experiences and beliefs, all arguements for the other’s position will not be sufficient, because the foundation for your arguments is your belief system and the foundation for mine, is mine.

I am NOT saying that the Universe is nothing more than I am…YOU are making that claim. I recognize it as a higher power, it is in control, controls matter and energy and their interactions, I don’t do those things. I am not in control. I recognize that.

If you truly don’t see the Universe as being any different than yourself, and that it is only material (what of energy and forces?), I would suggest that either your sense of self is wildly overinflated or you lack perspective. But then I guess that is no different than me not recognizing YOUR higher power. It is a matter of perspective, and faith.

And what evidence do you have that the Universe is finite or decaying?

You are correct that it needs no personal recognition. It is the higher power, so what would it need from something it, itself brought forth?

These words, cheddarsox is exactly what I meant in the beginning of this thread. You make a strawman of our characterization of God. You aren’t really talking about the God we believe in, but about the Old Man With A Beard. The more information we have, it is true, the dumber the idea of the old man with a beard sounds. This is exactly why we don’t believe that God is an Old Man With a Beard. But seem keen on believing we do.

If I am incorrect, please tell me how the real Catholic characterization of God (who we Catholics believe God is) is so stupid.

We are discussing atheism vs theism, no? I said that humans have a tendency to characterize deities in stupid ways. Do you not agree. I mean if you take a look at all the variety of deities out there…do you honestly think most of them make sense, are anything like accurate, or represent something that humanity should worship? I mean truly.

I did not single out the Catholic representation of the Divine, nor did I suggest it is an old man with a beard. Atheists don’t just deny the Catholic representation, they deny all representations, and I think most Catholics would even agree that most concepts of deity are pretty foolish and bizarre…that is why they don’t believe in them or worship them.

I did not insult the Catholic concept of the Divine, unless you choose to claim that my not accepting it as Ultimate Truth is the same as calling it stupid.

You are the only one who brought up anything about an old man with a beard.

The one thing I do have in favor of the logic of my higher power, is that everyone sees it, feels it, experiences it, is subject to it, is contained in it, supported by it, comes from it and will return to it. And it is pretty hard for anyone to claim otherwise without them seeming entirely delusional…most people don’t even try to deny the existence and enormity of the Universe, because it is so blatantly THERE.

Yet you think my beliefs are unreasonable, but your claims to a higher power that is impossible for most to sense isn’t.

?

cheddar

 

[Abelardo]

Many people who don’t believe in a god would rather there was one. I’ve met many who earnestly sought a deity, practiced a theistic faith, and came up empty hearted and sorrowful.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing. The fact that virtually all if not actually all primitive and ancient civilization had a god or gods is not anecdotal evidence. It shows an immensely widespread trend.

So wanting/not wanting seems not to determine much of anything.

Correct. But then you either contradict yourself or admit that primitive and ancient peoples had gods not because they wanted them to exist, but because:

they are constantly trying to answer “why”, it is how our brains function, seeking cause and effect.

So, which is it? Wanting something to be is not the same as understanding that something needs to be. Wanting there to be a god is not the same as saying that it makes sense that one exists.

Additionally, you are saying that these primitive people seek cause and effect, which is true. However, in your view the universe did not have a cause…it was just there. So, you are accepting that we live under the law of cause and effect (which is easy to see because even the most primitive peoples saw it) but only for most of the time, because when it was most important (important because it was the beginning of everything) matter did not need a cause. In the beginning, matter was just there. According to you, matter always was. I am sure you already know this, but virtually every scientist sees a problem with this view. If matter always was, then it would exist outside of time and space…but clearly it does not.

Are we using the standards of primitives to judge the “reason” of faith? If so…then it seems that polytheism must be more reasonable…otherwise why would so many cultures have made the assumption there are many gods, and different gods for different peoples and places. Is it because they have a basic understanding of that truth as well?

No, it does not follow. I was talking about reason for faith, not how reasonable individual faiths are. It is a widespread tendency that they have a god or gods. However, it is not a widespread tendency that they have the same gods. If they had the same gods, it would follow. I was talking about a widespread similarity—that they have a god or gods. You are talking about a widespread dissimilarity—that they have different gods. Because I cite similarity as evidence, validation upon the basis of dissimilarity does not follow.

Hmm…but does not your theology teach that God needs no creator?

Would he be God if he did? If he had been created, would not his creator be God instead of him?

then why assume the Universe does? It makes sense to you that there can be something that needs no creator…yet for some reason you think it is nonsensical for others to hold the same belief.

Why assume that the universe had a beginning? Because, as opposed to God, the universe exists in the planes of time and space–it is physical and temporal. Time is finite. The universe’s constantly changing condition necessitates its creating. It could not have always existed because of its mutable nature. Virtually no one, not even atheists claim that the universe always existed, cheddarsox. The most scientists and even militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens can say is “we are working on it.” They accept that saying the universe always existed is nonsensical.

You are misrepresenting my beliefs. I don’t claim the Universe is a created thing…that is what YOU claim about it.

But it is even worse that you think that the Universe always was (as opposed to the universe having created itself), because the empirical evidence of our world points completely to the contrary.

We have very different understandings of the nature of reality, mine make no sense in your belief system and yours make little sense in mine. Our beliefs will not seem reasonable to one another, because our perceptions and experiences differ. We don’t inhabit the same Universe, you inhabit one created by your god, I do not. In your life, your god is your higher power, in my life, it is not. So, by the very nature of our experiences and beliefs, all arguements for the other’s position will not be sufficient, because the foundation for your arguments is your belief system and the foundation for mine, is mine.

Right, but if you had not a little bit of hope that you could help me change my mind, you would not be here in this forum responding to my post. Additionally, our beliefs have to conform to reason. It does not make sense that the universe always was. As human being, we are able to self-actualize, and people do so every day. They change. Even if my hope is only minute, I still hope that you may change.

I am NOT saying that the Universe is nothing more than I am…YOU are making that claim. I recognize it as a higher power, it is in control, controls matter and energy and their interactions, I don’t do those things. I am not in control. I recognize that.

But laws and forces and constants still make sense in a created world. These laws are in control of the physical world. I know that if I jump off a tall building, I will fall and die from the impact. The universe does not need to control that. That is just the way it is. When something spectacular happens and these laws are bypassed, a miracle happens.

If you truly don’t see the Universe as being any different than yourself, and that it is only material (what of energy and forces?), I would suggest that either your sense of self is wildly overinflated or you lack perspective. But then I guess that is no different than me not recognizing YOUR higher power. It is a matter of perspective, and faith.

What of energy and forces? They, too, interact in the realm of time and space. The universe is nothing but the material. You say that the universe is in control. Just because apples keep falling to the ground instead of going up, electricity flows in a uniform way instead of irregularly, and atoms bond to form complex molecules you believe “the universe” is in control. These laws and constants do not mean that the universe is in control, unless what you mean by “universe” are the laws themselves. They are conditions that permit our existence and that of all other life. However, if you somehow think that the universe is in control, then the universe meant us to be alive, then you start personalizing the universe: the universe controlled the Big Bang (or whatever it was that spurred the formation of earth) so that Earth could start forming; the universe was in control of the formation of Earth so that it could have water and sustain life; even today, the universe controls its own laws so that we may continue to exist. So, in the end, you have to end up personalizing whatever it is that controls that which permits your existence. It wanted us to exist. It is a being of choice and volition.

And what evidence do you have that the Universe is finite or decaying?

Simply the fact that it changes and exists in the realm of time and space. Mutability indicates finiteness and decay. Ask any scientist.

You are correct that it needs no personal recognition. It is the higher power, so what would it need from something it, itself brought forth?

You are exactly right. God does not need our recognition. WE need to recognize him and worship him.

We are discussing atheism vs theism, no? I said that humans have a tendency to characterize deities in stupid ways. Do you not agree. I mean if you take a look at all the variety of deities out there…do you honestly think most of them make sense, are anything like accurate, or represent something that humanity should worship? I mean truly.

No. However, the sheer number of deities is not proof that they are all fake.

I did not single out the Catholic representation of the Divine

No, but you did include it as “stupid” in humankind’s characterizations of your “higher power.” Thus my question stands…what sounds about the Christian God sounds so outlandish (given that you do not want me to use the word you yourself did—stupid)?

The one thing I do have in favor of the logic of my higher power, is that everyone sees it, feels it, experiences it, is subject to it, is contained in it, supported by it, comes from it and will return to it.

No, everybody feels gravity, sees life, lives in the world, etc. That does not mean that the material “universe” is in control, unless you want to personalize the universe.

And it is pretty hard for anyone to claim otherwise without them seeming entirely delusional…most people don’t even try to deny the existence and enormity of the Universe, because it is so blatantly THERE.

Again, this only means that laws exist inside a place we call the universe. The universe is responsible for nothing. According to you, it just is. It created nothing, so it is responsible for nothing. So why call it a higher power?

 

[cheddarsox]

There are many other trends among primitive people, are we to understand them to be “true” as well? Human sacrifice and canabilism for instance, as required and approved by the gods, does that show that it must be “right”, because it was a primitive trend.

The Universe is more than the matter in it, it is the matter, energy, forces and sum total of all the interactions of those things.

What empirical evidence suggests the Universe ever wasn’t? The fact that it changes only shows that it is dynamic, not that it is finite. In fact finite and infinite are terms that are theoretical as well. Scientists are already well aware that the familiar outlines of our bodies and other things, are illusions, it is impossible really to tell where one thing ends and another begins, because the matter and energy are all interacting. There are not words in everyday language that are suitable to discuss the things hinted at by modern physics, they are beyond our senses to detect and may very well be beyond our minds capability to understand.

The hubris of a human claiming that something so much larger, older, and complex than themselves as finite is laughable…on an ultimate level. What we have the ability to know about the Universe is the real question, and indeed, we can never even be aware of our limitations, so to pretend we know anything like Ultimate truth about the Universe and the nature of reality is foolishness. We don’t, and any honest scientist will admit just how “out there” modern physics is It is speculation, based on what we assume “must be true”,not unlike those primitives, their gods (many, remember…the similarity is that they all had MANY deities,that is not a disimilarity, its a similarity) and human sacrifice.Humans declare it “must be” and somehow have egos big enough to think the Universe, or Ultimate reality owes it to them to fall into place.

You assume a god that exists outside of time and space…how is it reasonable to assume anything exists outside of those things? Have you ever experienced something outside of time or space? How can something that exists in time and space know what may or may not exist in a reality that may or may not exist? Sounds like more speculation to me.

How do you know time is finite? Time is a shorthand term we use for a very complex set of ocurrances, it is an illusion based on a reality. We experience it one way, due to our senses, but what we experience is not the full reality of that which we call time.

You make claims about the universe based on the foundation that it is a created thing controlled by your god. You dismiss huge things, based on your faith, not on evidence. You dismiss gravity as if it is of little importance, just the way it is…nothing behind it…nothing to get excited about. I find that odd.

You define the Universe as nothing but material…as if the forces are incidental, yet you can do nothing that is not a result of and controlled by those forces. Nothing. I posit that is evidence that the Universe does, in fact, control you.

Pray, wish, concentrate, etc…but you are still subject to gravity. No escape.

Saying the Universe is in control does not in any way personalize it. It is simply a statement of fact. I am not the one who cannot grasp that something just like me but bigger is NOT behind everything. I have made no claim that the Universe “chooses” to do things the way some faiths claim their deities do. Things are as they are because that is the nature of the Universe. It does not behave like humans, that is pretty clear from simple observation.

I do not have to personalize that which is the source of my existence. I don’t. I don’t claim things “have to be” a ceratain way, or assume the Universe made a personal decision to create me or the earth. You are doing that, not me. That is not how I relate to the Universe. It Is.

Apparently your mind cannot fathom that something comes into existence without an act of “will”…and are having a hard time understanding that there are faiths that don’t “need” that as well. Pantheism isn’t like that. We don’t always fall back on "an invisible being " as an explanation for things, because we don’t see any evidence of such a being.

Nothing in the Universe or the way it operates supports the idea that something like us but bigger is responsible for it. Human ego might hunger for such an explanation, but it is not supported by reality. Humans may wish they were the reason for the Universe to exist and that somehow they alone will be singled out for eternal existence, but there is nothing that supports that.

However, I understand that for many people to find reason and purpose in their lives, they need to be able to believe that they have some eternal importance, that they are the reason for everything else to exist, that they can/will somehow escape the fate of ceasing to exist in their current form. I see people here all the time claim that if it weren’t for their faith they’d be drug addicts, commit suicide, or go about raping and murdering people. So, if such a belief keeps them sane, functioning and happy, I’m all for it.

I post here because I find it interesting, I have no reason to want to change your mind, indeed, society is probably better off it you don’t give up that which holds you stable. And since the Universe is not affected by whether or not you recognize it as a higher power…no harm no foul.

You do seem to like to assign your own explanations and understandings of things to me.You assume that because you think a certain way, so must I. It’s called projection, and I think it is what many people do with “gods” as well, rather than accept reality, they project their own feelings, etc onto something else.

You may care to change my mind, but I recognize that I gain nothing by changing yours. I am here to discuss ideas, because I find them interesting. I didn’t start this thread, I didn’t come here poking at your faith and calling it unreasonable.

I did not claim that the number of deities is evidence that they are all fake. I said that most of the characterizations of them are ridiculous, that is one of the reasons atheists find religion foolish, because, frankly, so much of it is. Most people don’t study every faith in depth before deciding what they will believe. They take their experiences and make a decision based on it.

There may be some characterization of a deity out there that might convince even a hardened atheist to consider it plausible…but maybe they haven’t stumbled on it yet, and maybe they never will…or some people may actually find all characterizations of deity stupid and unnecessary. Many atheists I have talked to seem to feel that way…that deity is unneccessary, so they find all attempts to characterize it an exercise in foolishness.

That is their position, which you find unreasonable.

I did not include Catholicism’s characterization of it’s god in humanity’s stupid characterizations. I did not single out any representation, I simply said most.

You are trying to misrepresent me as attacking or ridiculing the god of Catholicism, which I have not done. All I’ve said is that I do not believe your representation to be Ultimate Truth.

Atheism is not about not agreeing with one groups particular idea about their god, it is not agreeing with the concept of “god” at all. That is what is found faulty and lacking, the idea that humanity is what its all about and the projection that something “like us” must be responsible for all that is.

I think that the Universe is bigger than any deity, more worthy of awe, and more trustworthy, in its impersonal reality, than any deity.

People make all manner of claims about their god,none of which they can support with empirical evidence (since your arguments suggest that is the type that you are impressed by) and then claim that others are unreasonable for NOT believing.

I am ok with admitting I don’t understand how everything came to be, and with the fact that I am going to die, and cease to be, and that the higher power hasn’t chosen me for a very special eternal mission. I could make up stories to answer those questions, or address those concerns…but I realize that they would just be stories, not Ultimate Reality.

I don’t claim to understand Ultimate Reality, indeed pantheism acknowledges that humans are too limited to grasp it, but we also understand that we don’t have to. The Universe goes on whether we understand it or not, that’s one of the reasons we recognize it as a higher power, because it demonstrates itself to be so.

The Universe is responsible for everything, it IS everything. That is why I call it a higher power, because it IS.