Why atheism doesn't make any sense

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Okay, let's first make sure we use the same definition here. By atheists, I mean people who believe that God doesn't exist. By God, I mean a conscious, intelligent creator of our universe.

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid. Something can't come out of nothing. It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

Don't agree with me? Just think about it, it's purely illogical. It's even more illogical than believing the earth is flat. Just -think- about it. It's totally impossible for me to understand how people have actually thought this thing through and settles on that explanation. To believe that your awareness is merely electrical impulses, that it ceases to exist as soon as your brain stops functioning. As if you yourself is just some illusion.

However, if you look at it the opposite way, that matter and universal laws and energy patterns were created by a mind, the only constant thing that exists, what we really are, there are no philosophical paradoxes left. At least for me. If someone still disagree, I might as well give up, I can't explain it any better than this. I just don't get how people can believe that God doesn't exist.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,844 • Replies: 86

No top replies

@Stormalv,

Stormalv,

Who's defination of god would you like to deal with, modern physics is indicating presently that empty space is indeed not empty, it is possiable that there is no such thing as nothingness. That fact is our very day understanding is limited by our biology, if ultimatie reality is something that you think you know, you need to get out more, apparent reality is a biological readout that we clearly know to be inadequate, that is why it is called apparent and not ultimate reality. Theism is a simplistic answer that comforts the faint of heart.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Stormalv,

"Who's defination of god would you like to deal with......"?

Boagie my friend, those ten words identify the problem. As if we could "identify" what God is. The simple truth is we just are not that smart, no matter how much we think we are. In any effort to "define" God, we really get screwed up. Because we don't understand, we then should just "dismiss" it, is, IMO just a case of extreme egotism. I have tried to come up with another word that would better illustrate the Atheist and for the life of me I cannot think of one other than that of one, who for reasons for which I cannot begin to understand, who cannot imagine anyone better than themselves. Now that is true, there is no one "better" than another. The irony is for any individual to profess "all knowledge", which is what one would be implying by believing "there is no God in any context imaginable" is in and of itself proclaiming a "pseudo" knowledge that leads them to believe they are "better" than anyone else as they know all there is to know. I fully understand agnosticism (if that is even a word) and it make's absolute sense to me. But for anyone to arbitrarily just say "no God" is an arrogance that I cannot perceive. As our friend stormaly mentioned, it makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.

IMO,
William

2 Replies

@William,

Neither the self assured atheist nor the babblling theist are on logical ground, if one is to shut up they both need to. Sweet silence!!

2 Replies

@boagie,

Stormalv;28053 wrote:

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid. Something can't come out of nothing. It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

This is a good faith-based argument. However, it makes some assumptions that are difficult to come to terms with. It cannot be proven, yet one cannot disprove it either. So where does that take the argument? I would recommend familiarizing yourself, or at least reading, this before you start making too many blanket statements about what is and isn't possible: Critical Thinking Field Guide (Skeptical Inquirer Winter 1990)

Stormalv;28053 wrote:

Don't agree with me? Just think about it, it's purely illogical. It's even more illogical than believing the earth is flat. Just -think- about it. It's totally impossible for me to understand how people have actually thought this thing through and settles on that explanation. To believe that your awareness is merely electrical impulses, that it ceases to exist as soon as your brain stops functioning.

And this is a key point, apparently. It's impossible for you to understand. Not me. And I have thought about it. For about 40 years now. I still don't have the confidence to make these sorts of statements. Perhaps I lack faith. Perhaps I'm just stupid, which is the conclusion reached by many about those who don't embrace their ideas/ideologies.

Stormalv;28053 wrote:

As if you yourself is just some illusion.

If you know where the self exists, as a solid, identifiable, tangible entity, let me know. I'm still looking.

Stormalv;28053 wrote:

If someone still disagree, I might as well give up, I can't explain it any better than this. I just don't get how people can believe that God doesn't exist.

Fortunately, your continued existence does not depend upon you "getting it." If you believe in God, then God exists. For you. Personal belief, however, does not imply universal truth. Other people's mileage may vary. Give them the courtesy of letting them hold their own reins.

__________
"Convictions create convicts." --Robert Anton Wilson

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Neither the self asured atheist nor the bablling theist are on logical ground, if one is to shut up they both need to. Sweet silence!!

Babling? Self-assured? Interesting how you put that. No condescension here? Come on boagie, you can do better than that. :poke-eye:

William

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Stormalv wrote:

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead.

First of all, what you type here is not reasoning, it's an affirmation. You say life "can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead." Please do elaborate. What was the reasoning process, step by step, that led you to be absolutely 100% certain that a living cell can not appear naturally from spontaneous chemical reactions. By the way, "other people told me so" isn't reasoning, it's parroting.

Secondly, I have a few questions. If tomorrow a scientist creates, from inanimate matter, a living cell capable of evolution and ultimately becoming human, will you give up the idea of a supernatural being ? What if a scientist finds a way to interrupt the particle-antiparticle quantum events that make empty space not so empty and effectively create matter "out of nothing" ? Will you bring him goats and your first born ?

To me it seems your "simple reasoning", as you put it, goes like this :

I can't explain how life appeared therefore God did it. Or
I don't know how life appeared therefore God did it. Or
I don't know something therefore I know God exists. Or
I don't know something therefore I know something. Wait, what ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

Babling? Self-assured? Interesting how you put that. No condescension here? Come on boagie, you can do better than that. :poke-eye:

William:)

Which do you consider I am condescending to, the self assured or the babbling, or are you offended for both? What do you have against sweet silence?

2 Replies

@boagie,

This is one of my favorite songs . . . .
Frank Zappa: Dumb all over

0 Replies

@William,

William;28071 wrote:

boagie wrote:
Stormalv,

"Who's defination of god would you like to deal with......"?

Boagie my friend, those ten words identify the problem. As if we could "identify" what God is. The simple truth is we just are not that smart, no matter how much we think we are. In any effort to "define" God, we really get screwed up. Because we don't understand, we then should just "dismiss" it, is, IMO just a case of extreme egotism. I have tried to come up with another word that would better illustrate the Atheist and for the life of me I cannot think of one other than that of one, who for reasons for which I cannot begin to understand, who cannot imagine anyone better than themselves. Now that is true, there is no one "better" than another. The irony is for any individual to profess "all knowledge", which is what one would be implying by believing "there is no God in any context imaginable" is in and of itself proclaiming a "pseudo" knowledge that leads them to believe they are "better" than anyone else as they know all there is to know. I fully understand agnosticism (if that is even a word) and it make's absolute sense to me. But for anyone to arbitrarily just say "no God" is an arrogance that I cannot perceive. As our friend stormaly mentioned, it makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.

IMO,
William

Are you really suggesting that disbelief is a function of ego, that Atheists don't believe in God because they won't/can't tolerate the idea that there might be someone/something better than they are?

2 Replies

@TickTockMan,

:rolleyes: Ticktockman,
Faint hearts cannot support great cognitvie efforts!!!:brickwall: Laughing

straight from the mouth of a talking snake!!

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

William wrote:
Babling? Self-assured? Interesting how you put that. No condescension here? Come on boagie, you can do better than that. :poke-eye:

William:)

Which do you consider I am condescending to, the self assured or the babbling, or are you offended for both? What do you have against sweet silence?

I don't think the adjectives are needed in either case. Neither really fit. One can be self assured without being egotistical, and can have a zeal that is not "babling". As far as the sweet silence, that is just acquiescense (I think this is what you are referring to) of one to ther other and that has never happened and as long as man is divided in these two crucial areas without some some productive communication, we will continure to kill each other. Yes, sweet silence would be nice, unfortunately we are entirely to accustom to "noise". It's just the way things are. Sad, but true. My two cents.

William

P.S. I realize I did use "ego" language in my post, but also stressed my frustration at trying to find a more appropriate word. If you know of one please clue me in. Please keep in mind the context of my post. Really, for one to emphatically know there is no God, is unfathomable.

1 Reply

@William,

Call it mystery, call it wonder, and no one will have any problems.:brickwall: God can be anything by defination, so, it is indeed a mystery.:detective:

Reduced prices for Christians, bomb making materials.

Sarah Palin for president? DUH!! REPUBLICANS!! DUH!! THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT WING!!!!! DUH!!!!!!:lol:GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! OUR HOME SWEET -----HOME!!!!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

William;28091 wrote:

P.S. I realize I did use "ego" language in my post, but also stressed my frustration at trying to find a more appropriate word. If you know of one please clue me in. Please keep in mind the context of my post. Really, for one to emphatically know there is no God, is unfathomable.

Given, but one can emphatically believe there is no God.

I might further go on to say that if one uses the same logic of faith-based arguments in favor of God's existence, then emphatic disbelief in God could with equal validity argue nonexistence.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

There is a single truth which, by definition, must apply (must be true) for everyone. You can't find anyone that disagrees about 1+1 being 2.

Either gods do exist OR do not. You can't have it both ways.

So when people say "for me, gods exist because I believe", it doesn't make it true for everybody, because truth must apply (must be true) for everybody. The theist person, in their own mind, believes gods exist, even if it's impossible to know it (to prove it). So the theist is up there at 100% belief - personal, in their own mind - not doubting for one second the existence of gods. 100%.

Now, you would assume the atheist person must be at 0% belief right ? Well you'd be wrong, because that would make the atheist as irrational as the theist.

Why ? Because the atheist can never prove by any means the non-existence of gods (or blue flying pigs). So being 100% certain gods DON'T exist (that is, have 0% belief in gods) would put the atheist in the same bucket with the theist - being certain about something without proof.

What an atheist actually does is objectively judge the probability of gods to exist and of course he comes up with next to zero support for believing in gods. So an atheist's belief in gods tends to 0% while never reaching it (0% would mean the atheist can prove gods don't exist).

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28101 wrote:

You can't find anyone that disagrees about 1+1 being 2.

It still comes across as being a semantics game, in many respects. Anything can be twisted around. I believe I could successfully prove that
1 + 1 doesn't always add up to two.

That being said, your thoughts here are excellent, and echo my own.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

Sneaky edit !!!!!!!!! What do you mean by twisted around ?

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

Please be sure to read my whole post and understand the point before you post (not aimed at everyone here of course), consciousness is the deal here, not cells or evolution. And I won't read that stupid article either. ^^

2 Replies

@Stormalv,

Stormalv wrote:

Please be sure to read my whole post and understand the point before you post (not aimed at everyone here of course), consciousness is the deal here, not cells or evolution. And I won't read that stupid article either. ^^

You mean this ?

Stormalv wrote:

[...] consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead [...] It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

I will just ask again: if you can't explain something you see as very complex and apparently inexplicable - Why is that you MUST bring something of an infinite more complexity into existence, something of supernatural origin ? That doesn't make any sense to me.

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28103 wrote:

Sneaky edit !!!!!!!!! What do you mean by twisted around ?

Sorry about the sneaky edit. No malign intent meant. I was hoping I caught my typo error before anyone had read it. "My bad," to use the vernacular.

By twisted around, I mean I could say, "1+1 often equals 2, but not always."
Were someone to protest, I could then say, "What does 1 drop of water plus 1 drop of water equal?"

The semantic twist comes about by misdirection or lack of clarity (whether unintentional or not) in the original statement or problem. Saying "what does 1 drop of water combined with one drop of water equal" is a totally different proposition than 1 drop of water plus one drop of water.

Now, if anyone finds the point I was trying to make, please let me know as I seem to have misplaced it.

1 Reply

Why atheism doesn't make any sense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know