A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

Forums: Religion, Nature, Atheism, Spirituality
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In explaining my reasons for atheism, I think it's first and foremost important to point out that Atheism isn't a proposal; it is skepticism.

I am not angry at any gods, so atheism is not some sort of rebellion.

Simply put, I believe in a natural universe. A natural universe is what we experience. It is verifiable. To quote Buckminster Fuller: "Nature requires no calculation to act with the greatest economy."

To claim that a god exists is a great claim, perhaps the greatest claim possible. It is literally the claim to know what the highest form of life/energy/intelligence is in the entire universe, and that they can and do violate the rules of nature at their whim. Such a great claim requires great evidence. Such a burden has never been met. Since it has never been met, there is no reason to believe in any gods.

A
R
T

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 13,316 • Replies: 215

Listening in....

0 Replies

@failures art,

I agree with you art. I think for a majority of theists they simply can not understand how a person could not believe, so they try to come up with all these sort of asinine reasons for why a person wouldn't believe. But at the same time, I think theists might feel skeptical but they are afraid of being skeptical because they have been told so many times by their minister or reverends that if you are skeptical then you will be punished for it. So in a way i think theists are back into corners, they can't move around, and are scolded for thinking or using reasoning. Then they try to rationalize their position and defense of it but it fails to convince anyone outside of that arena.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

I don't think this is the kind of thing that one person can honestly convince another as to the validity of.

For one, much of this sort of thing is wrapped up in organized religion, and gets very muddled, depending on where your beliefs lie.

What is "god"?

I believe one either believes, or you don't, depending on what one's experiences have been. Experiences are very personal, and I wouldn't even try to share them with anyone, never mind "convince" them.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Hmmm, looks like I can answer Finn here...

I think I'm probably pretty close to what you lay out. I'm very impressed with nature -- I think it has organically accomplished some really amazing things. I like pattern, I like order, and it's fun to find it in nature. I love to see the whys -- this evolved for that reason, for example. Not everything is patterned and orderly in nature, though, of course. A whole lot of stuff is random. Not everything has a reason.

I think its awe-inspiring that something did start -- I think there were organic, natural reasons for it but I think that's pretty amazing. I think some people would classify this awe alone as a type of religion. I don't.

I also don't take it any further than that. "Wow nature" doesn't translate into going to any particular church or ascribing to any particular set of beliefs. It's just "wow nature."

Meanwhile, I DO have a set of beliefs based on my culture(s), experiences, reading, observations, etc. I've described myself before as "sickeningly moral" -- I managed to arrive at that state without being religious at any point.

0 Replies

From the other thread, I've C&P one of Finn's posts...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A common theme within the justification of atheist thought is the inability to reconcile human suffering with a God of any sort, let alone a just and loving one.

Why does a Atheist have to justify that they are unconvinced?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dlowan, apparently, is faced, on a daily basis, with the evil of which mankind is capable and she has somehow connected the belief in God with a victim's belief that his or her suffering is deserved. Labelling both irrational.

She could also be thinking that the suffering is NOT deserved.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Unfortunately, to a child, drawing a cause and effect relationship between their abuse and their conduct is entirely rational. They are, after all, children.

Not entirely wrong Finn. Children do make false associations, but adults specifically train children to have many of those associations. In the case of the welfare of mankind (the "abuse") being linked with the actions (the "conduct") of mankind, this is a religious association, not a atheistic one. An atheist addressing this view is addressing the illogic of a theistic position, not the other way around.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Similarly, it is the residue of this child-like perspective that directs many aetheists to their position of denial.

A failure to be convinced of something because no compelling case can be built is hardly the fault of atheists. It's not like Theists are eagerly presenting a overwhelming body of evidence. Quite contrary really.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As adults, we can see that the child's behavior can never be the justifaction for abuse, but some of us are locked into this very human calculation when it comes to consideration of the devine.

Again, this is a religious association that you are making, not an atheistic one. Atheists didn't say god punished Haiti with a earthquake. Atheists didn't think that Haiti fate was "justified." Atheists understood it was a natural event, and nothing more.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A just and loving father would never abuse his children no matter what their behavior, and yet a just and loving God seems to. Therefore they must either excuse the abusive father or deny the abusive God.

Who created this father-god claim you keep talking about? It wasn't atheists.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The fallacy here, of course, is that the imagery of God the Father is entirely the creation of humans and their narrow perspective, and it is child-like to insist that God demonstrate the behaviors of the best of earthly human fathers.

All details about all gods are the creation of humans and their narrow perspective.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

These are atheists who do not deny God so much as they deny the facile Christian version of God, and, unfortunately, they seem to be unable to consider God through anything but a facile Christian perspective.

Only one of us is attempting to make a discussion on this monotheistic. It is not me. I was raised with a very diverse exposure to many religions.

Shinto
Buddhism
Native American Shamanism
Protestant Christianity (Baptist, Lutheran, and a slew of others...)
Catholic Christianity
Mormonism (RCLD)
Wicca
and in a lesser sense the Greek and Roman Pantheon.

I make no special case for Christianity in my argument. It is but one of many religions, that in no way are any less false.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Take it a step further though and you can see how truly child-like many atheists perceptions of God are. What child ever accepts that the punishment he or she receives is an act of love? They are certainly capable of of connecting punishment to behavior, but incapable of the reasoning behind the desire to manage behavior. This isn't something you can bring a child to understand through reasoning. They will never associate punishment with love, and they will always associate punishment with displeasure or dissapointment.

What punishment are you referring to here?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not a Christian, in part because the common practice is too desperate to reduce God to human terms, but I do believe that a Christian of thought understands that we can only hope to perceive God's plan, and trusts that he is not insane.

That's a lot of assumptions to make. I've seen nothing to convince me to believe the same.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Of course this is not to say that all atheists are the disappointed adult children of a Christian God, but it's hard to understand their insistence, or the professed understanding behind that insistence, that God, in any manner, can[not] exist.

I think you made a typo? See my edit above in square brackets.

I do not have any obligation to prove something does not exist. Until any gods are proven to exist, it does not make any sense (daresay I--it is irresponsible) to assume they do.

If you'd like to propose any specific god or gods and provide proof/evidence for their supposed acts, you may do so. However, making some nebulous there must be some sort of singular male deity (you've only referred to one and it has been addressed as male) but not putting up the ante to prove it...

Well...

A
R
That's rather unconvincing.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

so atheism is not some sort of rebellion.

I beg to differ. Note that the very term "a-theism" is predicated on "theism".

Speaking as an "atheist" I have come to realise that applying that label to myself has little to do with ontological questions about the nature of "existence" and "evidence", but has everything to do with a rejection of the social straight-jacket of organized religion, which in our life-time has been demonstrated to be particularly pernicious.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Let's not go all legalistic and literal here.

"Atheist" is just a term. It does not imply rebellion unless we force it to. If we MUST adhere to it being a word to describe a person of theistic rebellion, then I can't use it can I?

Would discussion be any way assisted if I forced myself to use "skeptic" or some other term instead? I don't think it would really help that much.

Let's keep this simple. I personally don't need theists to be defined as "Anaturalists." Cool

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I think you miss the point. What theists call "God" eludes the normal criteria for "existence" and consequently the normal criteria for "evidence". Indeed, believers argue that the existence of anything is evidence for them of "a creator". Therefore it is a straw man issue to ask them to "show us the evidence".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Oh, I get that fresco. The faith-alone mentality is one I'm familiar with. Note the title of the thread. I'm simply unconvinced by this argument. It's not unreasonable that I'm unconvinced by it either.

I'm not sure how it's a straw man though. Asking a person of faith to prove something to you might to them seem non sequitur to them, but I can't understand how it would be a tailored false argument.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Finn d'ABuzz wrote:

If you don't find a belief in God to be intuitive, that's fine, but don't try and compare it to a belief in unicorns if you don't want to be called on your comparison.

It's a valid comparison. What's wrong with it?

You stated earlier that a god is intuitive. How will you demonstrate/support this? Is this the same for all gods or the unnamed singular male one referenced earlier?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

My solution (expounded at length elsewhere)is that "existence" is about relationship between concepts (technically called "nominalism" as opposed to "realism") and relational concepts are all we can discuss. The concept "atheism" has a particular relationship with the concepts "god" and "evidence" which differs signifanctly from that of "theism". But these concepts are also related to concepts of "self" such that "selves" for theists do not so much have "faith" as are "faith". ( In term as of set theory, "theistic selves" are a subset of "faithful entities").

Now you well argue that the analysis above is unfounded speculation, but it is at least an attempt to analyse why otherwise "intelligent persons" are held by the idea of theism beyond a simplistic need for psychological security.

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

In explaining my reasons for atheism, I think it's first and foremost important to point out that Atheism isn't a proposal; it is skepticism.

A
R
T

Hi Art
What is this God like, that you don't believe in.?

1 Reply

@failures art,

Bookmark

0 Replies

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

failures art wrote:

In explaining my reasons for atheism, I think it's first and foremost important to point out that Atheism isn't a proposal; it is skepticism.

A
R
T

Hi Art
What is this God like, that you don't believe in.?

Hello ABYA. Welcome to A2K!

I don't believe in any gods. Plural.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My solution (expounded at length elsewhere)is that "existence" is about relationship between concepts (technically called "nominalism" as opposed to "realism") and relational concepts are all we can discuss. The concept "atheism" has a particular relationship with the concepts "god" and "evidence" which differs signifanctly from that of "theism". But these concepts are also related to concepts of "self" such that "selves" for theists do not so much have "faith" as are "faith". ( In term as of set theory, "theistic selves" are a subset of "faithful entities").

Now you well argue that the analysis above is unfounded speculation, but it is at least an attempt to analyse why otherwise "intelligent persons" are held by the idea of theism beyond a simplistic need for psychological security.

I think calling god existence or existence = god is nothing different than saying gods create thunderbolts and earthquakes. It does not answer anything by saying god is existence, or the fact that there is existence means that it is evidence for a god. That is like saying since I exist, so do gremlins.

How can you draw the line and say, well a god exists because there is existence but a gremlin doesn't exist? You are only picking and choosing here but refusing to acknowledge that you are picking and choosing.

By what criteria are you using? It can't be that since there is existence, there is a god. That is not a basis. Because if it is, then all things mythological also have that same basis. So Zeus exists, Ra exists, the flying pink elephants exists. So which is it?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My solution (expounded at length elsewhere)is that "existence" is about relationship between concepts (technically called "nominalism" as opposed to "realism") and relational concepts are all we can discuss. The concept "atheism" has a particular relationship with the concepts "god" and "evidence" which differs signifanctly from that of "theism". But these concepts are also related to concepts of "self" such that "selves" for theists do not so much have "faith" as are "faith". ( In term as of set theory, "theistic selves" are a subset of "faithful entities").

If you find this post, I would love to read it in full. I do enjoy your thoughts and perspective. I'd like to learn more about the idea of nominalism, however for the purpose of this thread (at least for the moment) can we agree to a simpler use of the words "atheist" and "theist?"

fresco wrote:

Now you well argue that the analysis above is unfounded speculation, but it is at least an attempt to analyse why otherwise "intelligent persons" are held by the idea of theism beyond a simplistic need for psychological security.

I've offered my speculation on why people are held by the idea of theism in the past. I don't think I've reduced my opinion to it being held by a single thing. I'm sure there are multiple/overlapping/compound reasons that an individual might cling to faith. I can think of my own experience and project. I'm not claiming I know all the reasons why a person might struggle. I certainly don't think that religious people are any less intelligent than atheists. Atheism isn't a manifestation of higher intelligence.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Hi Art
I see from your original post that you believe in a natural order, now, if we look at the nature, of nature, that natural order is bestowing, nature provides us with everything and has brought everything into existance. Sounds a bit like God doesn't it.
This bestowing law that is nature, is what I call God
Perhaps your natural order and my God are one and the same thing.
I hope we are somewhere close in our beliefs, even if we differ in our terminology.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

I see from your original post that you believe in a natural order, now, if we look at the nature, of nature, that natural order is bestowing, nature provides us with everything and has brought everything into existance.

I believe in a natural universe.

ABYA wrote:

Sounds a bit like God doesn't it.

Which god? I suppose it could if you deimorphize nature into a sentient singularity that is "doing" things. I don't see any reason to attribute cognitive qualities to nature though.

ABYA wrote:

This bestowing law that is nature, is what I call God.
Perhaps your natural order and my God are one and the same thing.

Nature is indifferent. Is your god? Only gods make humans special or entitled.

ABYA wrote:

I hope we are somewhere close in our beliefs, even if we differ in our terminology.

I don't think this will be the case. I don't mystify nature to the degree needed to entertain the idea that nature itself is a god.

A
R
T

1 Reply

A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know