Why do you not believe in god(s)?

[m4rble]

quote name="m4rble" post="1061919730" timestamp="1475470128"]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I find this particular saying irritating because what qualifies as an "extraordinary claim" is entirely subjective and intuitive, yet the people making the claim often look down on intuition and subjectivity. This claim seems to demonstrate a lack of imagination and/or perspective.(the people making it might not necessarily lack these things)The basic spirit of the claim is true but there are much better(though perhaps not as catchy) ways of saying it.

You're belief is subjectivity and intuition in a nutshell and quite meaningless to anyone but yourself. Okay if the existence of a supernatural creator isn't extraordinary then I suppose Fairies at the bottom of the garden, golden Unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I just feel it's out there) are not extraordinary either and the burden of proof must be on those who don't believe in these magical beings!

Well if you didn't like that quote by the great Carl Sagan for being over intuitive and subjective try these ones by the great Richard Dawkins;

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

You're entirely missing my point. It's not about what's not extraordinary. It's about what is extraordinary that seems to get sidestepped. Anyway, I said that it was basically true but stated in a pretty poor way imo. All you really need to say is that claims need evidence, adding the word, "extraordinary," just makes the argument more convoluted and it detracts from the meaning imo. Now, if you were to say that religion puts forth an extraordinary amount of claims which are significantly different from our current knowledge of the universe as we know through our best ways of learning about the universe, that would be a lot more meaningful. The claim being extraordinary is not why it needs an extraordinary amount of evidence. It needs that amount of evidence because it is so different from everything else people have discovered about the universe with our best science(although that's painting things with a rather broad stroke, but that's still true).

[fissiparity]

Well I'm sorry but seeing the face of Jesus in a peice of toast just isn't going to cut it as evidence these days.

[m4rble]

Well I'm sorry but seeing the face of Jesus in a peice of toast just isn't going to cut it as evidence these days.

Obviously.

Edit: It occurs to me they, "put" the word, "extraordinary," to prevent people from peddling shit as legitimate evidence(I'm very well aware there is not legitimate evidence) , but I was just being more picky about the exact wording. You seem to be taking my argument to be something that it's not.

[Nidwin]

I've lost the need for any kind of belief a long time ago, as a young teenager. It's pointless and unproductive. I just evaluate evidence and see if I'm fine with it, if it works for me, or not, and that's it.

So all "evidence" brought forward by religions, spirituals, ghost hunting squads, psykickers, ... didn't work for me. And if that wasn't enough, gods seem to require us to worship them and that's something that I find unacceptable because for a crap load of evidence of wrongdoing because of worshipping or being worshipped.

[m4rble]

Sorry I went off on a tangent, that's not what this thread was supposed to be about.

[Finn.]

I appreciate people praying for me.

Personally, I tend to be annoyed with the whole "praying for other people" thing. It always seems like a lazy way for people to pretend like they've done something - I don't know, maybe it's for their own ego. If they wanted to help, there a lot of actions that can translate into real world results instead.

Mmh, maybe we have just different experiences with this. I worked at a retirement home for a while, and you know, you bond with people. So several people there told me at some point or another that they will pray for me. They liked me, they appreciated my help and couldn't do much in return. So they prayed. And it's a nice gesture, I really took it as a compliment and sort of as a gift. It didn't have anything to do with ego in these cases.

[ChillaKilla]

When it comes to people saying "I'll pray for you" to me, it really depends on context. If it's a stranger and I'm obviously having a tough day/week/etc., then I'll obviously appreciate the sentiment. If it's a friend who knows my religious status, then it's likely a joke, and I'll laugh. If it's about my gender/sexuality, then they can shut the f*** up.

[Zerο]

I appreciate people praying for me.

Personally, I tend to be annoyed with the whole "praying for other people" thing. It always seems like a lazy way for people to pretend like they've done something - I don't know, maybe it's for their own ego. If they wanted to help, there a lot of actions that can translate into real world results instead.

Mmh, maybe we have just different experiences with this. I worked at a retirement home for a while, and you know, you bond with people. So several people there told me at some point or another that they will pray for me. They liked me, they appreciated my help and couldn't do much in return. So they prayed. And it's a nice gesture, I really took it as a compliment and sort of as a gift. It didn't have anything to do with ego in these cases.

I'll agree that there are cases where people can't help even if they wanted to and I hold no resentment towards them for that. I just get rubbed the wrong way when I see that response after a natural disaster or something similar, fuck prayers, send clean water or resources instead.

[Finn.]

I'll agree that there are cases where people can't help even if they wanted to and I hold no resentment towards them for that. I just get rubbed the wrong way when I see that response after a natural disaster or something similar, fuck prayers, send clean water or resources instead.

Yeah, I totally agree. I doesn't really hold any meaning and seems like a cop out.

[nanogretchen4]

Some religious people may use prayer as an easy substitute for action, while others both pray and act. There are certainly some religious institutions that have notably high rates of activism, volunteerism, and/or donations to charitable causes. And I imagine there are some atheists who just don't believe in God and leave it at that, without much effort to actually fix the world's problems. Logically there is no either or between prayer and action.

[SorryNotSorry]

Because if God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, why is the world so f***ed up? Unless he hates us now. I just don't see how he can. I'm all for science, God only fills the gaps.

No deity or other being of spirit ever did a damn thing for me.

As I understand it, prayer = body hijack. How many times has that happened to you?

[Raina.]

Ok, so. Right, has anyone here seen Mr. Robot? It's one of my absolute favourite shows and quite honestly one of the best things I've ever come across! Now, there's a scene where Elliot's in a church group, and he's tripping on adderal, ranting, and of course it could sound a tad extreme to some, but when I saw this I was completely stunned and ended up clapping cause it actually pretty much sums up my feelings about the matter. Then again, this could have been me on a trip as well. If you're actually into the show and haven't seen season two yet, spoilers ahead, I guess?

Is that what God does? He helps? Tell me, why didn't God help my innocent friend who died for no reason while the guilty roam free? Okay, fine. Forget the one-offs. How about the countless wars declared in his name? Okay, fine, let's skip the random, meaningless murder for a second, shall we? How about the racist, sexist phobia soup we've all been drowing in because of him? And I'm not just talking about Jesus. I'm talking about all Organised Religion.

Exclusive groups created to manage control, a dealer getting people hooked on the drug of hope, his followers nothing but addicts who want their hit of bullshit to keep their dopamine of ignorance, addicts afraid to believe the truth. That there is no order, there’s no power, that all religions are just metastasizing mind worms meant to divide us so it’s easier to rule us by the charlatans that want to run us. All we are to them are paying fanboys of their poorly written sci-fi franchise. If I don’t listen to my imaginary friend, why the fuck should I listen to yours? People think their worship’s some key to happiness. That’s just how he owns you. Even I’m not crazy enough to believe that distortion of reality. So fuck God. He’s not a good enough scapegoat for me.

[Peachyy]

why not?

Because there is no reason to. The beauty of nature doesn't deserve the lethargic explanation of superstition to how any of it exists when there is much more miraculous, much more awe-inspiring evidence showing for the process of these foundations without the need for divine intervention.

[Guest]

try these ones by the great Richard Dawkins

I wince everytime when I hear Dawkins praised like this, unless it's for his works on evolution and biology. (As usual, recommending "The Blind Watchmaker" as the one must-read Dawkins book; sadly, it's been totally overshadowed by his later ramblings on religion, which are far less worth reading. And yes, I did read TGD front to back, I'm informedly critical of its failings.)

Regardless of whether someone believes in god(s) or not - and just for the record, even though it should be obvious: you bet that a solid number of folks who do are jerks, just as a solid number of those who don't are damn fine people -, one thing is pretty obvious to me: dawkins Is Not Great. [sic]

*helps myself out of thread again*

[fissiparity]

I wince everytime when I hear Dawkins praised like this, unless it's for his works on evolution and biology.

Which is exactly what I meant. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are still important works in their field. Nevertheless The God Delusion did receive some high accolades.

You seem to be under a misapprehension though, Richard doesn't ask that you agree with him just that you agree with the overwhelming evidence for Evolution by means of natural selection. I've always found him a eloquent spokesperson for Darwinian Evolution and atheism (which both go hand in hand and Darwin himself stopped attending Church later in life) but I would ask that you check out any number of scientists and philosophers who are also atheists such as Daniel Dennett, Lawrence M. Krauss etc.

it's been totally overshadowed by his later ramblings on religion

However to put the word ramblings in its proper context I suggest you watch Richard trying his best at rationally debating Darwin and Evolution with Wendy Wright a Creationist, Conservative and former CEO of Concerned Women for America. Then you might get a better appreciation of the word "ramblings".

It honestly seems as is you've read a doggerel article by some biased bearded hipster (e.g. is Richard ruining his reputation blah, blah, blah) which has made up your mind for you instead of reading and listening to extensive articles and videos Richard has made in recent years.

Also let's not forget Richard has got the courage of his convictions and he's angered quite a lot of people by being forthright in his views and not giving any religion or movement a special dispensation or quiet excusal from critiscism. He's got more heart than many of these trendy western bloggers half his age who don't want to upset the apple cart.

[fissiparity]

Here's what Sir David Attenborough said when asked if his observations of the natural world gave him any faith in a creator.

'My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [i ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'

[nanogretchen4]

Atheism is far from inevitable if one honestly accepts evolution by natural selection as fact. Maybe the literalist version of Christianity Darwin was raised with was in conflict with his theory. Meanwhile, I go to temple and with the possible exception of a few of the Christian visitors I've never met a literal creationist. I do meet a few frank atheists there, plus a lot of people who fully accept natural selection and strongly support accurate science teaching while not being atheists.

[fissiparity]

Evolution is a fact and there is no credible argument for intelligent design or creationism biblical or otherwise. An argument some intelligent design proponents make is that the Earth is fine tuned for life but I take exception to this as although the conditions eventually arose for life to evolve these conditions are certainly not hospitable and favourable to all life so if a creator exists it's certainly indifferent to the suffering and hardship that all life has to endure in order to survive.

[Guest]

I've always found him a eloquent spokesperson for Darwinian Evolution and atheism (which both go hand in hand[...])

Not to derail the thread, but I very much disagree with this bit. Theism, even (soft) creationistic theism, is perfectly compatible with accepting the theory of evolution.

Personally, I'll never be an atheist - I have not seeing any evidence or statement of logical reasoning to covince me that the god I believe in does not exist. Still, I consider evolution about as rock solid as a scientific theory gets; it's by far the most plausible theory we have for the diversity of species (and, ironically, it was Dawkins' writings that erased the last misconceptions I had about it. TBW may be a bit dated by now, but I still recommend it, wholeheartedly.)

That does not contradict the belief at all that (a) god "ignited" the Big Bang, and set up evolution as one of the principles/natural laws that the resulting universe would follow, once it unfolds into spacetime. You don't need to be an atheist in order to be an evolutionist. I'm living proof.

[nanogretchen4]

To be entirely clear, I do not believe in intelligent design. I accept natural selection without reservation. I couldn't care less whether some individuals privately believe in intelligent design, but I strongly oppose teaching that religious doctrine in science class. And technically, evolution by natural selection is a theory, as in a set of scientific ideas well supported by evidence. A fact is more like a single measurement or observation.

[Guest]

Evolution by means of natural selection is a fact

Ah, careful there. It's not a fact. It's a theory. No part of modern empirical science deals with statements about facts. Ever. Science deals with predictions of probabilities, based on assumptions.

Evolution by means of natural selection is a very, very solid and convincing theory that explains the set of data it extrapolates from beautifully and consistently, and has kept doing so even when we add more and more data to it. But any scientist worth his salt believes, without doubt, that it could still be 100% false and bogus, and prepares himself to abandon that theory the moment a more convincing one comes along.

If he doesn't believe this, then he's not an empirical scientist, he's an ideologue preaching Scientism - a quasi-religion as dogmatic as many other religions, and more foolish and misguided than most of them.

[fissiparity]

That does not contradict the belief at all that (a) god "ignited" the Big Bang, and set up evolution as one of the principles/natural laws

Show me some evidence that God set up evolution? Yes there are unsolved problems in biology, physics and cosomolgy but filling these in with a supernatural creator a GOD OF THE GAPS seems to be an easy cop out which is one reason a creator is not discussed in scientific research and only taken seriously by those indoctrinated with religion and new age charlatans.

[Guest]

To be entirely clear, I do not believe in intelligent design. I accept natural selection without reservation.

And I.D. is only one form of creationism. Indeed, it's one specific form that is fully incompatible with the theories formulated by Darwin and his successors. (If someone believes in both I.D. and evolution, they have completely misunderstood at least one of these.)

Show me some evidence that God set up evolution?

Show me evidence that he didn't.

[fissiparity]

In the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

[Telecaster68]

There's an invisible squirrel on your head. Show me some evidence there isn't.

[fissiparity]

Show me some evidence that God set up evolution?

Show me evidence that he didn't.

The burden of evidence is on you I'm afraid as it is you making extraordinary claims and as we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Guest]

Show me some evidence that God set up evolution?

Show me evidence that he didn't.

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid as it is you making extraordinary claims and as we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why did I know that this nonsensical spiel would be played the moment you made the - evidently misinformed, and woefully unscientific - statement that "evolution is a fact"?

I'm not discussing this with you further before you let go of your dogmatic faith. I don't debate fundies of any religion - be it Christianity, Islam, Atheism, whathaveyou - it's a waste of time.

[Rising Sun]

If God is the Universe / Multiverse, evolution was set up by God, as part of God's source code.

Your mission is to disprove this argument with only logical and factual elements (no "the Christian definition of God is the only valid definition" type of argument please). ^_^

[fissiparity]

that this nonsensical spiel would be played the moment you made the - evidently misinformed, and woefully unscientific - statement that "evolution is a fact"?

Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of bird-like dinosaurs that is transitional between non-avian feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

[Guest]

Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of bird-like dinosaurs that is transitional between non-avian feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

A doughnut or donut (/ˈdoʊnət/ or /ˈdoʊnʌt/; see spelling differences) is a type of fried dough confectionery or dessert food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut

Equally as relevant to the question as your post. I guess that proves creationism... somehow?