Jump to content

Why do you not believe in god(s)?


Ortac

Recommended Posts

Midnight Star

I do not believe in any gods because there is no hard evidence that any such being exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cosmosredshift7

I've had the idea of a god used as a way to scare me too many times in my life to see the concept of a god as anything else but a tool used to justify hatred, prejudice, and the murder of millions of people.

That and, personally, I think that we created the concept of an all-mighty being and a place where we will 'live eternally' as a way to deal with knowing about our own mortality. But I rarely say these things to religious people because they believe what they want to believe as long as they aren't using it to condemn others; no one likes a dick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't much reason to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There has been no evidence ever provided for the absence of gods. None whatsoever. (If so, cite it. No, evolution is quite obviously not evidence in any way, shape, of form.)

2) The claim is "god(s) do(es) not exist" (before you knee-jerk try to deny this, read fissi's posts again - I am 100% correct that this is the positive claim being made), and as gretchen correctly said above, this claim is made with the objective to convert people to atheism. So the burden is evidently and obviously on atheists, not on theists, because theists never make that claim, by definition. You need to prove nonexistence, or learn to stay a good bit more humble, accepting that your atheist faith is no better than any other religious faith in the world. (And if you want to babble something about "not playing baseball" now - please, friend, just don't. Spare yourself the indignity.)

There is no point for evidence against something that generates no footprint in the observable universe; you're asking for reverse shadows to be brought forward when someone hears a claim of unmeasurable existence and doesn't have faith for it. "Local scientists forego medical research to search for the nonexistence of a celestial Blue Fish after the suggestion is made by a Little Mermaid fan; next week they look for Orange Fish and Red Fish" we can take our time, all our time, trying to disprove any thought that someone thinks up; tell someone that something might exist, they might suggest something else exists, and we'll try to look for evidence that literally cannot be there so as not to look arrogant when we don't believe it. Faith is inescapable in everything we do: I have faith that the microwave will heat my shitty tv dinner all the way through because that's what the box says, but I learn afterwards whether or not that prediction was true. If it's still cold, next time I'll heat it an extra minute. A person of faith would continually heat with the setting suggested on the box because they believe that what they feel about the writing on the box is superior to the differing wattage of their microwave--- it doesn't matter how cold their food is. These are not the same faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in any gods because there is no hard evidence that any such being exists.

There is no light evidence that any such being exists either. Actually there is no evidence at all which for me is the crux of the matter.

When I say evidence I mean measurable, observable and testable and not uncorroborated textual accounts or unverifiable personal experiences.

Contrary to what Mysticus says I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism and if I am to be accused of this at least let it be said, conversion to reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if people might have some totally different reason for choosing religion.

Yes and that has to be respected and be taken into account in our societies without pushing atheism as some kind of new non religious belief. What matters Today isn't gods exist or do not exist but that a lot of people on our planet still hold strong religious or spiritual beliefs. We also need to learn the mistakes from the past and avoid at all cost a new "religious" war, in our case one between religious or spiritual beliefs versus non believers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in Gods or a denial of Gods; it is a lack of belief in Gods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no light evidence that any such being exists either. Actually there is no evidence at all which for me is the crux of the matter.

When I say evidence I mean measurable, observable and testable and not uncorroborated textual accounts or unverifiable personal experiences.

Let's try to take a different view on the subject, if you want of course, Fissi. Because I think it's an important subject linked with ethical questions for future generations to come.

The well known game Age of Empires.

Could we consider the player a very simplified version of a god?

As fo Today our games, including Age of Empires, and computer simulations are still "simple" enough that we don't have to worry about ethical questions. But the more time passes by the more games and simulations become more and more realistic up to the point that one day we could be confronted and ask ourselves the morality of our acts for our own creations, personalia inside a game or simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and that has to be respected and be taken into account in our societies without pushing atheism as some kind of new non religious belief. What matters Today isn't gods exist or do not exist but that a lot of people on our planet still hold strong religious or spiritual beliefs. We also need to learn the mistakes from the past and avoid at all cost a new "religious" war, in our case one between religious or spiritual beliefs versus non believers.

I can't think of any instances of atheists being physically aggressive or violent toward those holding religious beliefs. I can however name incidents where atheist and secular activists have been tragically murdered. I certainly respect the beliefs of others but this does not preclude debate and rigorous critiscism of religious belief systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The well known game Age of Empires.

Could we consider the player a very simplified version of a god?

Human actions and behaviours are not directed by an intelligently aware unseen force so the comparison is invalid in my opinion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The well known game Age of Empires.

Could we consider the player a very simplified version of a god?

Human actions and behaviours are not directed by an intelligently aware unseen force so the comparison is not valid in my opinion.

May be, may be not. How can we be certain that it's not the case? (not an attack but a question)

There's also no need for "directed by an intelligently aware unseen force" as this isn't how Today's simulations work. And when you see Today's simulation of our universe with super computers it's more than possible that it isn't a question of if but when before we'll be able to create simulations simulating evolution by natural selection.

Look at the irony of the situation Fissy. It's science that for the first time in human history comes forward with finaly a little itsy bitsy dust of evidence for the possible existence of a creator that can be studied and analysed by science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's science that for the first time in human history comes forward with finaly a little itsy bitsy dust of evidence for the possible existence of a creator that can be studied and analysed by science.

This sounds like a false positive based on confirmation bias and wish fulfilment. Yes, humans can achieve all sorts of marvellous feats with every new technological advancement but this has got nothing to do with any creator or has revealed any creator unless you back up that claim with some legitimate research or peer reviewed article which hints that a creator may exist. That doesn't mean dredge up the puesdo scientific woo-woo garbage the internet is famous for.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Stephen Hawking said about the possibility of God;

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

And let's play the same game as you played

Neil deGrasse Tyson

This is the crux of Tyson’s point: if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations — and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One Winged Angel

Who is Niel DeGrasse Tyson but the latest in a long line of cult-like leaders of the church of scientism, peddling anything and everything the mainstream control system wants you to believe. Not only that, but he is a GMO corporate shill, which is all you need to know about where he is coming from.

And no, I am not religious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice article Mysti.

Back in February, some of my sociologist friends retweeted another Tyson quip: “In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That’s why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard.”

This is so true and one of the issues in academia, human behavior having a very negative impact on science nowedays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

.

I'm sorry for snapping at you, Mysticus, there was no need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is Niel DeGrasse Tyson but the latest in a long line of cult-like leaders of the church of scientism, peddling anything and everything the mainstream control system wants you to believe. Not only that, but he is a GMO corporate shill, which is all you need to know about where he is coming from.

And no, I am not religious.

LOLOLOL

Most people who are anti GMO don't know the first thing about them.

And "scientism"? Really? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
One Winged Angel

Who is Niel DeGrasse Tyson but the latest in a long line of cult-like leaders of the church of scientism, peddling anything and everything the mainstream control system wants you to believe. Not only that, but he is a GMO corporate shill, which is all you need to know about where he is coming from.

And no, I am not religious.

LOLOLOL

Most people who are anti GMO don't know the first thing about them.

And "scientism"? Really? :lol:

Yes, really.

"lolololol" and smiley face all you like. I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is as much a religion as "off" is a TV channel.

Side note: I think the whole argument regarding the burden of evidence that's shaped around who is trying to convert who (Atheists vs theists) is pretty fucking stupid. Just look at the thread you're posting in, I don't see Atheists chiming in on why there are no Gods in the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this went political real fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

The pro belief thread makes no reference to atheists. While atheists in this thread did not technically post there, they did quote from that thread here. By the second page of this thread believers were being painted as hypocrites who pray but don't act, as addicts, and as gullible victims of fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pro belief thread makes no reference to atheists. While atheists in this thread did not technically post there, they did quote from that thread here. By the second page of this thread believers were being painted as hypocrites who pray but don't act, as addicts, and as gullible victims of fraud.

I haven't read all the posts in this so let me ask you this, were the posts quoting the other thread done unprovoked or as a response to someone from the other thread challenging someone's lack of faith?

In either case, if someone's pro-belief behavior is reason for why someone is disbelieving, that's still applicable to the thread. I imagine the reverse is harder to reference in the first place. What, someone not praying somehow makes you believe more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is as much a religion as "off" is a TV channel.

Atheism is belief in nothing. Agnosticism defines a lack of belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for snapping at you, Mysticus, there was no need.

:) And with reading this reply from you, neither is there a grudge on my side. :cake:

Side note: I think the whole argument regarding the burden of evidence that's shaped around who is trying to convert who (Atheists vs theists) is pretty fucking stupid. Just look at the thread you're posting in, I don't see Atheists chiming in on why there are no Gods in the other thread.

It's because, as so often, and as gretchen already said: Theists in that thread do not belittle nor try to convert atheists. This thread here is where the preaching and planned proselytizing happens, and it's from the usual suspects who always seek to demean those of other faiths: internet atheists, usually off a scientistic bent.

If your folks could learn to leave others well enough alone and show some respect for those who don't share their views, instead of praising rude crusaders of the "new wave " of atheism as "great people", then there would be no need for theistic voices of reason to come in and tell you to get a little bit more realistic and in line with the rules of both logical, critical thinking, and of civilized, respectful discussion in secular states, and maybe to inform yourselves on how the method of empirical science actually works (hint: if something is worded as a "fact", it cannot also be a scientific statement; "facts" are either declared naively or religiously, never scientifically, as science only theorizes and is always, always prepared for falsification).

This thread here is crusader country, and we're telling you to keep the sabre rattling down a bit - people are trying to have a civilized discussion nearby.

Atheism is belief in nothing. Agnosticism defines a lack of belief.

As I myself only learned through the years, it's a bit more complicated. There are gnostics and agnostics in both the theistic and the atheistic camp. I happen to be an agnostic theist, myself.

And gnostics of both camps are people I consider bigots who are potential enemies of freedom and human rights, fullstop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is as much a religion as "off" is a TV channel.

Atheism is belief in nothing. Agnosticism defines a lack of belief.

Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the theistic influence. Without the theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the worlds theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Which is a belief, based on faith, just like theism. And there's nothing wrong with either option.

A lack of belief is "I can't assert anything because I can't show evidence of either". Which is agnosticism. The default state of things, and also the basis of skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...