Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if mass-energy has always existed how can you say WHEN it changed into the big bang (or whatever you want to call 13.7 billion years ago) or even WHY it changed states? The very notion of change makes no sense over eternity.

If that's true, then why would you claim that God (i.e. something eternal) is responsible for creation (i.e. change)?

 

[Where Is God]

It may in a cyclical view of the universe... big bang followed by big crunch and repeat ad infinitum.

wa:do

Gahhh I was just about to rant about this. The universe will expand and then contract, followed with another big bang

 

[painted wolf]

Gahhh I was just about to rant about this. The universe will expand and then contract, followed with another big bang

Yes! Super comment sniping powers activate! :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

But mass energy is not eternal...it had a beginning.

Really? Are you sure? How do you know?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I know of no non-religious gods. The concept of a god is perfectly well-defined for most people. After all, most people believe in their existence, and all too many are willing to commit violence to promote their beliefs.

There are all sorts of deistic concepts that are not religious in nature. Additionally, even as an atheist, I leave the possibility that some conscious entity/force may be responsible for the existence of our universe. It doesn't seem difficult to me to imagine concepts of god which aren't connected to religion. I suppose this limited view of god of yours could explain why you are a strong atheist.

 

[PolyHedral]

But mass energy is not eternal...it had a beginning.

True. However, this does not mean it did not always exist.

 

[Tathagata]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

1. 
   
   That is NOT an argument against GOD. That's an argument against SOULS.
   
   God =/= Soul.
   
   It's possible for souls to exist without God. Look at Jainism.
   
   

   [*]Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

   
   The Teleological Argument has NOT been overturned by evolution. Who told you that? And please explain how and why evolution disproves the Teleological Argument.
   
   Also, just because religions have failed to come up with proper explanations, that is NOT evidence against Gods existence. That's evidence that religions are man-made and false.
   
   

   [*]Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

   
   Again, all this indicates is that religions are false. This doesn't have anything to do with Gods existence.
   
   

   [*]Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
   [*]Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

This is NOT evidence against God either. This is just evidence that everyone's praying to the wrong God, or perhaps the God that does exist is the Deist God who does not interact with the world.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Really? I thought that was the weakest. Why? For one, it had absolutely nothing to do with God. It's possible to refute souls, yet God still remains.

Also, you didn't even demonstrate why souls don't exist. You simply stated that it's obvious that they don't. That's not a valid argument. Seriously, look up the Interactionist Theory of Soul. You have done nothing to refute that.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist.

Indeed.

 

[Copernicus]

There are all sorts of deistic concepts that are not religious in nature. Additionally, even as an atheist, I leave the possibility that some conscious entity/force may be responsible for the existence of our universe. It doesn't seem difficult to me to imagine concepts of god which aren't connected to religion. I suppose this limited view of god of yours could explain why you are a strong atheist.

If someone wants to define, say, "energy" as "God", they are perfectly free to do that. I believe in the existence of energy, so that person might think of me as a theist. I honestly don't care about that sort of word game, because it has nothing to do with the question of whether the label would be appropriate for me under ordinary English usage. If the "Energyist" goes to church and prays to his Energy God, I would say that that person is being dishonest with himself and others in claiming to have a significantly different concept of "God" than others do. There is quite often a difference between what people say they do and what they actually do.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If someone wants to define, say, "energy" as "God", they are perfectly free to do that. I believe in the existence of energy, so that person might think of me as a theist. I honestly don't care about that sort of word game, because it has nothing to do with the question of whether the label would be appropriate for me under ordinary English usage. If the "Energyist" goes to church and prays to his Energy God, I would say that that person is being dishonest with himself and others in claiming to have a significantly different concept of "God" than others do. There is quite often a difference between what people say they do and what they actually do.

Yes, that's all very interesting, but it says nothing about a concept of a god that isn't contigent on religious teachings. Care to address that point?

 

[Copernicus]

Well. There is no requirement for God. Did I say that there was? It seems to me that you have not read the reply. What I said was that there must be the Seer.

I see no necessity of any Seer other than myself and other living beings that can see. You are assuming necessity.

Not really. But if a few agreements occur that will be bonus. You only said: "Of course. That was the point of posting it here--to get alternative points of view". Furthermore, what are the assumptions in your and my case?

I can only guess at your assumptions. One may be the assumption that there is some form of continued existence after death, which may be manifested as a reincarnation. I start with the assumption that I am a temporary aspect of physical reality. I did not exist before I was born, and my continued existence depends on the health of my brain. When my brain dies, I will cease to exist. Reincarnation in any form strikes me as extremely unlikely, since a physical brain is necessary for there to be any form of thought. I do not know this to be the case, but I have every reason to believe that it is the case.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, that's all very interesting, but it says nothing about a concept of a god that isn't contigent on religious teachings. Care to address that point?

Once you're not basing your concept of god on any existing religion, you've got a literally infinite amount to choose from. You've also mostly stripped the meaning out of what a "god" is. (Is it the self? Is it the universe? Or could it just be 22nd century humans with a bulldozer?)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Once you're not basing your concept of god on any existing religion, you've got a literally infinite amount to choose from. You've also mostly stripped the meaning out of what a "god" is. (Is it the self? Is it the universe? Or could it just be 22nd century humans with a bulldozer?)

How about a conscious entity/force that is responsible for creating the universe? Not quite as vague as a bulldozer and isn't contigent on whether prayer, revelation, etc. work or not.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

 

[Copernicus]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
That is NOT an argument against GOD. That's an argument against SOULS.
God =/= Soul.
It's possible for souls to exist without God. Look at Jainism.

The thread was about gods, which are thinking beings that typically lack brains. If the physical conditions that produce minds (i.e. a brain) are not present, there is no reason to believe that a mind can exist. Indeed, minds seem to have a perfectly good evolutionary function: a guidance system that improves the chances for a moving physical body to survive in a constantly changing environment. What is there about physical reality that would favor the existence of brainless minds? Nothing, AFAIK.

The Teleological Argument has NOT been overturned by evolution. Who told you that? And please explain how and why evolution disproves the Teleological Argument.

I have never said that evolution disproved the teleological argument. It undercuts the credibility of that argument. If beings such as ourselves can evolve from mindless organisms by a purely mechanical process, there is no need to posit a creative role for gods. To the extent that gods fail to explain anything, they face annihilation by Occam's Razor, which is a method for determining plausibility.

Also, just because religions have failed to come up with proper explanations, that is NOT evidence against Gods existence. That's evidence that religions are man-made and false.

Which lends weight to the argument that people are prone to making up false religions. Again, the discussion is not about disproving the existence of gods in an absolute sense. It is about their credibility. Gods are key players in failed explanations, and that reduces their credibility. We do not reject belief in the tooth fairy because we can prove its non-existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We reject belief because we can show it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, all this indicates is that religions are false. This doesn't have anything to do with Gods existence.

It has to do with the reasonableness of faith in their existence. Religions provide us with reasons to believe in gods. Showing religions to be habitually false tends to render belief in gods an unreasonable belief.

This is NOT evidence against God either. This is just evidence that everyone's praying to the wrong God, or perhaps the God that does exist is the Deist God who does not interact with the world.

Miracles are evidence FOR belief in gods. Why else would anyone be interested in them? What we see in reality is that people will go to great lengths to sustain belief in gods. They see the faces of gods in tacos, pancakes, and unusual patterns of fur on animals. By showing that miracles always have natural causes, to the extent that they can be investigated, we show that using alleged miracles to sustain belief in gods is unreasonable.

Really? I thought that was the weakest. Why? For one, it had absolutely nothing to do with God. It's possible to refute souls, yet God still remains.

Gods, like souls, are brainless minds. We know that our minds are not brainless and that consciousness depends on the physical activity in a brain. Gods are supposed to have minds like ours, but our minds require brain activity to sustain them.

Also, you didn't even demonstrate why souls don't exist. You simply stated that it's obvious that they don't. That's not a valid argument. Seriously, look up the Interactionist Theory of Soul. You have done nothing to refute that.

I do not need to disprove the interactionist theory. Its proponents first need to show why they support it. Otherwise, we have to come up with a good explanation of just how a soul interacts with a brain. What does it do? Make decisions? Then why do drunk people have poorer judgment than sober people?

In the end, we can discard all of science in favor of supernatural explanations for everything. There is no force of gravity, just spirits that hold things together. Fire needs magic, not oxygen, to sustain it. How could you prove otherwise? By removing oxygen and watching the fire die down? You might think of that as evidence for the necessity of oxygen, but it could just be that the spirits want us to believe that. It is just as plausible an explanation as an argument that we don't see God every day because he chooses not to give us direct evidence of his existence.

 

[Copernicus]

How about a conscious entity/force that is responsible for creating the universe? Not quite as vague as a bulldozer and isn't contigent on whether prayer, revelation, etc. work or not.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

Not at all. That is the deist version of God, and it requires belief in an immaterial mind that is capable of conceiving of a universe and bringing it into existence through conscious action. It may differ from conventional gods in many ways--not needing worship or caring about humans, for example. On the other hand, all conscious life that we are aware of evolved under pressure of natural selection. We know that order can result from chaotic interactions. (We can simulate this algorithmically in computers.) So we have a reasonable expectation that similar mindless forces led to the current state of the universe. There is no evidence of intelligent design, and, given the stage the universe is in, it is reasonable to believe that creatures composed of heavy elements would evolve through natural selection, given enough time. We do not understand all of the processes that brought us about, but that isn't necessary to weigh the plausibility of competing explanations. Gods seem to require more assumptions about the way nature works than are warranted by observation.

 

[PolyHedral]

How about a conscious entity/force that is responsible for creating the universe? Not quite as vague as a bulldozer and isn't contigent on whether prayer, revelation, etc. work or not.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

Why that one, though? Why not just label physics "God" and leave it at that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not at all. That is the deist version of God, and it requires belief in an immaterial mind that is capable of conceiving of a universe and bringing it into existence through conscious action. It may differ from conventional gods in many ways--not needing worship or caring about humans, for example. On the other hand, all conscious life that we are aware of evolved under pressure of natural selection. We know that order can result from chaotic interactions. (We can simulate this algorithmically in computers.) So we have a reasonable expectation that similar mindless forces led to the current state of the universe. There is no evidence of intelligent design, and, given the stage the universe is in, it is reasonable to believe that creatures composed of heavy elements would evolve through natural selection, given enough time. We do not understand all of the processes that brought us about, but that isn't necessary to weigh the plausibility of competing explanations. Gods seem to require more assumptions about the way nature works than are warranted by observation.

Indeed, this is all good stuff when formulating models consistent with how our universe works. However, none of this approaches, or can approach, why or how our universe came into existence. Applying processes consistent with our universe to the time "before" our universe existed, or to things "outside" of our universe, is as much speculation as anything else.

What it comes down to is that stuff exists. Any answers about why this is, are all equally as speculative. The existence of some type of conscious force responsible for the creation of our universe is as plausible as any other explanation based on our current knowledge, so I give it equal weight as a number of other hypothetical scenarios.

Bottom line is that there is too little information to draw a meaningful conclusion. I don't have enough rational basis for believing in the existence of such an entity, but neither do I have sufficient rational basis for believing that such an entity isn't the explanation for existence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why that one, though? Why not just label physics "God" and leave it at that?

Because I'm talking about something that can be defined as god that isn't already more simply defined by something else.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because I'm talking about something that can be defined as god that isn't already more simply defined by something else.

But what reason do you have to think that exists?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But what reason do you have to think that exists?

None, which is why I'm an atheist.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Human’s body can be likened to a Mirror and the Soul may be likened to the Sun. The relation between the soul and the body is like the reflection of the sun in the mirror. If the mirror breaks, the sun still is there. If the brain stops working, the soul is still there.

Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

Evolution is a fact, but the will and power of an all-knowing being has been behind the evolution.

Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

The foundation of all religions is the same. Some of the laws according to the time exigencies have been changed to suit the age in which that prophet appeared.

Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

Which prophet said that if we pray we stay luckier or healthier? The religions came to teach spirituality. not to make us luckier or richer, etc...

Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

As a matter of fact the prophets never accepted people’s request for miracles. No religion depends on Miracles according to scriptures