1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Affirming the Nonexistence of God

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Hektore, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I have often heard folks who are atheist draw a distinction between not not believing in a deity and believing there is no deity. ("I do not believe there is a god." and 'I believe there is no god."). Another way it is put is that atheists do not say that they don't believe there is no god, only the more modest claim that there isn't any good reason to believe that there is one.

    It's not really new but some folks have started to make arguments against the existence of specific gods and a natural target is the god of Abraham. One form that these affirmations take is that the absence of evidence, where there should be evidence, is evidence of absence.

    I have seen Victor Stenger credited with having applied this thought to Yahweh/Allah. He explains in a simple case:
    He then applies this same logic to the Abrahamic God:
    Source

    There are other examples, but these are sufficient to illustrate the point.

    I think that at least some of these are valid assertions and I find myself wondering just how strong of a case can eventually be built against the existence of Yahweh. Of course, as a person who thinks that the world we be a better place without the Abrahamic faiths, I find this a worthwhile pursuit but I want to know what you think.

    Do you find this reasoning compelling at all? Is it worthwhile to assert not only that there isn't any good reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian god exists but also that there are good reasons to believe that he does not?
     
  2. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    When faced with the unknown, one has a choice. You can take it as an opportunity to investigate, learn, study, and grow, or you can fill the void with an all-encompassing thing that can be inserted as the answer to every hard question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Proving the non-existence of anything is a fairly futile activity - and somewhat pointless.

    Besides which. it would require a clear definition of what is meant by "God", and there are many, many interpretations of that.

    I don't believe in a sentient being watching over us. Can I prove that no such being exists? No - but why would it matter to me to do so?

    The reverse is also true for those who do believe.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Plan9

    Plan9 Rock 'n Roll

    Location:
    Earth
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    As I alluded to in another thread recently, I'm indifferent about whether to affirm the existence or nonexistence of a creator god. It doesn't factor into my daily life, nor my moral foundations.

    A creator god, whether one exists or not, is not something I take into consideration when making choices or contemplating things.

    I'd sooner believe in plant and animal spirits and reincarnation, but even that is a big stretch for me.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I'm with Mr. Guru.

    Also, I don't think any serious empricist who also has any notion of what is implied by omnipotence would spend any time trying to disprove the existence of a Christian god. If your subject has absolute control over your data, your results will clearly be biased.
     
  7. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    No evidence of gods or God personally engaging with humanity - unless you want to get into ancient cave and temple renderings of fantastical creatures descending from the sky in flying machines.

    Being an atheist does not prevent me from keeping my mind open (slightly) to the possibility of a Creative Entity or Originating Designer - maybe a team of them running lab experiments, of which we are one. Who knows. It's one of those unanswerable questions that are interesting to think about but not spend too much time sweating over. The Christian God of Abraham and Moses (if they were one in the same) is explainable only in terms of their necessity in making sense out of a world where science had yet to emerge. Created by man, for man, in the likeness of man, to protect, reward, punish and offer a sense of purpose and security in an existence dominated by chance and confusion.

    It's function as a way to keep the masses in line, came later.

    Christians would refer him to the prophets who predicted the coming of a Messiah. But of course, that was just a matter of waiting and finding someone suitable to tag. Hardly evidence.

    I believe there are a few instances of this sort in the bible. Not valid of course, but I'm just sort of pre-empting the arrival of those who might come on this thread with their biblical citations.
     
  8. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I think the question matters because of the impact that said followers can have on the world around them. If we take American Evangelicals as an example, there are things they want to do which are an anathema to civility and progress. It's harder for them to do those things if you can undermine the reasons for doing so. And undermining their God itself is a way to do that - at least potentially.
    Presumably there could and would be different evidence for different gods. You are right that attempting to disprove every god would be a futile activity but some gods have more traction that others and their disappearance would undoubtedly have real world consequences beyond the worship house (if one applies, but you know what I mean).
    There are other arguments than traditional 'science experiments'. For example: It's my understanding that one of the things implied by 'omnipotence' is that it is a self-contained logical contradiction a version of which that has become almost cliche. "Can god make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?"
     
  9. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I've argued with enough Christians to realize that attempting to undermine their faith with logic, reason, or science is like trying to bring down a high rise building with a toothpick. Blind faith and the constructs built to defend it are impervious to all three. Why some require such fortification for their faith is the question. The underlying reasons are probably different for each individual but I suspect it has less to do with the spiritual nature of their faith and more to do with their fear of true autonomy.

    The old "There's safety in numbers" would be the individual devotee's basic, unconscious motive behind attempts to convert others. The leadership's motives operate from a desire for control - pitting their religion's beliefs and dogma against another insures that there will always be enemies - "others" persecuting the faithful. The construct is constantly being reinforced against threats from the outside. The more it is attacked, the stronger the defense becomes in response to it.

    I agree that the goals of the Christian Right in the US pose a threat. The best way to undermine those goals is awareness and vigilance on the part of the greater population - an active participation is seeing that they do not get their way.
     
  10. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I'm familiar with this. I guess my question would be be something along the lines of "why would an omnipotent god be limited by the constraints of logic?"
     
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    In thinking about this topic again, I pondered a dilemma that I have, which keeps coming up every so often. It's come up in my mind for years now. I think it first happened in my teens. The dilemma is that I can't believe in God, and this is because I have found no logical reason to. My issue is probably a bit rare: I never believed in God in the first place. That poses some serious challenges to anyone who thinks they have rational reasons for the existence of God (I've read several).

    Also, I came across an interesting article about the consequences of affirming the non-existence of God. I find it both odd and disconcerting. Being that I was raised non-religiously, I tend to associate with those who are either non-religious or keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Basically, I have never associated with a community that defines itself religiously, i.e., church attendance, religious groups, etc.

    So reading this article really put into perspective how religious people may view people like me. I guess the bad stuff should be expected; I just wasn't sure whether it was widespread. I give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, I expect Christians to be as Christlike as possible. In my observation, this doesn't happen very often.

    http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/
     
  12. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I don't know that I'm too surprised by those results. I don't know that they represent real enmity towards atheists, which isn't to say that real enmity doesn't exist. I suspect that when people think "christian" they don't think of people like Newt Gingrich or Fred Phelps, they think of Ned Flanders. So they'd likely be less likely to attribute amoral activity to a christian. It's pretty obvious that being a rapist has nothing to do with insurance fraud and so "atheist" is probably some sort of average between rapist and christian.
     
  13. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I'm not surprised by this, either. Being an atheist in the Bible belt of the US, I run across this attitude so often, I've come to take it for granted. It could explain why I haven't been able to make many friends in the 20 years I've lived here. (that and the fact that social events are mostly church oriented)

    I think they do consider me a bit of moral wild-card (and nutty liberal) who can't really be trusted, despite never having given any of my Christian "neighbors" a reason to distrust me. I don't believe they equate me to a rapist but probably harbor the notion that I am capable of some sexual deviancy and if they saw me pulled over on the side of the road for a minor traffic violation, might assume it was for something worse.

    I'm not sure I agree with this, though. I think the prejudice itself is unaffected. All that changes is the illusion of "safety" they gain knowing there is at least something deterring us atheists from bad and immoral behavior.
     
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    If God spoke to Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum as each has claimed and expressed to each of them that it was His will that he/she run for president, who has God's official endorsement?

    Or is it His plan to split the evangelical vote and He secretly is an Obama supporter?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This seems the most likely, given that Obama is probably the best Christian out of the viable options.
     
  16. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I just came across a summary today by someone who had a slightly different take away than the 'atheist = rapists' blurb that seemed to causing the headlines. I'll just quote the relevant part:
    Which is perhaps more disconcerting to me. It's not just that motivated people spill unfounded bile about atheists, but the bile is assumed as true on the basis of being a member of the 'other'. It's like we're not worthy of consideration as complete human beings. Given the thorough explanation of genocide in Steven Pinker's new book (which I am in the middle of) I feel like I'm one charismatic evangelical candidate away from being on the business end of a 'religious cleansing' to get the Real America back.

    It's not as unusual as you might think, I too was raised in a non-religious household and never had that pressure put on me. Not until middle school when it cost me being included as a member of the social order at which point I promptly found Jesus. Only later did I discover later that once that pressure had been lifted, there was nothing else holding my belief up. I always had been an atheist, I just didn't know that an atheist was an okay thing to be.
     
  17. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    First, we would need an objective definition of what God is - that is the ultimate paradox, for the way the person addresses the definition defines his or her response to the question. Belief in God as defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition is an expression of faith. Evangelical Christians, as an example, have to publicly affirm their faith in God and the word of God as presented in the bible. Billy Graham, one of the most renowned Evangelical Christians, acknowledges that his belief in God and the word of God is simply an act of faith. He does not make an intellectual argument regarding God in the context of the known science of creation. Yet, science does not have an answer to how something was created from nothing. So any scientific theory attempting to explain creation at some point fails. Regardless of a proactive belief in "God", however it is defined, or proactive non-belief in God requires faith. Being indifferent does not require faith but that demonstrates an unwillingness to address the question.

    Below is an interesting clip from Billy Graham on conscience that I have found interesting. Although I am not a religious person, my behavior is driven by conscience - I don't understand it, where it comes from, or why it is there but it is. I believe there is a God. And I believe God speaks to me through my conscience. Some may choose to ridicule this, more so when the person openly verbalizes the view in terms of what drives them being God's will. I am not sure what ,those that ridicule others, have as an answer regarding what drives them if they don't call it God or God's influence - they generally don't even try to present their view on the question.

     
  18. Primates are pack animals; we tend to live in hierarchical societies where a small number (sometimes one) of lead animals receives deferance, food support and sexual support from the rest of the community. There has always been intense competition for the position of leader.

    I think it reasonable to propose that the effect of this competition on evolution has led a few people to be intensely competitive (those who have a chance of taking the "lead animal" position) and a larger number to avoid the historical risk of death by being submissive to the biggest animal in the pack.

    What bigger, more dangerous primate could there be than one who sees everything, can move mountains and can never die? People are just acting out the imperatives given to them by millions of years of evolution.

    There are also motivations which relate to affirming one's loyalty to the pack, but thats another post.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  19. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I can agree with you to a point electriceagle, which I believe stops at the brain stem. We primates, meaning humans, have evolved, to a degree, beyond our pack habits (which is not to say that it doesn't still function, at some level, within us). But our higher brain, which is capable of reason and empathy, is designed to override our basic instincts when we engage it to do so.

    Do I agree that the higher reasoning brain works more effectively in some than in others? Yes. I think it's evident that some people are victims of their own instinct and heed it without thought or insight into the consequences to themselves or others. But I like to believe that most of us are more thoughtful in our behavior.

    As attractive as it might be to explain away human behavior by confining it solely to instinctual reaction, it too easily lets us off the hook.

    The imperatives we once needed to survive don't fit as well into the societies we've created. Our higher brains have pretty much overtaken our lower brains. With the exception of fear. It persists, it's very strong and when it's riled, it has it's way with us. Sometimes the fear is real and legitimate and requires a response, but just as often, its irrational and unwarranted. But still very difficult to reason out of. Hence the continuing need for something we believe can always be drawn upon to shield us from it. Religion, addictive substances, obsessive and compulsive behaviors, psychological disturbances. They keep us from having to confront fear head on where we can try and reason with it.

    What makes us tick is complex because we are always in conflict between what evolution has elevated us to and what it's left behind.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  20. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    I'm going to put it simply...

    It is irrelevant.
    Be who you going to be, leave others to themselves.
    The Universe or God, whatever, is busy otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012