Atheists -what makes you so sure?

[OMG12]

I often wonder what makes atheists so sure that there isn’t a god. I’m not talking a particular iteration of the Divine, eg it’s easy to say I can’t believe there is a God because of childhood cancer, but that is predicated on the concept of a God who is only good and considers childhood cancer as bad and further is capable and willing to stop all bad things. I’m talking gods not religions here which a very different things.

Most cultures throughout time have have gods so it’s somewhat of an anomaly to not believe. I just wonder why people don’t believe. (And can we try and keep this a decent debate rather than any of the sky fairy shit those with an inability to debate a point beyond regurgitated social media soundbites seem limited to)

Most cultures throughout time have have gods so it’s somewhat of an anomaly to not believe.

So what?
I think most cultures thoughout time haven't believed in avoiding smacking children or marital rape either, so ours is a bit of an anomaly.

But we don't cite this being common throughout history as a good reason to believe in it do we?

There is no good reason to believe in

• God
• A big fluffy elephant sitting on my desk
• that I've just written 55 novels
• red and orange mice are running the country and parliament is just a front perpetuated by the media
• etc

I could write an exceptionally long list here.

There are a very very large list of things we have no good reason to believe so why would we believe in any of them, given no good reason?

Hi yes, there some of the sources I quoted up thread, together with more widely “Neoplatonism” and Hermeticism and some various other philosophies. I too was having issues with Mumsnet yesterday. Hermeticism obviously contains a lot about balance )Eg the Emerald Tablet” To a lesser extent maybe Gnostic texts and indeed the Bible and various Christian sources to name but a few. You might be interested in Qabalah.

Yes, I think it’s widely agreed that these concepts all had a great deal of influence on the development of science. Newton probably spent a lot longer studying hermeticism/alchemy than apples falling on his head etc. But again as I’ve mentioned several times, neither science not divinity exclude the validity of the other. Most of history has seen the two things heavily intertwined

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in paranormal beings and I have yet to find evidence that anything paranormal is real. That includes all religions, belief systems, occult figures, magic, the lot.

That's not to say science has all the answers. Scientific conclusions are disproved and challenged all the time. As science and technology progresses, old ideas can be replaced with new ones.

I found it interesting that upthread a pp said, humans need something to explain the unexplained, or cling onto some kind of belief in the absence of a God. The most recent example of this is the Humanist UK organisation, who are irreligious as far as God and religious privilege are concerned, but embrace gender identity politics as "being kind". I would argue that pretending a man is a woman or vice versa is a belief system, so in the absence of a "traditional" religion, Humanists UK have embraced a 21st Century Emperor Has No Clothes belief system. If we do not believe in a deity or theism, quite often it leaves a space to be filled. I find that very interesting.

This is an incredibly interesting point, why do you think this need exists? Do you think it’s a need for something bigger than self? Something about forming a community with common belief systems? A creation of an idea of a greater good?

I find many Humanist societies and banners often do this very thing. There are humanist churches which effectively run as a church in every way except a divine figure.

If we do not believe in a deity or theism, quite often it leaves a space to be filled. I find that very interesting.

Yes, there's some famous quotation about that. I've forgotten who said it. 'When people stop believing in god, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything', or words to that effect.

It was G.K. Chesterton.

He had some very interesting things to say about science and technology - they were tools or toys of man “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.

i suspect he wouldn’t be a fan of AI (or Mumsnet deleting half my posts😀)

multivac
I have answered this as I explained a while ago I’m having issues with things not posting correctly

Maybe the divinity is emanating playfulness 😎

Thanks for the clarification, anyway. I suppose I was wondering how that framework might help you in your daily life. Or make your life any different from how it might be without it, even.

”Maybe the divinity is emanating playfulness 😎”

I think we’re done!

That's a shame :-/; I'd really be interested in your thoughts on my point below: what having a framework through which to view the universe means for you, as an individual human being navigating that universe. Or is it more removed for you, perhaps? Something to think deeply about, but perhaps not really related to day to day functioning? Or something in between?

I don’t have a framework to view the universe through - don’t think about that stuff - don’t need it.

Because worshipping a god seems to
Go hand in hand with control

Some religions dictate clothing, hair, what they eat

It's far simpler to believe there's nothing

I am an atheist.

An atheist's belief is that there is no god.
A belief is choosing to think that something is true.
Believing is not the same as knowing for sure.

An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether there is a god or not.

I believe that there is no god and that there is a probability that it can be proved.

Therefore I am an atheist.

Technically, I am an agnostic because there is always a possibility that proof of the existence of God will appear tomorrow. Similarly, it is possible that the sun will rise in the west, not the East. So. Technically agnostic but practically atheist. I share this position with Richard Dawkins.

Ooh such a misrepresentation of what I said. It kinda reminds me of another poster Ferona. I suspect you will follow a repeated pattern of kicking off, failing with basic comprehension and inability to engage. So in a similar manner to Ferona I won’t be responding to any aggressive tactics.

Much love and peace

If you are a Christian then you will believe that all the other gods apart from Jehovah are false. What makes you so sure? It's taking a risk not believing in Thor because you might get struck by lightning.

Well explained - another atheist here. Makes for a happy and uncomplicated life.

You see this is why I really struggle to understand in people believing in just one God of a particular religion.

If we base our view on there being a singular God of the Old Testament being the same one as the New Testament why do people think in the whole history of humanity he chose to reveal himself only 3000ish years ago? To a small group in a small corner of the Mediterranean?

I understand people believing in something spiritual or indeed not. But a specific god of a specific religion just makes no sense.

If you wanted to be charitable you could say that people started out polytheists then that developed into monotheism. You could say that this was an improvement. Jehovah started as part of a pantheon, then replaced El as head of the pantheon, then his wife Asherah got dumped.

Over time people wanted to think of Jehovah as a benign force so they tried to forget about his anger and killing. Jesus wanted to see God that way.

However, you could argue that the Greeks and Indians had it better because in their societies you could have both polytheism and philosophy. Peasants could believe in gods and educated people could believe in The One or Brahman. The old gods are less believable which is why I perhaps unfairly mentioned Thor. An educated person finds it easy to reject the reality of the old gods, it's not so easy with a monotheistic God.

I agree it’s very difficult to see which is better polytheism or monotheism. Which is more easily understood and justified intellectually.

I guess it depends. As a series of archetypes poly theism would win hands down, the ability to merge them with other cultures and changes myths and even the actual god to fit with society is obviously better served by polytheism.

I sometimes find it difficult to wrap my head round Christianity being monotheistic without that God also containing the opposites of good and evil.

The One/The Source to me is the most attractive in that it contains everything and everything is an emanation of it.

But why do people pick a particular god/religion and then discount others

I’m atheist because I do not need guidance or morality imposed by a fake construct pretending to be spiritual. Faith and religion is essentially a force for social control. Women in particular are controlled and marginalised by religion. Manoeuvred in to stereotypes and good lil woman roles

Six months in a Romanian orphanage in the 90s convinced me there's no god. Or if there is then he's an utter wanker.

But that is about religion, which is different

What do you think out a God that is not wholly “good” or one that doesn’t interfere with his creation?

If he's not wholly good; or doesn't interfere with iis creation ie use his power to protect and aid the vulnerable who he created then yeah, he's a wanker. A massive one. I find the idea of a god insulting tbh to the huge number of people who really suffer.