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)

It’s interesting that so much of this thread / conversation is about evidence or the lack thereof, but actually as a “believer” you don’t see evidence as a necessary item - belief must come from somewhere else. Or something like that.
For me, it’s the reverse. I have absolutely no inner sense that there’s anything bigger or spiritual out there. No yearning or feeling that there might be a spiritual world. Nada. So it’s really that, combined with a lack of visible angels appearing from on high / meeting personally with leprechauns/ any credible evidence for anything at all “paranormal” that leads me to believe there’s no god or gods. And if you don’t believe or suspect a thing exists, you tend not to worry about it or think about it much.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the interrelated questions - I guess it’s subjective.

Oh I believe it’s a possibility. There’s the potential for all of my experiences(and many other peoples) to be purely psychological a series of firing synapses. Developed over time. Of course it’s got to be a possibility (although that then raises a whole series of separate questions). Only a fool would state the existence of spirit as absolute fact and the reverse is, of course also true. Something can, of course be outside a persons experience.

How open are you to the possibility that underlying the universe is a primal force beyond the physical?

Thanks, that’s a very clear way to put it. Just as a matter of interest how would you rate your imagination, do you have an inner life running in the background (there was a thread on here recently) and I wonder if there’s a link (sorry you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to).

Haha interesting question. I’d say pretty active - in “real life” I’m thinking a lot about other people, personal doubts and anxieties, people relationships, how others are feeling. I don’t enjoy speculating or “strategic” what-if scenarios though - I’m much more of a “see what happens and figure out how to fix it then” though I’ll be very involved if there’s some element of actually being able to control or improve the situation - basically I don’t find any comfort or purpose in just idly speculating about things we can’t figure out (eg ooh I wonder where I picked up this cold? Maybe last week on the bus or today in the coop? - who knows! Does it matter? Look after yourself and get better!). I’m quite practical, tangible and data-driven, though very feelings-led when it comes to people.

In fun life I read hundreds of books and stories, I love fiction, haven’t been without a book since I could read. I particularly love myths and legends, old original fairy stories (the weird ones not the Disney ones), historical fiction and sci fi. Interestingly I am totally bored and lightly irritated by Victorian or modern ghost stories - I think it’s the feeling like you’re supposed to partly believe them to be true, which I don’t find in older myths etc.

Ah thanks for answering- yes I love myths and legends too, esp the Norse ones and those of judaeo- Christianity.

Do you ever feel drawn to write your own stories/poems? I write a lot esp poetry. Mind you I have films playing non stop in my mind, I guess I like speculating on the what ifs.

How open are you to the possibility that underlying the universe is a primal force beyond the physical?

Open to it in the sense that I'd believe it if I saw it or saw any kind of tangible evidence that others had seen it, but not something I feel any need to spend time considering as a possibility given the complete lack of any of the above spanning thousands of years.

I think there will always be unknowns, particularly when it comes to the deeper nature of reality. If people want to take those unknowns and call them “god”, or “the divine” then that just seems like a linguistic device - it’s just a name for a concept, it tells us nothing.

if however people want to start assigning certain attributes to the unknown - intelligence, purpose, wants, needs - anything that makes it somehow seem like a reflection of humanity on a much larger scale, then that seems like a step too far (to say the least).

That is just an act of creative imagination - assigning elements of ourselves to the shapes of clouds, flickering flames in the fire, or shadows on the wall.

It is an unnecessary, and I think an inelegant, step when it comes to our understanding and appreciation of the universe.

Ok slightly different question. How open are you to the possibility that there are things that can never be measured and evidenced beyond personal experience. Things that will never be discovered based on current scientific methodology?

That seems a fairly obvious question. My experience of love is subjective and although many individual elements of it are open to scientific investigation the overall experience is inevitably a personal one.

it is no secret that some questions sit more comfortably in the realm of the philosophical than the scientific. If people want to believe that there is a “something” that sits wholly outside of the physical universe we inhabit, and if one essential attribute of that something is that it is supernatural and so not open to Scientific investigation…well, there is nowhere you can go with that. You have just defined a thing as being unknowable so no one will ever be able to demonstrate that is not true - only question why someone else might believe it.

That is really just the so-called “god of the gaps” the god that inhabits the areas where we currently lack knowledge - a god that hides in shadows and gets smaller every time we shine a light on an area we didn’t understand before That god is a pretty thin thing, some people may find it comforting but it seems generally irrelevant.

it is when people believe in a god that has a design for us, a proactive god, the god that appears in visions or columns of fire, that rules over heaven and seems to tolerate a hell - that is when things get a bit more fun!

Ok slightly different question. How open are you to the possibility that there are things that can never be measured and evidenced beyond personal experience. Things that will never be discovered based on current scientific methodology?

In the absence of ever having any way of knowing, I think it's possible but very, very improbable, and therefore a very insensible thing to base your life around. I think the theories we have come up with are just theories made up by people, so if there is anything out there, it's unlikely to be any concept a human has actually come up with.

To that end, everything is a linguistic device. To what extent is everything unknown until we name it (it even says this in the bible)

Why is the link between the above and the below, the outer and the inner a “step too far”

I don’t understand how you arrive at the “unnecessary” belief in a God. If there is a God then it would seem that God is very necessary. Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that there is not a “God”. I certainly don’t get what is inelegant about belief in a god.

How are you calculating that probability though? Is it wishful thinking? How objective are you in that assumption

A lot of science is just theories made up by man- many don’t seem to be testable. So what’s the difference?

So love is a personal experience, does it exist? People design their entire lives around it. So why do they do this?

if something cannot be studied by scientific methodology it doesn’t make it unknowable, it just might not be knowable within a very slim definition. People might know the face of God but you’ll never be able to take a picture.

im not sure I agree with you regarding a “god of the gaps” or god getting smaller each time you shine a light. That is based on your assumption gods were there to fill holes in knowledge. If Everything is an emanation of God or if everything was created by God, surely everyone we shine a light and see something new and amazing then God gets bigger not smaller? The gaps lie in our knowledge of God, our tiny understanding lies in the shadows of the beauteous and complex nature of God?

Im interested in your final paragraph, why does that make it more “fun”?

How are you calculating that probability though? Is it wishful thinking? How objective are you in that assumption

The fact the it does not fit in with any existing logic that is actually proven to be real. Such things are improbable. The fact that it so obviously and completely gives people a safety net to avoid their core fears (Ie that there is no point to life and no life after death) with a built in excuse as to why there doesn't need to be any evidence to back that claim up, conveniently. It's funny you mention wishful thinking, because if I had to sum religion/spirituality up with one term, it would be that. I'm certainly not wishful that I'll cease to exist and become worm food in a few decades, but alas, that's the unavoidable truth to me. So yes I'm certainly objective, because I'd love to believe, but I can't.

This thread keeps pulling me back like a moth to a flame. I must step away...I must step away....

I know there is no god because I reject the concept of worship.

I can’t rule out that there is a being that has something to do with my existence. I could be living in a Petri dish or inside a computer simulation and it would make no difference from my perspective. If there is a being that created the universe as we perceive it, that being isn’t a god, it’s just another being with a different set of technology.

There are no higher powers, all sentient beings are equal, even if some are more advanced in evolution or science.

Why do you think the idea of the god necessitates worship? You’re not alone in that assumption and many religions do. But a person can believe in a divine being without feeling the need to worship it.

it’s interesting that you say man creates god in his image yet your idea of a controlling being that you can’t rule out is even more alike to you and me than most people’s perception of gods

Any God or form of worship promoting heaven and hell is morally wrong.

Maybe you’re wishful thinking lies in there being no eternal consequences to how you live your life, or that you don’t have to change how you live it and view the world, maybe it makes your life easier to have no god.

why does the concept of divinity not fit with any existing logic?

Not sure what you’re getting at with your first para.

para 2 - it is a step too far because if you are going to assign attributes to the unknown you need evidence to justify those attributes (otherwise you’re just making stuff up!), evidence which is entirely absent in this case.

Belief in god is unnecessary because i see no evidence that god is a prerequisite for the existence or continuing functioning of the universe.

It adds nothing. It explains nothing. Occam’s razor would suggest it is an unnecessary complication and therefore inelegant - thou shalt not multiply extra entities unnecessarily!

I don’t assume the non-existence of god, but I don’t introduce the concept unless and until it is justified - when it becomes the simpler and more likely explanation for the given facts as we know them.

We could debate the meaning of love all day, just as we can navel gaze at all our emotions and the myriad marvels of human consciousness. And if you think that god is a subjective experience created within the consciousness of certain individuals I’d have a lot of sympathy for that argument. However, I think the thrust of the discussion is around our understanding of external reality, the things that exist externally and independently from own own consciousness - so I’m not sure the comparison is helpful.

in your second para - if we’re going to assert that something is unknown because we simply don’t know how to measure it within our own understanding of measuring -well, that may be true. But it is an argument that can also be used to state that invisible rainbow unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters exist but are beyond our ability to perceive. I mean, that’s fine but where does it get us?

3rd para - opens up too big a topic. There are many versions of god, and those versions of god have different purposes and explanations - people write books on this stuff! You then write a lot of “ifs” which highlights the need for faith, if you want to believe those things that is fine but the point is that with no evidence to adopt that belief it is unnecessary.

Well, I think the comparison with love is quite helpful as we probably both agree it exists. But what is it? Yes we could debate the meanings all day, yes we would both have out subjective experience of it, but then we have our subjective experience of everything. If someone never feels love does it exist or not? Is there a possibility God both fully exists and doesn’t exist at all? Are we living in our own universes creating our own reality around us? What is consciousness anyway?

Maybe invisible rainbow unicorns exist who knows. Does it matter? Well it depends on whether I think they have an impact.

Why is a god unnecessary? I don’t think you’ve explained that. Why anything necessary?

What makes a being divine?

why is any given being worthy of that classification vs any other?

That is an excellent question. I would argue every atom is divine.

Then why isn’t every human divine? How is a human any different than a god?