Atheists: Compelling theistic arguments?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I don’t believe there are any strong arguments for the existence of God. At best there are a couple of weak arguments that could, taken together, make you think, hmmm, probably not…but who knows?

  1. The innate feeling that there is a higher being somewhere who was involved in our creation is a very ubiquitous feeling throughout time, place and culture. The feeling that our consciousness will continue on past death in some form or fashion is also quite common. Why are these feelings so common? We didn’t need to evolve those feelings in order to function properly. Probably just collective wishful thinking and/or mental misinterpretation of particular perceptions…but, who knows?

  2. Humans, and perhaps a few other advanced terrestrial species, developed not only consciousness, but also the higher order mental process: self-awareness. Why? Why would we evolve such a complex electrochemical mental process when there does not appear to be any evolutionary advantage to select for it? Probably just an emergent property that developed from consciousness as an aberration…but, who knows? It’s just interesting to note that an innate feeling of God would be impossible (I think) without self-awareness (i.e. you can’t have a feeling of being created in Gods image if you don’t have a feeling of self)?

But, who needs God anyway? I went to church with my family infrequently as a child, mainly around Christmas and Easter. It always seemed like a waste of time to me…even if God really existed. I mean, I heard the stories of all the cool parlor tricks God and his boy did in the olden days: cure lepers, walk on water, come back to life, have frogs rain from the sky, leap tall buildings with a single…no, wait a minute that was someone else, etc. But, it was quite apparent that God long ago retired from the tricks and miracle business.

If I was going to waste my time in Church, while I could be home playing baseball or playing doctor with my cute neighbor, there had better be a big payoff, otherwise, why go? Just to thank him for creating me? Hell, one thank you should be enough; I could do that from home. No magic or miracles anymore? Humbug.

There was only one big payoff that I could fathom by going to church—getting a ticket to heaven after I died. An investment in my future, ok, that made sense. Heaven seemed like a more pleasant place to spend eternity than hell, or purgatory, or limbo, or just being turned into topsoil by earthworms and bacteria. Baseball and Chrissy could wait.

And, let’s face it, the big eternal payoff is the real reason people believe in God. Sure, they may delude themselves and others that they worship for entirely altruistic reasons. BS, they want that ticket to eternal salvation, and maybe a few virgins thrown in.

(Ok, I suppose that was a bit facetious…God, if you do exist, remember you’re the one who created me as a smart-ass).

In this day and age of quantum mechanics, do we really need God to facilitate the perpetuation of our consciousness into eternity? I say, no. God is just a middleman and we can cut him out of the equation.

If the OP doesn’t mind (or, perhaps this should be a separate thread), I’d like to pose the more specific question: Atheists, any compelling arguments for the scientific possibility and probability of post-mortal continuation of consciousness?

As I see it, the main argument for: consciousness seems overly complex, transcendent and unneeded for a mere few decades of existence on Earth. Occam’s razor should have just made us into zombies.

The main arguments against: consciousness appears to be entirely bound to the matter of our brain; nothing more. And, nothing yet has been measured after brain death to indicate continuation of consciousness.

Could quantum mechanics come to the rescue? It would be interesting to hear from any of our in-house quantum physicists. Hey, if vacuum fluctuations can create energy out of thin air, maybe QM can squirrel away consciousness into thin air, too. Can it? Would it?

22

Montaigne believed that human beings require a deity, not for the regulation of an ethical society, but because of the prospect of oblivion after death. He acknowledged the built-in limitations of the average human psyche, and I have to agree with him on that point.

Voltaire echoed this with “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Proof being that as he lay dying, Voltaire did return to Mother Church so that his corpse would not be thrown on the trash heap to be eaten by dogs.

A completely rationalist wouldn’t really care about what happens to his body after death. But the physical and emotional duress that accompanies those dying of terminal illness or immediate trauma requires we cut people some slack.

23

I grew up a theist. I never found it rationally compelling, but it felt right. So I would say that was the most compelling “argument” for me. It kept me a nominal theist for 30 years.

24

Just that it is arrogance to think we know everything. There is the possibility that there is something about the make up of the universe that is beyond what we currently understand. But there is nothing that could be said to convince me that any particular brand of human mythology is true.

25

The cosmological - first cause argument comes closest, but not very close. It suffers from the who caused God and why is it more plausible for a complex entity to pop into existence versus very non-complex photons. But at least it “explains” something we don’t fully understand yet.
The biggest problem is that no one has ever explained what this supposed deity has to do with earth, or give any evidence that it has had any interaction with us, so even if I believed this (which I don’t) I’d still be an atheist for all intents and purposes.

26

Certainly, but I think the bands would have to be narrowed to the point where I, (and probably you as well), would still be in a group below the threshold for >50% atheism.

Edit: So it could be rephrased “more people of my general intelligence level are religious than not religious”, (and I think I’m pretty smart.)

27

I was wondering the other day if any atheists have a belief in anything other than “when you die that is it.” It didn’t seem to me that one has to believe in God and heaven, or reincarnation or whatever other non-Christian religions believe, to think that something happens to the mind after death. Or the soul, I guess. Is the concept of the soul completely religion-based?

28

The two things that come closest, and which at least make me think that there is something fundamental that we are currently missing in terms of the way the universe works are the following.

  1. Why is there something instead of nothing. All of these complex physical laws and interactions seem like a whole lot of work relative to a simpler non-existent universe that I would expect from occam’s razor. (yes I know I’m misapplying it, but you get the idea)
  2. What/who is experiencing my consciousness. It would be much easier to accept a universe in which everything follows its physical laws, even to the point of simulating awareness without anyone actually being aware, and yet there is some aspect that is observing the inner workings of my mind, in a way that is separate from the observing of the rest of the universe, unless we posit that in a rock is “aware” that it is falling.

None of these suggest necessarily a conscious outside supreme force that one normally considers when thinking about god, and certainly don’t promote the idea any particular god developed by a particular belief system. But just make me think that there is more on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our current philosophies.

29

While my son is a proselytizing atheist, I’m a non-believer myself but I don’t care what people believe or disbelieve.

30

Three arguments:

  1. Argument from ignorance. As Loach suggests, we don’t know everything. My ignorance about virtually everything in the universe (with a tiny pocketful of exceptions) keeps me from making grand declarations about the universe, such as that there’s no deity. I just don’t know, even though I have my suspicions.
  2. Argument from comfort. This is a little different, not so much an argument as a motive. There have been a very few, very low points in my life when I’ve envied the faithful for the comfort provided by a belief in an omnibenevolent deity. Certainly believing that I and my loved ones would live in eternal paradise would be a lovely thing to believe, and sometimes I wish I could believe it.
  3. Argument from simulation. I don’t know if this strictly counts as a religious belief, but it’s an interesting analog if nothing else. If computers are ever built that can cheaply simulate a universe, and if they become common, then the vast majority of sentient beings who think they live in a real universe will actually be simulations, and chances are that you and I are the creations of an entity who’s essentially omnipotent over our world, omniscient and omnipresent and eternal (given the ability to stop, rewind, and restart the simulation at any point). That’s a pretty big if, of course.

None of these are persuasive to me, but they’re closer than any other reasons.

31

So…it’s turtles all the way down?

32

For me, the most compelling argument is the emotional appeal of belief in God. I’d like to believe that there is some supreme being out there running things and that existence has a purpose and there are rules we will rewarded for following. It’s a lot more pleasant than thinking our lives are just random blips without meaning.

33

I suspect you may be right, I have a first class degree and can hold my own in most situations but I’ve come into contact with really clever people and they are scary-smart

34

Nothing to do with this topic but, what is a first class degree?

35

Our world could be a simulation. It could be a simulation created by some dude, who also gave himself the power to interfere in the simulation. This person would be a God.

36

If there is a compelling argument that would make me consider the existence of deities, it has not been posed to me yet in all 53 years of my life.

37

If you are talking Cartesian, logical arguments, then nothing. I can recognize “pure reason” as a series of assumptions and wishful thinking. “Why are we here?” Just because. “Since we are here, we must have a purpose.” Not really. “But we are clearly special.” you just think that because you want to believe that. We aren’t more special than any rock. “But thinking like that makes me feel sad and empty.” Reality doesn’t care about how you feel, my man, it is what it is.

Empirical evidence, however? Sure, that will convince me.

38

I disagree with this. I hope most atheists aren’t closed-minded, just skeptical. You have to be willing to at least look at the arguments for what they are worth, and have actual reasons for dismissing them.

Or is there some significance to the upper-case initial in your post? Are there atheists and Atheists?

39

Foxholes. My atheism is weakest when I’m frightened.

I’m walking in a lonely pine forest, after dark, and I’m surrounded by little noises. My neck prickles, and I feel a very strong sense of being watched.

The trouble is, this doesn’t point me toward the Abrahamic God, but toward tricksy spirits, sprites, little goblins, and the like.

The next day, walking the same trail by day, I realize how stupid my night-fears were. But, come the next night, my atheism suffers the same setback. My instincts are insistent. The night is full of sperrits!

40

You don’t become religious because of the compelling arguments. What makes people belive in God(s) is that feeling when you’re lying in your bed staring up at the ceiling - watching a sunrise on a cold day - listening to a beautiful piece of music. It’s entirely based in emotions, which is the main reason religious debates are one of the most pointless activities on the planet. I’m agnostic because I have had those moments where I truly, fully, completely believe in God. 95% of the time I’m an atheist, but sometimes . . . things don’t seem so obvious.