I don’t think this applies in Greek myths. The Greek gods were ferociously proud, and would have stomped on anyone who had a magic charm that could compel their service. They were somewhat honorable, and often fulfilled promises, so you could sometimes call upon god for a boon. But…not always. They were prone to renege.
Terry Jones had it right in Erik the Viking, when it was revealed that…
the gods were petulant children.
If god wants to prove to me that it exists, let it appear before me in a puff of smoke and do something impossible.
Most of the 7 billion people on earth believe in some form of god. Their beliefs are contradictory, so it is true that at least the majority are wrong. I choose to believe that they all are. Of course I could be wrong, but no argument is likely to be cmpelling.
…yet. For instance, as far as humanity is concerned radio waves didn’t exist 200 years ago. And that’s why I find that particular viewpoint so charming. Still, it’s aimed at sciencing God, which is sorta the opposite of belief. And thus off topic I suppose.
Counter would be
“God is all things to all people, and therefore everyone’s view is correct**”
** of course, my view is more correct, let me show you a pamplet you can study up on**
Arguments for any kind of God are extremely weak to me, even more so when God gets defined as having sentience, but I suppose if I had to go with something, time dilation is about the closest I will get to thinking that just maybe, we don’t know it all, and there might be some slim chance of a deity like being. So I guess the argument from ignorance works for me too.
Since there are so many empirical tests that have confirmed time dilation, it makes me wonder what else may we have not discovered yet. I will never grasp how traveling at close to the speed of light doesn’t age the twin but for some 30 years, but yet comes back to earth and 48,000 years have passed for his twin and for earth (if I remember the numbers correctly).
Can’t grasp when time ever began either, if it ever did, nor what can possibly be on the outer limits of space, if it does have limits.
What really boggles my mind about theists, is that of all of the gods they had to pick from, many decided that it’s the Abrahamic God that does it for them.
Aphrodite is a better choice in so many ways!
The cosmic watchmaker is probably the most cogent argument I can hold in my head as it doesn’t clash with my view of science.
The view I have of course is that we don’t know what we don’t know and what may seem completely irrational may one day be true but to believe in a sky man who judges us for our sins is plain silly IMO.
I believe there have been studies showing that some people have a higher propensity for god belief than others. My family’s is low, my grandfather was an atheist 100 years ago.
Sure you can’t express a god belief without language, but given how religions emphasize faith against proof or reason (though many claim to use reason - reason full of holes) I don’t think it is based on reason. And god belief predates writing and the discovery of logic by a lot.
Do dogs believe in gods? No, why would they have to? We as magical beings do all that gods are supposed to do for us but mostly actually do it. They wag and food appears, or a walk. Not always, but it is a lot more reliable than prayer.
Neither did lots of things we couldn’t see with our naked eyes. But instead of saying that they could not be studied a theory for them was worked out and experiments done. From being theoretical 150 years ago they are at our command today.
Also 150 years ago spiritualist were talking auras and other such crap. How is that work going?
If God affects the world at all, the affect can be studied. If God never affects the world, he might as well not exist. The fact that the world, as far as we can tell, works fine without any god, and is more justifiable, is a really good argument for atheism.
What part of the brain serves as this receptor? Can we find someone who has this part damaged and see if he has a soul? We have already found what many parts of the brain do, and we’ll find more.
When I unplug my monitor it works just fine when I plug it in again. It works fine with other computers. Most of the monitors programming is hard wired.
If you wipe the computer, on the other hand, it won’t be the same computer ever again, unless you record everything in it. Nothing is making it “think”, nothing outside it is giving it any kind of a personality.
I wouldn’t say I have a “belief”, nor would I be inclined to use the word “soul”; which has never been well-defined.
However, our everyday idea of how consciousness and our existence works is basically based on the idea of “bodily continuity”. That every birth results in 1 new consciousness (well, ok, maybe 0 sometimes if we allow for p-zombies), which is one and the same instance throughout a lifetime (by “the same” of course I don’t mean qualitatively the same), then ceases to be forever.
Philosophically, this is a tougher position to defend than many people realize, and it’s not hard to think of scenarios that are problematic for this simple picture (transporter, multiverse, technology that could stop and restart brains etc).
I don’t expect to wake up in a garden and meet my gran or whatever. But “something else”…some way in which I continue to exist that we’re completely ignorant of right now? Maybe.
The further I get from childhood and the tiny bit of exposure I had to belief that supernatural beings could be real, the more of a belly laugh the whole idea of a “god” becomes. The arguments for the existence of any such thing range from simply ridiculous to clever, underhanded and misleading.
The arguments that are ridiculous tend to be obviously ridiculous.
The arguments that are clever, underhanded and misleading often appear to be the most plausible on first blush. But such arguments often end up being their own worst enemy. Once you work out the trick, you then go on to realise that if someone is prepared to put considerable thought into tricking you into believing something, their belief must be insincere and their intentions highly questionable.
If there were a God who created slavery, Hitler and cancer . . . as *OBSTACLES, *merely to strengthen his “children’s” faith *IN HIM, *I’d describe him as evil incarnate, and certainly not worthy of anyone’s worship. I’d hate to live in a universe in which this monster actually existed.
It seems pretty obvious that an omnimax deity is a pretty useless concept: if it were extratemporal, as one would have to assume, it would be inherently unattainable from our perspective, making it of no direct value to us. An omnimax deity would by nature be indifferent, it is fantasy to imagine that such a being could respond to earthly entreaty.
A localized superbeing might possibly make more sense. That kind of deity would be the one that rolled the ball that started the cascade of events five billion years ago that resulted in the rise of humanity, knowing full well how it would play out. But even that putative superbeing would be an observer at best, there is no substantive reason to think that it would at all be directly involved in the lives of the beings within its creation. Its initial action of creation led to slavery, Hitler and cancer, and it knew full well that it would, but those are just minor brushstrokes of the bigger picture.
Of course, if one can posit the sub-omnimax creator, it is an easy step to a host of aetherial beings that could have influence over and communication with our sphere. And being non-singular, one could imagine that god does not reveal itself because it is a disparate band of entities that argue with each other and cannot agree on how to reveal themselves appropriately – a sort of sky-senate.
The underlying problem is that superbeings are entirely notional. We can muse about them all we want, but for the ideas to be meaningful, we have to have a practical theory for the mechanics of their existence and potence. So far, the aetherial realm is not available for examination, no analysis or experimentation has yielded anything of substance to suggest that spirituality is any less fantastical than Frodo or Voldemort.
I agree. But, not because a higher number of intelligent people are religious – because many intelligent people are religious. I’ve met some of them, I’ve talked to them, and some of them are much smarter than I am. But I think that I am right and they are wrong when it comes to belief in God. I struggle with that sometimes. It doesn’t help that many atheistic arguments are flawed.
Such as?
Just because someone is intelligent doesn’t mean all their positions are correct. Very intelligent people may overestimate their own capabilities; history is littered with very smart people saying incredibly stupid things about topics they feel they understand but clearly don’t.
In the case of religion, I don’t think you have to be exceptionally smart to be able to weigh the evidence for and against, but you have to be willing to do so. I don’t think very many people are religious because they objectively weighed the evidence and were convinced by the arguments in favor purely on an intellectual level.
My dad was a pretty smart guy who was at one time in a seminary. He once told his brother-in-law that he attended a Presbyterian church for a while but went back to the Baptist (American, not Southern) church because the Presbyterian theology was just too equivocating for him. He was very interesting in sciency stuff and recorded amazingly high-quality classical music tapes off the radio with his fancy stereo setup. He only took religion as far as he needed to (and, to hear my mother tell it, found it a very effective tool for manipulating her into walking out on him so that he could marry a woman he was working alongside).
Really, for a lot of adherents, to listen to them discuss the finer points of scripture and doctrine, it is all but indistinguishable from Trekkies or Middle-Earthers exploring the unwritten backstories and details hidden in their canon. For some people, religion is just a massive RPG-like scenario that is as real to them as Known Space is to extreme Nivenians. Outside of the fantasy realm, all of these “over-conformists” are just as functional as you or me.
Whenever there is a discussion of these issues, there should always be at least a nominal mention of Julia Sweeney’s amazing work “Letting Go Of God”. There is a film version. But, you can listen to much of it here.
Please give an example of an “atheistic arguement” …
You realize taht the majority of the time - the arguement is simply countering the theists special pleading for their specific version of god - and is therefore “flawed” simply to show how flawed the others argument is.
There isn’t much to “argue” over a “non-belief” otherwise.
Yep, I watched that a couple of years ago. Good stuff.