Based of the evidence of the world around me, if there is a god, he is cruel, uncaring, delights in pain, rewards evil and punishes good. I find it too depressing to live in such a world, so I choose to believe there is no god.
Probably the leading news story in North Carolina is the shift of a conservative state legislator from the Republican to the Democratic party – ostensibly because he disliked the tactics of the man who is the Republican candidate for Speaker and thinks highly of the Democratic candidate, and switched parties to give him a guarantee of his support. Since this shifts the State House’s political balance from 61-59 Republican to a 60-60 tie, it’s quite a significant development.
But what I found interesting was the comment of the State Republican Chairman, who refused to believe the man’s stated reasons, claiming that he must have been promised something in terms of political favors. (And, of course, if he is given any chairmanship or other perk, as his seniority and skills suggest he probably ought to have, it will of course “prove” the Chairman’s contention.)
The key to me here is that the Chairman could not conceive of a person doing something for the benefit of the state as a whole out of disinterested motives. To me, it says far more about the Chairman’s morality than it does about the representative who changed parties.
I trust people may be able to see the connection between this political hijack and the quote above.
No, Ben, I mean that part of the reason I try to be a good person is that the Personage whom I’ve taken as Lord of my life commands me to do so. (Of course, there’s more to it than that, but that’s the point I was trying to make.) You or another may have quite different motives for doing so; I’m speaking of my own.
Your point (3) baffles me!
If a creator exists, one with the talent and wisdom to create the universe and all life, does it not seem a billion times as likely that he could prevent any evidence of himself from becoming evident to us? If he so chose.
But how, if there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist, can you possibly pick the right god? Your idea that if there is no evidence it is therefore a billion times as likely a god exists defies logic. We have no evidence that Santa Claus exists. Does this show us that he such a magical being that it is a billion times more likely that he exists?
Or does this show us that sometimes you have to leave imaginary things and join the real world?
I’m sorry – are you my long-lost twin or something? This sounds like my upbringing too (apart from the Hot Rod magazine thing – we had sailing magazines intead).
I was never taught that there was a God, I’ve not experienced anything in my life to suggest that a specific God exists (although one could make a possible case for incidents influenced by unspecified supernatural forces, which is an entirely different question), and no deities of any sort have seen fit to reveal themselves to me in any form. So why believe?
Good going so far!
JOHN MACE:
As to my definitions, I found a good one from MEBuckner: “…Historically words like ‘god’ (and deus and theos and el and so forth) have meant persons, willful, conscious entities which have purposes and act on them…” A “god” that doesn’t have at least some aspect of “personhood” is not a god but a force or principle.
JACKMANII:
“…The demand to ‘Prove it ain’t so’…is a poor way to convince people that they should believe in a deity (if that approach is truly the one Scott thinks atheists and agnostics should take).
This is the same strategy employed by snake-oil salesmen to market a variety of dubious products and ideas…In terms of religion, the onus is on the believer to demonstrate why it is so…”
What you say may be so, but you’re overlooking two things. First, I specifically noted that I am NOT asking for anyone to prove a negative (which is what I think you mean) but rather to present an account of why they hold that belief; except that (Second) I am asking that those whose rationale amounts to “insufficient evidence” withhold their comments, in that IMHO there’s no particular reason to elaborate upon such a position.
FU SHAKES–
Just to clarify, when I speak of “positive” reasons, I don’t mean “positive” in the sense of nice, encouraging, happy, inoffensive; but rather “positive, as opposed to the default condition.” In other words, I’m interested in the particular rationale or situation that accounts for the stance of atheists/agnostics–specifics, for those who HAVE specifics–rather than “you don’t need a reason to WITHHOLD belief, you need a reason to BELIEVE.” (I think “positive” here means “able to be posited.”) Is that clearer?
My two cents is fairly unexiting. When I was in seventh grade I remember thinking about how no matter how small we probe, it always seemed like there was something smaller. No matter how far out we looked, it always seemed like there was something bigger. At that time, I figured there was no room for God.
Since then I’ve more or less abandoned that notion. I simply have adjusted my ontological perspective to not grant suppositions on metaphysics any realistic weight.
I do not know what it would take for me to believe in a god or gods. I’ve thought about it, but came to no conclusions.
Well, from my point of view, that assumes a sentient creature by definition more powerful than a thousand billion suns, is able to “hide” from we who can map thirty million cubic light years’ of hydrogen distribution, for example.
Moreover, the only ‘evidence’ we have for such a being is a book of fables and morality plays that was written by a dozen authors over the course of about 2,000 years in and around the pre-metal-age middle east area.
Which begs the question, if he won’t reveal himself to us- indeed, actively “hides” from our X-ray telescopes and radio observatories- then why did he reveal himself to them dozens of times over a millennia?
More likely? That seems about a billion times less likely, actually.
[Monty Python]
A witch! Burn the witches!
[/MP]
Sorry. Had to do it.
It may be that evidence of gods existence is not what we understand to be as “out there” in the perceivable world.
What if evidence of a god’s existence or the existence of a transcendent self is in the nature of your own awareness, in your own being?
True, but then he wouldn’t be any human god, right, since they all talk to prophets, dictate Bibles, and are extremely interested in our sex lives. Sure, there could be some sort of deity hiding on the other side of the Big Bang, but that deity is functionally equivalent to no deity at all.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? It seems to me like you were presenting your good behavior as being some sort of justification for your belief in something absurd- which would arguably be within the realm of the OP. But when I press you on the logic behind your statement, you state that you were simply explaining why you are a good person- which has nothing to do with the OP at all.
I have not yet seen a totally convincing explanation of quasars, Ben, nor am I clear on why some two instances of the same virtual particle break down, one on the order of 10,000 times faster than the other. These are phenomena that I accept as existent even though their causality is not defined by science as yet. My statement was intended to make clear my stance that I accept God as existent and relevant to me on phenomenological grounds, not because there is some concrete “proof” of His existence and characteristics – and that a part of the reason for my behavior is based on His teachings, not on His fitting neatly into a logical scheme. I thought that relevant to the issue at hand – or, more specifically, to Fatwater Fewl’s definition of his humanistic morality irrespective of the metaphysics related to it, which I quoted. If you feel that I hijacked the thread by saying what I did, then let this post be an end to it – the OP was, after all, asking a question of non-theists.
Polycarp: In all seriousness, does it matter to you if God exists “objectively” (outside your own mind, capable of affecting the world and others, etc.)?
Absolutely. Hence my discussion with you on another thread over potential methods of exploring the question.
However, what I’m saying might be equivalent to a dispute between historians as to whether or not some event reported in legend actually happened or was a complete fabrications – I weigh the evidence and find for His (objective) existence; others weigh it differently and do not; I can respect their evaluation while disagreeing with it.
So, if said being doesn’t exist, you would be less compelled to be a good person?
Not trying to be snarky with you, but wouldn’t the term “Belief” be more appropriate to “believers?” I think that the whole point of denying the existance of god or gods would be that we don’t need “belief.” We have knowledge, derived from objective facts using a system that is self-correcting. Knowledge is generally a lot more comforting than “belief.”
A more positive reason for my lack of belief would be the society where I live. I’m in a society with secular laws based on religious beliefs, supposedly directly dictated by god. Religious authorities have the power to arrest people, detain them, etc. etc. because they are doing “god’s work.” Having seen what happens when religion gains control of secular life, I don’t see any positive thing it has to offer.
Regards
Testy.
Basically the way I see it, if a “God” exists, he can be broken down into 2 categories: One is that he is to be worshiped/believed in/followed by humans, regardless of what religion you claim. Or two, he is just an impartial observer, watching us for his own amusement.
If it is the latter, then it doesn’t matter what we do, as there is no reward/punishment system and ultimately, there is no “sin.”
If it is the former, then you must also believe that we are the result of his design. If that is the case, how can we be held accountable for our actions? A good craftsman doesn’t blame his tools, right? If it was by his desire that we all hold a faith in him, he sure did a lousy job of getting his message out there. That alone should show that he isn’t all knowing and all powerful.
I happen to believe in a continuation of life after our human bodies turn cold, but I don’t think we are under the influence of an omnipotent being who is slamming a gavel down every time we “make a mistake.” As Einstein said, if we only treat each other with kindness in hopes of reward and fear of punishment, then we truly are a sorry lot. Some other quotable hisotrical figure said something to the effect of, “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
I have seen God, and am still an atheist.
My life has been one long experiment on what my brain is capable of, and my working hypothesis is that seeing God is only one experience out of many of similar intensity that I have had. Having known first hand the love and peace of Christ, I am happier, more at peace, and hold a greater sense of awesome wonder at the prospect that:
I am the most incredible thing in an incredible universe. I am a pattern of ever-changing atoms which somehow has the ability to think. Nothing like me existed for 12 billion years. I am borne of supernovae, I am Made of Stars. Every piece of sensory input I receive has an inexplicable quantum effect on the universe - I am the universe’s way of observing itself. My life is a wonder; I will live my life in wonder.
SentientMeat wrote:
“I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing it rightly, as I do. There are those who love and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples.” — God