To Atheists

[GuestFellow]

Hi,

I have a question and curious to see how would atheists would respond. Atheists don't believe in God, and I assume the main reason behind this is because they cannot seem him. Please do share any other reasons why atheists do not believe in God.

However, lets say in a hypothetical scenario, an individual, who performs miracle in front of your face, such as bringing someone back from the dead, and claims to be God, would you actually believe him? How would you respond in this type of situation?

[Pygoscelis]

Hi,

I have a question and curious to see how would atheists would respond. Atheists don't believe in God, and I assume the main reason behind this is because they cannot seem him. Please do share any other reasons why atheists do not believe in God.

However, lets say in a hypothetical scenario, an individual, who performs miracle in front of your face, such as bringing someone back from the dead, and claims to be God, would you actually believe him? How would you respond in this type of situation?

I would believe that I had witnessed something I can not explain, and perhaps something that is beyond my understanding. I would not believe he was god though, no. He could simply possess superior science and technology and be able to do what we can not. This is similar to you going back in time a thousand years or so and bringing along a flashlight and showing it to the people. You are not a God, but I bet you could convince some of them that you are simply by flicking it on and off. That would be an error on their part, and so would I likely be in error in your example above.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This is similar to the god of the gaps fallacy. Just because you can't explain something dosen't mean god did it, and just because somebody can do something you can't explain doesn't mean they are a God. Otherwise Pen and Teller would be Gods.

[GuestFellow]

^ Thanks for the response.

[IAmZamzam]

Most atheists, in my experience, do not disbelieve in God simply because they cannot see Him, ProfessorSunday, although with any number of them it really is just a slightly more complex version of exactly the same fallacy: they disbelieve in a thing outside the nature, purpose, and scope of science because there is no scientific evidence for Him. The reasoning, therefore, is that X does not exist because something which by definition could never confirm or disconfirm it does not confirm it. Comparable to disbelieving in the Loch Ness Monster because you cannot find it anywhere in Lake Erie. Some of them deny that there is anything outside of the reach of science—moments before they go right back on it by claiming (rightly) that creationist science is not real science because such things as God are outside the reach of science. And therefore what view they take on the matter depends on which view would be convenient for their beliefs or arguments at the present moment.

Different people, ProfessorSunday, have different reasons for believing in atheism, but from what I have observed more often than not it seems to be nothing more than an extension or effect of an already anti-religious mindset. In the best cases the atheist is simply led astray by the illusory sophistry of atheistic argumentation, which has a weird way of appearing rational at first glance but being more and more obviously the more and more you see of it and think about it a farrago of questions masquerading as arguments (some of which, like “If God created everything then what created God?” sound superficially like clever comebacks but are in fact really just evasions of the main issue), arguments against specific religions or religious conceptions of God’s nature masquerading as arguments against the existence of any kind of God, and mere arrogance masquerading as annoyance at the “obsolescence” of the arguments of anyone who expresses disagreement with you, even when your own arguments on the matter are at least as old and much less valid. It can take you in (it took me in once, for instance), and only careful reflection can make you see past the mirage, though by that point many people have become too inflamed with anti-religious hatred or cheerful closed-mindedness euphemistically called healthy skepticism for that to happen.

[Pygoscelis]

Most atheists, in my experience, do not disbelieve in God simply because they cannot see Him, ProfessorSunday, although with any number of them it really is just a slightly more complex version of exactly the same fallacy: they disbelieve in a thing outside the nature, purpose, and scope of science because there is no scientific evidence for Him. The reasoning, therefore, is that X does not exist because something which by definition could never confirm or disconfirm it does not confirm it. Comparable to disbelieving in the Loch Ness Monster because you cannot find it anywhere in Lake Erie.

This is a pretty fair assessment, with the minor correction that most atheists actually don't believe against as much as they fail to believe. It is only a rare few who will say they are sure there is no God. Most of us simply fail to see any evidence or reason to believe that there is one, as you noted above. We don't believe in God(s) for the same reason you don't believe in leprechauns, space aliens, or the loch ness monster. We start without belief and see no reason to believe. Even though there are stories about all of these things we have no evidence and faith (believing because you want to) isn't enough for us. I'd also point out that there are plenty of Gods you also do not believe in (Zeus, Odin, etc) , for similar reasons.

Different people, ProfessorSunday, have different reasons for believing in atheism

Atheism isn't something to believe in. It is a lack of a belief in something. If atheism is a religious belief then being bald is a hair colour.

[/quote] but from what I have observed more often than not it seems to be nothing more than an extension or effect of an already anti-religious mindset. [/quote]

You have that exactly backwards. People are not born with an anti-religious mindset. This mindset (which I agree many atheists have) comes from being an atheist and then observing religious belief. It doesn't happen to all atheists. There are plenty of atheists who are not anti-religious. There is even a good number of atheists who wish they could believe.

In the best cases the atheist is simply led astray by the illusory sophistry of atheistic argumentation, which has a weird way of appearing rational at first glance but being more and more obviously the more and more you see of it and think about it a farrago of questions masquerading as arguments

Atheist arguments are reactive, not proactive. Atheists would not recognize themselves as such or speak of atheism were it not for theism, just as non-smokers would not recognize themselves as such or speak of smoking if it were not for tobacco.

(some of which, like “If God created everything then what created God?” sound superficially like clever comebacks but are in fact really just evasions of the main issue)

Do you understand why this question gets asked? The speaker is not really wondering who made God. The speaker is making the point that complexity does not necessitate something having been created. This is an example of the reactive nature of atheist arguments/debunking. The atheist would not be asking this question if the theist did not first try to argue that since the world is so complex then it must require a creator (the watch maker argument)

arguments against specific religions or religious conceptions of God’s nature masquerading as arguments against the existence of any kind of God

Yes atheists do engage in this too often. Mostly because they have only been exposed to particular conceptions of Gods. It is rare in the west, for example, that we would argue against chi or tao but we do often lump these religions in after taking on Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

I would note that theists play the same game though. I often see people make arguments like the watchmaker one and then claim to have proven their particular conception of God, when really even if the watchmaker argument held, it would only prove a creation force - which could be just about anything.

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth, although obviously not intentionally. I didn't say anything about atheism being a religious belief (although a lot of people do seem fanatical with it in a very religious fashion), nor that anyone is born with any atheistic mindset. In fact, if anything Islam teaches us precisely the opposite of the latter. And I can't remember a time when I've heard the "what created God?" evasion in response to any kind of teleological argument. It always seems to be only an excuse not to address cosmological ones. It sounds like it's addressing them but it's not doing any such thing at all, it's just dodging the issue.

I personally don't even see what difference it makes whether atheistic argumentation is "reactive" or "proactive". It's just as flawed either way, and to exactly the same effect.

As for the first paragraph, you have entirely missed my point, which was about the idiotic circularity of demanding a kind of proof that couldn't be possible and acting like it means anything if an example of an inapplicable kind of evidence (or lack thereof) is there. It would be like demanding mathematical proof of an etymological argument.

[Gator]

Hi,
I have a question and curious to see how would atheists would respond. Atheists don't believe in God, and I assume the main reason behind this is because they cannot seem him. Please do share any other reasons why atheists do not believe in God.?

Hello, I would not say the main reason is that I cannot see him. I would say it begins with that I don't find the definition of most god/gods reasonable to me based on how I perceive the world. The characteristics and acts attributed to god/gods don't fit with what I believe how the world works. A naturalistic universe makes sense to me. If I were to find a definition and description of a god that would do better, I would definitely consider it.

I guess after that point we'd have to get into evidence, either direct or indirect, of a god, which would be a much broader context of that i can "see" him.

However, lets say in a hypothetical scenario, an individual, who performs miracle in front of your face, such as bringing someone back from the dead, and claims to be God, would you actually believe him? How would you respond in this type of situation?

You'd probably have to do a lot better to reach a god status, but it would get my attention. I'd ask how she did that.

Thanks.

[titus]

If he really was God he would not have to try to convince me by performing tricks.

If there was a God and he wanted everyone to know he existed then people would. Simple as that.

The whole idea that life on Earth is simply a big test for everyone, like existence is some kind of game for God, is absurd to me.

[GuestFellow]

^ Are you an atheist?

[IAmZamzam]

Well, obviously. Theists and deists don't just walk around beginning sentences with "If there was a God..."

If he really was God he would not have to try to convince me by performing tricks.

If there was a God and he wanted everyone to know he existed then people would. Simple as that.

That might be a valid point were the more important issue whether we're correct about the issue instead of how we come to the belief.

The whole idea that life on Earth is simply a big test for everyone, like existence is some kind of game for God, is absurd to me.

The last time I checked, a game and a test were hardly synonymous concepts.

[GuestFellow]

Well, obviously. Theists and deists don't just walk around beginning sentences with "If there was a God..."

He hasn't disclosed what he follows...he could be agnostic? :/

You'd probably have to do a lot better to reach a god status

Like what?

[Pygoscelis]

If he really was God he would not have to try to convince me by performing tricks.

If there was a God and he wanted everyone to know he existed then people would. Simple as that.

Yes. This. Well put.

I have always felt that the existence of these holy books prove that either God doesn't exist as described, or chooses to communicate less efficiently than he could,, thus intending all of the resulting confusion and distraught (holy wars, tension between sects and religions, etc). If he's all powerful then he could simply have us know his message, that he exists, and what if anything he wants from us.

These religions then say that he judges us based on this message that he has chosen to communicate to us so poorl, and that many get wrong even though they try so hard to seek him. And he is then said to be an all fair and all good deity. I see a conflict here between his "all powerfulness" and his "all goodness".

As an atheist, I see no reason to seek out, theorize, or imagine Gods. If there are Gods out there and they want to be known, they will be known. It isn't like they have limited resources like us mortals do.

[Pygoscelis]

That might be a valid point were the more important issue whether we're correct about the issue instead of how we come to the belief.

I know that muslims believe that we are born believing and that a convert to Islam is a "revert", but that just isn't the case from the atheist's point of view. I never believed in God(s). Not when I was a child and not today. I did not become an atheist, Just like I did not become a disbeliever in faeries. I've never believed in these things. Atheism is the default position. What keeps me an atheist is that I've seen no reason to start believing.

I believe that we are all born with an implicit trust in a higher power, our mothers, which we evolved as a survival instinct. That same drive pushes further and causes people to look for higher authority figures to put trust in, like Kings and Gods. Most believers are indoctrinated in their youths, when they are most impressionable and least questioning.



The last time I checked, a game and a test were hardly synonymous concepts.[/QUOTE]

[IAmZamzam]

I have always felt that the existence of these holy books prove that either God doesn't exist as described, or chooses to communicate less efficiently than he could,, thus intending all of the resulting confusion and distraught (holy wars, tension between sects and religions, etc). If he's all powerful then he could simply have us know his message, that he exists, and what if anything he wants from us.

The Fallacy of Appeal to Probability

These religions then say that he judges us based on this message that he has chosen to communicate to us so poorl, and that many get wrong even though they try so hard to seek him. And he is then said to be an all fair and all good deity. I see a conflict here between his "all powerfulness" and his "all goodness". As an atheist, I see no reason to seek out, theorize, or imagine Gods.

If you see no reason to seek out any deities then I can only wonder, how hard have you tried to understand the communication in question before passing it off as poor?

[Pygoscelis]

That might be a valid point were the more important issue whether we're correct about the issue instead of how we come to the belief.

I know that muslims believe that we are born believing and that a convert to Islam is a "revert", but that just isn't the case from the atheist's point of view. I never believed in God(s). Not when I was a child and not today. I did not become an atheist, Just like I did not become a disbeliever in faeries. I've never believed in these things. Atheism is the default position. What keeps me an atheist is that I've seen no reason to start believing.

I believe that we are all born with an implicit trust in a higher power, our mothers, which we evolved as a survival instinct. That same drive pushes further and causes people to look for higher authority figures to put trust in, like Kings and Gods. Most believers are indoctrinated in their youths, when they are most impressionable and least questioning.

[IAmZamzam]

I know that muslims believe that we are born believing and that a convert to Islam is a "revert", but that just isn't the case from the atheist's point of view.

I didn't say anything about that at all.

I never believed in God(s). Not when I was a child and not today. I did not become an atheist, Just like I did not become a disbeliever in faeries. I've never believed in these things. Atheism is the default position. What keeps me an atheist is that I've seen no reason to start believing.

Atheism can't possibly be the default position! If people aren't born believing in anything then they're not born disbelieving in anything either. Or is it just an equivocation fallacy in which you deliberately mix up "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism (never mind that only "strong" atheists ever use the term that way to begin with)?

I believe that we are all born with an implicit trust in a higher power, our mothers, which we evolved as a survival instinct. That same drive pushes further and causes people to look for higher authority figures to put trust in, like Kings and Gods. Most believers are indoctrinated in their youths, when they are most impressionable and least questioning.

I could spin psycho-babble about atheism at least as convincingly. We're all better off considering beliefs on their own merits instead of on our own pure speculation about where they may come from.

[zoro]

We're all better off considering beliefs on their own merits instead of on our own pure speculation about where they may come from.

Cases can be found to support your statement, but it's a potentially dangerous concept, depending on the meaning of the word 'merits'.

For example, one can conclude that there's "merit" in believing that some god exists if cultural demands are: "Believe in our god or die!" In less extreme cases, one could argue that there's "merit" in believing in the existence of some god for those for whom such a belief imposes structures for their lives. In sum, 'merit' implies value; so, there's need to consider 'value'.

I therefore think that the sentiment that I think you were trying to convey would be better expressed with something similar to: "It would be better to evaluate beliefs on the basis of relevant evidence rather than on speculation or on perceived merits." Such a revision would then seem to be similar to the statement you recently made in one of your posts in the "Pascal's Wager" thread.

[IAmZamzam]

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

[GuestFellow]

Most believers are indoctrinated in their youths, when they are most impressionable and least questioning.

However as we grow up, we begin to question what we believe, whether we are open about it or not depends upon the circumstances. I'm certain that many Atheists at one point, questioned what they believe in.

[titus]

Are you an atheist?

Yes

The last time I checked, a game and a test were hardly synonymous concepts.

Life on Earth - It is a test for humans. A game for God.

And according to the rules, some people have an upper hand. As I have said before the number one indicator of what religion you believe in is the religion of your parents. It seems strange that God would condemn 80% of the world to Hell pretty much right off of the bat simply based on who their parents are.