Atheists: does God exist?

[Mock Turtle]

Seems to me that having your own mind would imply using it to generate your own ideas about a question this significant to humanity. What conception of "God" (deity, higher power, existential source, etc.) WOULD YOU consider possible, and/or acceptable? And then if you're still rejecting it, why?

It's not a question I have spent much time over, given that such tends to be rather meaningless and often leads down the rabbit holes that so many find themselves within. How would I know what questions to ask when we still haven't gotten to the very nature of existence - as to fundamental particles, quantum physics, the origin of the universe, and all the rest. I do have one thing in my favour - I know my limitations.

 

[PureX]

It's not a question I have spent much time over, given that such tends to be rather meaningless and often leads down the rabbit holes that so many find themselves within. How would I know what questions to ask when we still haven't gotten to the very nature of existence - as to fundamental particles, quantum physics, the origin of the universe, and all the rest. I do have one thing in my favour - I know my limitations.

I don't think we can learn anything about God by contemplating the question of God's nature or existence. But I do think we will learn a lot about ourselves if we're willing to explore the possibilities.

For example, if you look at the many hundreds of responses coming from atheists regarding the God question, the overwhelming commonality among them is anger/resentment/disappointment/frustration/etc., over the fact that they cannot have a verifiable, objective, conclusive answer. That the answer to this question of God's nature and existence is not resolvable by the criteria that they demand resolution.

This tells us nothing about God. But it tells us a lot about those atheists. And the same will be found if we study the way various brands of theists deal with the question of God's nature and existence. Again, we will learn nothing about God, but a lot about those various theists.

So that if we are willing to dig into this God question, and we are willing to pay attention to the way we address it, and how we 'wrangle' with it, we can learn a lot about ourselves. Some of which may greatly surprise us.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't think we can learn anything about God by contemplating the question of God's nature or existence. But I do think we will learn a lot about ourselves if we're willing to explore the possibilities.

For example, if you look at the many hundreds of responses coming from atheists regarding the God question, the overwhelming commonality among them is anger/resentment/disappointment/frustration/etc., over the fact that they cannot have a verifiable, objective, conclusive answer. That the answer to this question of God's nature and existence is not resolvable by the criteria that they demand resolution.

I'm not sure this is accurate, although it is understandable why so many will have such attitudes towards religions. I think those who have no belief in God or are agnostic as to the question just can't resolve this whatever the evidence, and hence which leads to their inevitable conclusions - and much isn't necessarily of the physical world (whatever that is). Given that they wouldn't do this for virtually anything else either. It just seems so odd that the believers will see God in everyday life and the non-believers seeing this same life absent of God.

This tells us nothing about God. But it tells us a lot about those atheists. And the same will be found if we study the way various brands of theists deal with the question of God's nature and existence. Again, we will learn nothing about God, but a lot about those various theists.

So that if we are willing to dig into this God question, and we are willing to pay attention to the way we address it, and how we 'wrangle' with it, we can learn a lot about ourselves. Some of which may greatly surprise us.

Perhaps, but I think I have learnt much more from experiences and learning away from any spiritual matters.

 

[Altfish]

Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.

So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?

In many peoples' minds god(s) do exist.

Not in mine

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure this is accurate, although it is understandable why so many will have such attitudes towards religions. I think those who have no belief in God or are agnostic as to the question just can't resolve this whatever the evidence, and hence which leads to their inevitable conclusions - and much isn't necessarily of the physical world (whatever that is). Given that they wouldn't do this for virtually anything else either. It just seems so odd that the believers will see God in everyday life and the non-believers seeing this same life absent of God.

I think that shows us how differently people define and qualify what they take to be evidence. Which, if we are paying attention, ought to cause us to examine our own way of doing it. Because recognizing the other guy's error or bias does neither they nor us any good at all. But recognizing our own, certainly will.

Perhaps, but I think I have learnt much more from experiences and learning away from any spiritual matters.

Again, this depends on how you are defining "spiritual matters" and more importantly, why you are defining these as you are. But you would have to be willing to dig into your own self to gain that insight.

It's one of the things I find most intriguing about the whole "God" phenomenon: that the more we pursue it, the more it becomes a mirror into ourselves. While God remains the mystery.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it is natural, but natural may include a whole lot more then the senses can perceive.

Sure, that is why instruments are so important and have allowed us to abandon non-material guesses for material explanations.

I believe intelligence can be learned, but as time goes by the quality of information and experience one lacks, or has can severely handicap one from learning intelligence in the span of a lifetime.

There are different kinds of intelligences, but the primary definition we are referring to is the ability to problem solve and understand complex concepts. Knowledge and skill can be learned but I haven't read anywhere that intelligence can be learned.

I know other animals have consciousness and I don't see that being a problem.

Yeah, it's an exceptionally common thing on earth. It's been common for over 100 million years. The typical religious-based arguments I read is that it's human consciousness that is special, and I can't see anything that supports the notion that it is. The "specialness" tends to be tied to our evolved brain and what it can do that is different than other primates. There's a sort of pettiness about these claims that bothers me from the religious, like when pretty things brag about how pretty they are. The wise never brag about how wise they are.

The fact is that even though there are varying degrees of intellect in all animals, one animal managed to gain vast potential.

There's no indication that it was intended or a goal. The human brain evolved some 200,000 years ago yet only in the last 10,000 or so did these brains start making massive progress. The circumstances were such that our history is what it is. But even with our advances look at humans today, still making war, still making poor political decisions. Still making poor decisions about health and the planet, thus the future. There's a lot of potential that is being left untapved, and in a way that could result in many millions dying from various causes, from diseases, to war, to famine, to pollution. Who knows what long term impact microplastics will have on living organisms, including humans. We are smart, just not all that wise. The book Emotional Intelligence outlines how the human brain evolved a larger neocortex, but the primitive limbic system stayed the same. So our species is saddled with a conflicted brain, one that is highly emotional, and easy to be emotional in decision making. And frontal lobes capable of promblem solving but must learn skill to function property and effectively.

I infer it based on the non physical properties.

What non-physical properties are you referring to?

I think you are overly confident that everything is physical in the most mundane way; only by looking at life through the senses.

Can you point to anything non-physical? How is it over-confident to acknowledge that all we have is physical phenomenon? I suggest it's questionable to assume anything else given the lack of evidence. And especially since the only reason to advocate for a non-physical is the traditions of religious belief that date back thousands of years.

There really should be a science of introspection. Third person observation won't reveal everything there is to know. Third person can't reveal first person properties of inner experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's quite a bit of study about brains and conscious exprience.

That's a sense perception that is your unproven assumption. The self exists beyond just being conscious.

An extraordinary claim. How's that? What part of the self is not contained solely in the brain of the individual?

Humanity does not have the whole of physics and my hunch is that existence is grander than the senses reveal.

Based on what? Could it be religious influence? Could it be a way to make religious tradition seem relevant in the 21st century?

I know that GR, and QM cannot currently be reconciled together as well.

Experts are still working on understanding and explaining how the universe functions.

Love is a constancy of being that doesn't depend on fleeting emotions that come and go. Emotions are responses to love, and other qualities of being. Emotions don't explain love. Besides also qualia doesn't model well with brain processes.

Of course emotions explain love. Love is largely a trait that is similar in many animals. Observing how a momma cat takes care of her kittens is similar to human moms. The difference is how humans will conceptualize emotions, love, commitment, obligation, etc. into complex social relationships. The love couples feel and express are idealized and ritualistic. As we know the love that many couples feel tends to fade, and even with children there is about a 50% divorce rate. Looks to me that love comes and goes.

 

[F1fan]

The question is very simple, yet for some reason some atheists just cannot seem to grasp it.

No one is asking what you think or believe about anyone else’s idea of God. And no one cares. The question is asking what you think or believe about YOUR idea of God. And if you have no idea or definition of God in your mind (which is highly unlikely), then you can’t answer the question.

This is what you fail to respect in some atheists. My experience as a young kid did not include any ideas about anything like a god. The ideas were introduced to me by older family members who were religious. My grandmother took me to church and I kept asking why we were there. I got the usual superficial answers of worshipping God and Jesus. That led to more questions that were not answered to my satisfaction. To me it was like everyone was telling me that there was a watermelon on the diningroom table that had nothing on it. I never doubted myself, I questioned what others were saying is there that wasn't there. If these folks were so damn sure the God was there, where was it?

Now I know what you and other theists will claim: I'm deficient somehow. Well, it just wasn't the claims of a God existing, it was the behavior of believers around me that suggested they were not very good people. My uber-conservative Baptist aunt had a huge rift with my Catholic aunt, and we seldom had full family holiday celebrations. These Christians were the antithesis of what they claimed their religion taught. It's called hypocrisy, but as a 8-9-10 year old I didn;t know the word, I recognized the meaning.

So I was suspicious. My twin sister told me once that if I claimed to be greater than God that God would kill me. I still remember standing in a bathroom and said outloud that "I am greater than God". I braced for death. It didn't come. I repeated the assertion, and still no death. My sister didn't tell me the truth. I wondered how much truth any of these people who claimed a God exists was nonsense.

In all this I never felt compelled to form my own idea of a pet God for my own amusement. I never found any need or impulse. Since studying the psychology of religion I learned that it's likely that there's an innate impulse for religious belief and belonging, and these are tied to social learning from one generation to another. Religions and languages evolve but they remain a core element in societies through history. Some minds just aren't influenced in the same way as the majority. My cousin John and me are the only ones of 13 grandkids who didn't buy into the religious influences of our family/society. The only ideas of gods that we acknowledge are those that others invented and believe in.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is what you fail to respect in some atheists. My experience as a young kid did not include any ideas about anything like a god. The ideas were introduced to me by older family members who were religious. My grandmother took me to church and I kept asking why we were there. I got the usual superficial answers of worshipping God and Jesus. That led to more questions that were not answered to my satisfaction. To me it was like everyone was telling me that there was a watermelon on the diningroom table that had nothing on it. I never doubted myself, I questioned what others were saying is there that wasn't there. If these folks were so damn sure the God was there, where was it?

Now I know what you and other theists will claim: I'm deficient somehow. Well, it just wasn't the claims of a God existing, it was the behavior of believers around me that suggested they were not very good people. My uber-conservative Baptist aunt had a huge rift with my Catholic aunt, and we seldom had full family holiday celebrations. These Christians were the antithesis of what they claimed their religion taught. It's called hypocrisy, but as a 8-9-10 year old I didn;t know the word, I recognized the meaning.

So I was suspicious. My twin sister told me once that if I claimed to be greater than God that God would kill me. I still remember standing in a bathroom and said outloud that "I am greater than God". I braced for death. It didn't come. I repeated the assertion, and still no death. My sister didn't tell me the truth. I wondered how much truth any of these people who claimed a God exists was nonsense.

In all this I never felt compelled to form my own idea of a pet God for my own amusement. I never found any need or impulse. Since studying the psychology of religion I learned that it's likely that there's an innate impulse for religious belief and belonging, and these are tied to social learning from one generation to another. Religions and languages evolve but they remain a core element in societies through history. Some minds just aren't influenced in the same way as the majority. My cousin John and me are the only ones of 13 grandkids who didn't buy into the religious influences of our family/society. The only ideas of gods that we acknowledge are those that others invented and believe in.

Just to be clear: @PureX 's ideas about my intent behind the OP, in addition to being wildly hubristic, are just plain wrong.

I could have given a much more specific question; I didn't. I deliberately left things open-ended so that people's responses to the question could focus on their own concept of God, a god-concept that was presented to them by society, Alanis Morissette's character in the movie Dogma, whatever.

PureX is trying to force this conversation into a box of his own design. You don't have to play along.

 

[F1fan]

Just to be clear: @PureX 's ideas about my intent behind the OP, in addition to being wildly hubristic, are just plain wrong.

I could have given a much more specific question; I didn't. I deliberately left things open-ended so that people's responses to the question could focus on their own concept of God, a god-concept that was presented to them by society, Alanis Morissette's character in the movie Dogma, whatever.

PureX is trying to force this conversation into a box of his own design.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that there's gambling going on in here.

You don't have to play along.

In the wild west we find ourselves in a shootout sometimes. The skilled have nothing to fear. That's entertainment of these forums.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think we can learn anything about God by contemplating the question of God's nature or existence. But I do think we will learn a lot about ourselves if we're willing to explore the possibilities.

How does exploring the possibilities not rest on the question of God's nature or existence?

For example, if you look at the many hundreds of responses coming from atheists regarding the God question, the overwhelming commonality among them is anger/resentment/disappointment/frustration/etc., over the fact that they cannot have a verifiable, objective, conclusive answer. That the answer to this question of God's nature and existence is not resolvable by the criteria that they demand resolution.

I'm not seeing this. I think most of us atheists are content with "I don't know," and are willing to wait for evidence to develop before contemplating God's nature.

If these questions, as you say, are not resolvable objectively or empirically, then no reasonable decision can be arrived at regarding them, and the question is deferred, pending such evidence.

This tells us nothing about God. But it tells us a lot about those atheists. And the same will be found if we study the way various brands of theists deal with the question of God's nature and existence. Again, we will learn nothing about God, but a lot about those various theists.

We learn that the atheists are reasonable, and form opinions based on evidence, while the theists are forming unevidenced opinions based on emotion, tradition, social convenience, familiarity, &c.

So that if we are willing to dig into this God question, and we are willing to pay attention to the way we address it, and how we 'wrangle' with it, we can learn a lot about ourselves. Some of which may greatly surprise us.

Agreed.
So why do you find our "digging into this God question" so annoying?

 

[setarcos]

Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.

So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?

If the responses on here are from actual atheists I'm very surprised since most engagements I have had with the professed atheists on these forums have inadvertently resulted in their insisting they have no beliefs concerning Gods existence. If you have no belief concerning a subject then you cannot meaningfully converse about said subject.
Most atheists I've met on here however seem to have no problem debating or professing a strong opinion on the concept while simultaneously professing having no belief concerning God.

 

[F1fan]

If the responses on here are from actual atheists I'm very surprised

Are you suggesting that it's actually unscrupulous theists posing as atheists?

since most engagements I have had with the professed atheists on these forums have inadvertently resulted in their insisting they have no beliefs concerning Gods existence.

I suspect you are conflating beliefs with the word position. Atheists do have a position on the many, many god concepts in human history, but knowing about these many ideas doesn't impy there is some personal belief about them.

I see some theists try to impose some belief onto atheists as a tactic to switch the burden of proof. By your way of thinking you have beliefs about the Easter Bunny, and would that imply it exists or is a plausible thing since you give the idea attention?

If you have no belief concerning a subject then you cannot meaningfully converse about said subject.

Here you seem to be confusing and conflating the meanings of belief and knowledge.

Most atheists I've met on here however seem to have no problem debating or professing a strong opinion on the concept while simultaneously professing having no belief concerning God.

Notice that atheists are responding to other people making claims. The ideas don't drift into a forum on their own or by magic. Discourse has to begin somewhere, and religious debates tend to begin with an ffoirmative claim that some sort of God exists, or the like. Atheists are ready to challenge what the religious claimants say.

What strikes me about posts like this is what is the ulterior motive in these sentences. They come across as factual and overt, but the word use reveals something else.

 

[osgart]

Of course emotions explain love. Love is largely a trait that is similar in many animals. Observing how a momma cat takes care of her kittens is similar to human moms. The difference is how humans will conceptualize emotions, love, commitment, obligation, etc. into complex social relationships. The love couples feel and express are idealized and ritualistic. As we know the love that many couples feel tends to fade, and even with children there is about a 50% divorce rate. Looks to me that love comes and goes.

That really doesn't explain anything about it. You associate good feelings with love. Love takes on good and bad feelings and emotions are responses too love. Of course there are different kinds of love that people base on their feelings, but that is superficial to base it on. There are qualities of love and being that people base their relationships off of. Things like values and virtues. These extend way beyond emotions in my experience.

 

[PureX]

This is what you fail to respect in some atheists. My experience as a young kid did not include any ideas about anything like a god. The ideas were introduced to me by older family members who were religious. My grandmother took me to church and I kept asking why we were there. I got the usual superficial answers of worshipping God and Jesus. That led to more questions that were not answered to my satisfaction. To me it was like everyone was telling me that there was a watermelon on the diningroom table that had nothing on it. I never doubted myself, I questioned what others were saying is there that wasn't there. If these folks were so damn sure the God was there, where was it?

Now I know what you and other theists will claim: I'm deficient somehow. Well, it just wasn't the claims of a God existing, it was the behavior of believers around me that suggested they were not very good people. My uber-conservative Baptist aunt had a huge rift with my Catholic aunt, and we seldom had full family holiday celebrations. These Christians were the antithesis of what they claimed their religion taught. It's called hypocrisy, but as a 8-9-10 year old I didn;t know the word, I recognized the meaning.

So I was suspicious. My twin sister told me once that if I claimed to be greater than God that God would kill me. I still remember standing in a bathroom and said outloud that "I am greater than God". I braced for death. It didn't come. I repeated the assertion, and still no death. My sister didn't tell me the truth. I wondered how much truth any of these people who claimed a God exists was nonsense.

In all this I never felt compelled to form my own idea of a pet God for my own amusement. I never found any need or impulse. Since studying the psychology of religion I learned that it's likely that there's an innate impulse for religious belief and belonging, and these are tied to social learning from one generation to another. Religions and languages evolve but they remain a core element in societies through history. Some minds just aren't influenced in the same way as the majority. My cousin John and me are the only ones of 13 grandkids who didn't buy into the religious influences of our family/society. The only ideas of gods that we acknowledge are those that others invented and believe in.

So according to this, you rejected your family member's ideas of God because they could not explain them to your satisfaction, and because they didn't always behave as you thought they should if they really believed in the God they claimed to believe in. And that was that. You decided there is no God and your family members are all just fooling themselves and each other, and are all the worse for it.

And now you want me to "respect" this rather arrogant and uninformed judgmentalism that you've adopted as you now aim it at all theists, everywhere, including even me.

What does this story reveal about YOU, do you think?

 

[Nakosis]

Nazi, Hitler.
Responses I learned from Israel.

 

[Valjean]

If the responses on here are from actual atheists I'm very surprised since most engagements I have had with the professed atheists on these forums have inadvertently resulted in their insisting they have no beliefs concerning Gods existence.

That's what basic atheism is -- deferral of belief, pending evidence. It's the logical rejection of a proposal that has not met its burden of proof.

We don't disbelieve, so much as lack belief. We lack belief for the same reason you lack belief in unicorns.

If you have no belief concerning a subject then you cannot meaningfully converse about said subject.

We can. Believers assert their beliefs and justifications. We just discuss their justifications, empirical methodology, and logical soundness of their conclusions.

Most atheists I've met on here however seem to have no problem debating or professing a strong opinion on the concept while simultaneously professing having no belief concerning God.

Of course. What else would you expect to be discussed in debate/discussion threads about the existence or nature of God?

 

[PureX]

I think most of us atheists are content with "I don't know," and are willing to wait for evidence to develop before contemplating God's nature.

All I see are self-proclaimed atheists endlessly asserting that there is no evidence for the existence or nature of God when there is plenty, because they have defined evidence as only that which can convince them of something they are already convinced is not true. This is not an, "I don't know" position. It's an, "I dare you to try and convince me otherwise" position. It's for this reason that I have come to conclude that most atheists are liars as they claim to be open-minded or undecided when they're anything but.

If these questions, as you say, are not resolvable objectively or empirically, then no reasonable decision can be arrived at regarding them, and the question i deferred, pending such evidence.

A reasonable decision could be made based on subjective criteria, but they refuse to respect the validity of this option ... because they have already made up their minds and have no intention of entertaining any criteria that might contradict that pre-determination. Again, this is not an, "I don't know" position, this is an, "I dare you to try and convince me otherwise" position.

We learn that the atheists are reasonable, and form opinions based on evidence, while the theists are forming unevidenced opinions based on emotion, tradition, social convenience, familiarity, &c.

This is a totally unreasonable assertion based on the athest's insistance that "evidence" is only what can convince them when they have no intention of being convinced.

Agreed.
So why do you find our "digging into this God question" so annoying?

What I find annoying is the constant arrogance and dishonesty. Just as @F1fan found his religious relatives annoying for their not being able to reasonably explain why they believed in their version of God, or why the behaved so badly as a result. And yet saw themselves as being morally and ethically superior to anyone that didn't believe as they did.

 

[PureX]

If the responses on here are from actual atheists I'm very surprised since most engagements I have had with the professed atheists on these forums have inadvertently resulted in their insisting they have no beliefs concerning Gods existence. If you have no belief concerning a subject then you cannot meaningfully converse about said subject.
Most atheists I've met on here however seem to have no problem debating or professing a strong opinion on the concept while simultaneously professing having no belief concerning God.

Yes, this two-faced presentation of atheism by most contemporary atheists does get quite annoying. But keep in mind that many a religious theist can be just as wildly two-faced and hypocritical in their own proclamations and actions. It's why so many self-proclaimed atheists are so viscerally anti-religious rather than ideologically atheist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nazi, Hitler.
Responses I learned from Israel.

?