Atheists: does God exist?

[Mock Turtle]

Aren't we making our own future regardless? To the degree that it is possible for us to do so?

Not really - as to actually being free to do so - given we still have all the baggage from religions, and as to which they affect the larger majority to some extent. And they still cause enough conflict so as to hold us back or divide us. Mostly stemming from a God belief and what has been projected onto such, in my view.

Humans will turn anything into a weapon when they are looking for conquest. Science, history, philosophy, politics, art, religion, food, money, ... anything that can be used to hurt people will be used to to hurt them when one is out to conquer the world. I don't know why you're so focused on the abuse of religion, as opposed to the abuse of anything and everything else. Or why you think being skeptical about God will help humanity overcome this abuse.

Well, simply, I prefer the truth over fictions or myths, even if not so palatable to many. Given that I am quite appreciative of what we humans, and other life have on Earth, but I hardly see such as everything being beneficial for us or other life, hence I would hope we just dealt with this reality and not one projected onto a God - and especially when it might favour humans alone. This is another reason why I am not enamoured with religions - few seem to have equality in mind which might cover all life.

None of this conversation was ever about becoming religious. Hoping on the possibility of God does not make someone religious unless they choose to be.

Well yes, and even if I was to come to the conclusion that God did exist, why should this make me do anything special - given what I have said above? Why would I want to join a, b, c, religions?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why are you assuming that acting on hope means ignoring all the pertinent information?

Again, you are assuming that to act on hope means to ignore any pertinent information. Why are you assuming this?

Then define hope? If you are defining it as belief based on good evidence then ok.

Like I am an old man that still needs to go to work every day. So I am hoping my body will continue allowing me to do that.

That is fine, but that hope you have is doing nothing about the situation.

 

[PureX]

Not really - as to actually being free to do so - given we still have all the baggage from religions, and as to which they affect the larger majority to some extent. And they still cause enough conflict so as to hold us back or divide us. Mostly stemming from a God belief and what has been projected onto such, in my view.

Well, simply, I prefer the truth over fictions or myths, even if not so palatable to many. Given that I am quite appreciative of what we humans, and other life have on Earth, but I hardly see such as everything being beneficial for us or other life, hence I would hope we just dealt with this reality and not one projected onto a God - and especially when it might favour humans alone. This is another reason why I am not enamoured with religions - few seem to have equality in mind which might cover all life.

Well yes, and even if I was to come to the conclusion that God did exist, why should this make we do anything special - given what I have said above? Why would I want to join a, b, c, religions?

I don't know how to respond. That bias against religion is dominating your thinking and obscuring your view of reality. But nothing I say will change that. And I couldn't really care less about religion, myself, anyway. So it's not my boogeyman nor my bailiwick. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

 

[PureX]

Then define hope? If you are defining it as belief based on good evidence then ok.

That is fine, but that hope you have is doing nothing about the situation.

Hope has nothing to do with belief, or good evidence. It's what we turn to when we don't have enough evidence to believe in. But we still want (hope for) a specific outcome. Since we have to act to move forward, anyway, we choose to act as if what we hope to be the outcome will be the outcome. And then we see what comes if it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't know how to respond. That bias against religion is dominating your thinking and obscuring your view of reality. But nothing I say will change that. And I couldn't really care less about religion, myself, anyway. So it's not my boogeyman nor my bailiwick. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Unfortunately, religions are the only beliefs that have a superior as to which none can have arguments - God did it, God says this, etc. - and hence they are fundamentally different, in my view, to all other beliefs - as to which reason often prevails. Hence why I am so irreligious - and no pretence on my part, always have been. Given the amount of conflict such beliefs often cause and always have done.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Hope has nothing to do with belief, or good evidence. It's what we turn to when we don't have enough evidence to believe in. But we still want (hope for) a specific outcome. Since we have to act to move forward, anyway, we choose to act as if what we hope to be the outcome will be the outcome. And then we see what comes if it.

Can't you see how that could be dangerous? My bus example for instance. If we don't have enough evidence to believe something is true we should not believe it is actually true. I can hope I lose 20 pounds and I could just act like I was going to lose the weight and see what comes of it. Or I could do something to lose the weight.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The utter oblivion of the atheist is appalling.

You have no understanding of the atheist's inner life. You view it from the perspective of a believer who would be lost without his beliefs and who then projects that onto others. You're merely expressing that without your religious beliefs, like is worse than empty to you.

Atheism isn't for everybody. It's easier to believe in a god than not. One needs to be comfortable without a god belief or a religion, but for those up to it, it's a preferable way to live.

Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence. Could you do that?

To the theist I say, try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals. Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

No one is asking what is someone else's position but that you don't agree with and is NOT your position.

Yes, people are asking that. It seems like you'd like them to stop.

I find this a very curious phenomena, this need to attack everyone else’s idea of God while never actually considering or developing the idea for themselves.

You're projecting. You're on the constant attack. And you are incorrect about atheists having no ideas about gods. Nor do they attack you. They reject your claims and tell you why.

imagine we were discussing music, and the person we’re talking to tells us constantly why they hate whatever music we like, and yet doesn’t seem to like or listen to any kind of music, themselves. Weird, right?

No. You've just described somebody who doesn't like any kind of music.

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.

You're projecting again. It's YOU with the angry emo disposition.

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.

Nobody familiar with your posting expects you to be respectful to atheists.

What I find annoying is the constant arrogance and dishonesty

You're projecting again.

this two-faced presentation of atheism by most contemporary atheists does get quite annoying.

Still annoyed? You're easily triggered. And that's the disrespect we're used to from you.

You asked, "Do you fear that if you were to dare to hope in a God that you would become one of these religious people that you think are bad?" Do you think theism and religion are appealing to people comfortable without it? Do you think they might like to trade places with you and experience life as you experience it?

your thought is based on skepticism (negativity)

Skepticism as in expecting claims to be sufficiently empirically justified before believing them is not negativity. Consider it mental hygiene - habits that keep the mind relatively free of false and unfalsifiable ideas, which can be thought of as a form of mind pollution.

we can be hopeful in the face of our unknowing.

We don't need a god belief for that.

 

[Yerda]

you've got to do better than that, before you get a reply.

Ok. This is up to you. Have a nice day.

 

[F1fan]

No, the knowledge persists through the questioning.

What knowledge are you referring to? Explain how believers know their God exists, and isn't some belief that they have decided for non-rational reasons.

If a nonbeliever gets nothing substantive from his believer counterpart it is likely because the nonbeliever prejudices every question with his own religious beliefs, which are presented and protected as the standard of truth.

How did you calculate this? Give us several examples of critical thinkers being prejudiced, and how non-believers have religious beliefs.

And would you agree that the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts?

While not always the case, discussing God with a nonbeliever is tantamount to asking someone to gaslight you for an hour.

Is it the objectivity and critical thinking that causes the pain to ideas believed through faith? This is a petty complaint where you sound victimized only because there are others who reject religious claims and do so through critical thinking skill. If you were correct in your beliefs you would prevail in these debates on the evidence, but you have no evidence, thus no argument, thus have lost before you begin. And your only option is complaining and false accusations?

In law there is a principle where you can't sue someone for damages if you put yourself in harms way, like stepping out in front of a moving car. I see many theists choose to be in forums where religion is critiqued, and then complain that religion is being critiqued.

What sane person wants to do that? So the discussions are necessarily brief.

You are here as a theist, and it is not a position I envy. Theists fight a tidal wave of critique. But notive there are many theists on these discussions who keep their devotion personal, and don't make it issues for debate. They are often on the same side as atheists in discussions of science and politics.

That said, I've had discussions about God with nonbelievers where everyone was treated with respect, and where discernible effort was made on all sides to suspend prejudices for the sake of understanding. Discussions of this kind are just uncommon.

It's there. But looking over the last few posts I have responded to there are some believers who show high disdain for atheists, and they can't help themselves but say insulting things.

 

[idea]

No, the knowledge persists through the questioning. If a nonbeliever gets nothing substantive from his believer counterpart it is likely because the nonbeliever prejudices every question with his own religious beliefs, which are presented and protected as the standard of truth. While not always the case, discussing God with a nonbeliever is tantamount to asking someone to gaslight you for an hour. What sane person wants to do that? So the discussions are necessarily brief.

That said, I've had discussions about God with nonbelievers where everyone was treated with respect, and where discernible effort was made on all sides to suspend prejudices for the sake of understanding. Discussions of this kind are just uncommon.

Everyone prejudices everything from the standard of their own beliefs.

It is only possible to have a meaningful conversation between two people who are each willing to change their beliefs, who both listen deeply.

Are you willing to change your beliefs? Are you open to receiving information from someone outside of your religion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a nonbeliever gets nothing substantive from his believer counterpart it is likely because the nonbeliever prejudices every question with his own religious beliefs, which are presented and protected as the standard of truth.

How about that the believer has nothing substantive to say?

discussing God with a nonbeliever is tantamount to asking someone to gaslight you for an hour. What sane person wants to do that? So the discussions are necessarily brief.

You're probably talking about from your perspective, but that describes my experience on the other side of such discussions, although gaslighting isn't the correct word. The believer is generally the victim of gaslighting:

"Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true."

Eventually, many believers can't see biblical contradictions anymore. They're taught that foolishness is wisdom and wisdom foolishness, they're taught that belief by faith is a virtue and a path to truth when it is exactly the opposite. That's what gaslighting does to one.

I've had discussions about God with nonbelievers where everyone was treated with respect, and where discernible effort was made on all sides to suspend prejudices for the sake of understanding.

You are treated with respect. I'm treating you respectfully now. What you want is for your beliefs to be respected and your decision to belong to a religion to be respected. But you're not entitled to that, nor do you give it, nor need you. All you are entitled to is civility and good faith discussion. I don't need you to respect my atheism, but many believers actively disrespect atheists. Did you see my post above this one? They are hostile to atheists and see them as immoral.

You want critical thought suspended. That's the prejudice you are experiencing. And it is a prejudice, albeit a rational one. I have decided in advance (pre-judged) that if your arguments aren't sound, they'll be rejected.

And understand what? That you've chosen to believe in a god? What you actually believe about that god and reality because of that belief? I don't expect you to teach me anything or for me to learn anything from you. It's not my purpose. It would be were it possible, but alas, no. I'm absolutely certain that neither of us will learn anything from the other because of this discussion.

So what do you really want? You want your beliefs treated as respectable by people who have rejected faith as a path to truth, people you don't respect.

Bottom line: my feeling about such atheophobic bigots is the same as it is for the MAGA conservatives who dream of drinking liberal tears and say "**** your feelings, woke snowflakes." They don't like me, my atheism, or my liberalism, and because of that, the feeling is mutual. Just as the Middle Eastern Muslims will never accept the Israelis, the church will always teach slanderous things about atheists as will the MAGA right about liberals, and I find nothing respectable about any of that.

 

[Unfettered]

What knowledge are you referring to?

The knowledge you referred to:

Just waiting for believers to see this thread and post their beliefs about how they "know" God exists. That "knowledge" will last until atheists start asking quesions about this "knowledge".

Explain how believers know their God exists, and isn't some belief that they have decided for non-rational reasons.

I can only speak for myself. God has manifest himself to me on many occasions and in several ways; that's how I know.

How did you calculate this?

The statement was overly broad. It was too sweeping. What I had most in mind when I wrote that was the gall of expressing to a person claiming knowledge of God that he has no such knowledge. To do so is the very definition of prejudice—to judge without knowledge.

Give us several examples of critical thinkers being prejudiced, and how non-believers have religious beliefs.

Everyone has a religion, which is whatever system of beliefs the person goes to over and over to orient or calibrate his understanding and interactions. "Religion" comes from re- legere—to "read again." Meaning, to refer to again... to go back to... Whatever system of judgment and morality and conscience we appeal to from moment to moment—that's one's religion. Everyone is religious, not just "believers." Though everyone is a believer in something, too. We're all the same. This is one of the great blindnesses "nonbelievers" get lost in. They think they have no religion. They think that they don't "believe" in anything dogmatic or unseen or abstract. Sure they do. Everyone does.

And would you agree that the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts?

When facts are germane to the nature of truth, yes. Not all truth appeals to a fact, or collection of facts. For example:

"It is wrong for a person to rape another person."

That is true. I assert that it is true. I know that it is true. It is true always and it is never false. It is "truth." But I have no facts to offer on which to found that truth.

If you agree that the statement is true, and if you can offer a fact, or series of facts, that "make it true," then without qualification whatever I will agree with this: "the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts"

Is it the objectivity and critical thinking that causes the pain to ideas believed through faith?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Objectivity and critical thinking are as much a part of my experience as are belief and faith (which are not synonymous).

In law there is a principle where you can't sue someone for damages if you put yourself in harms way, like stepping out in front of a moving car. I see many theists choose to be in forums where religion is critiqued, and then complain that religion is being critiqued.

It should be clear now that I am not, and have not been, talking about religion being critqued.

It's there. But looking over the last few posts I have responded to there are some believers who show high disdain for atheists, and they can't help themselves but say insulting things.

I see it, too. All of it is counterproductive. That's why I don't do it.

 

[Unfettered]

Everyone prejudices everything from the standard of their own beliefs.

Then my claims of knowledge are being prejudiced here. Which, of necessity, means that those who are prejudicing my claims are doing so in ignorance—and remaining in ignorance.

It is only possible to have a meaningful conversation between two people who are each willing to change their beliefs, who both listen deeply.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would amend that statement because it is possible to have a meaningful conversation without being willing to change one's beliefs when one's objective is to understand the other person, his perspective or experience.

Are you willing to change your beliefs? Are you open to receiving information from someone outside of your religion?

Beliefs, yes. Knowledge, no. As for receiving information from those not of my belief system, I do so when I discern truth in what is shared. I assume others do the same, though some don't, or won't. What we tend to see here on RF, however, is simply shut-downs and contradiction. If someone finds fault with me for not yielding to such, guilty as charged. I see a lot of contempt being mis-classed as "offering information" here, though, and a lot of just plain rudeness being passed off as "simply disagreeing," or "intellectual challenge."

 

[Unfettered]

How about that the believer has nothing substantive to say?

Also possible. I painted with a broad brush; correction received.

You're probably talking about from your perspective, but that describes my experience on the other side of such discussions

I don't doubt it.

although gaslighting isn't the correct word. The believer is generally the victim of gaslighting:

"Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true."

Eventually, many believers can't see biblical contradictions anymore. They're taught that foolishness is wisdom and wisdom foolishness, they're taught that belief by faith is a virtue and a path to truth when it is exactly the opposite. That's what gaslighting does to one.

This has application to anyone who believes anything with which he has no direct experience.

To the gaslighting point, gaslighting is often far less subtle. Abusers gaslight their victims with simple refutations, misdirection, insults, and shaming: "No you don't; you didn't see that; you didn't experience that; you're crazy; you saw something else; you're irrational; you're always being irrational; I can't have a logical discussion with you..." etc.

You are treated with respect.

Hmmm. If I discern that I'm not treated with respect, wouldn't the appropriate response be to seek understanding before shutting me down and evaluating reality for me? Gaslighting? (generally speaking).

I'm treating you respectfully now.

Are you? Let's see what follows. Do you seek understanding or do you tell me what is?…

What you want is for your beliefs to be respected and your decision to belong to a religion to be respected. But you're not entitled to that, nor do you give it, nor need you. All you are entitled to is civility and good faith discussion. I don't need you to respect my atheism, but many believers actively disrespect atheists. Did you see my post above this one? They are hostile to atheists and see them as immoral.

Pushing the line there, but not over the edge. I will say this; you have misunderstood my posts.

You want critical thought suspended. That's the prejudice you are experiencing.

And now you've crossed the line. No, you are wrong. I do not want critical through suspended; not at all. I want to see it on display! I want people to listen first, listen again, listen, ask, listen; until they understand why I say what I say. Then they'll be in a position to make a judgement. Absent that, a person can claim all he wants to be a critical thinker, when he has exposed himself as being merely a critical speaker.

And understand what? That you've chosen to believe in a god? What you actually believe about that god and reality because of that belief? I don't expect you to teach me anything or for me to learn anything from you. It's not my purpose. It would be were it possible, but alas, no. I'm absolutely certain that neither of us will learn anything from the other because of this discussion.

Then why are you engaging with me? I am absolutely certain that I would learn from you in a good-faith discussion. That is my disposition.

So what do you really want? You want your beliefs treated as respectable by people who have rejected faith as a path to truth, people you don't respect.

There you go again telling me what I want, telling me who I respect. It's ignorant blather. Not because you're ignorant in the broad sense, but because you speak without knowledge in this instance. You stereotype, generalize, etc.

Bottom line: my feeling about such atheophobic bigots is the same as it is for the MAGA conservatives who dream of drinking liberal tears and say "**** your feelings, woke snowflakes." They don't like me, my atheism, or my liberalism, and because of that, the feeling is mutual. Just as the Middle Eastern Muslims will never accept the Israelis, the church will always teach slanderous things about atheists as will the MAGA right about liberals, and I find nothing respectable about any of that.

Is this last bit a general rant, or did you actually mean to apply that to me?

 

[Twilight Hue]

God does exist, and all humans are created in His image - spiritual beings.
The utter oblivion of the atheist is appalling.

Only in your world that is the case.

That 'oblivion' you speak of? Well, it's that oblivion that enables us to be here, so it's quite comforting to know that the natural forces out here in nature are handling things rather spiffingly for Atheists without any help from the beings that dwell permanently within one's own mental realm.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to one hypothesis (not a theory) and there are several other hypothesis which are all valid in that they are mathematically sound or extrapolated from current observed phenomena

There is an interesting theory called Gaia theory out there , but I'm hesitant on many parts because it starts sounding new agey with some people, and oh God! Those Dr Quantum videos of the double slit experiment!

 

[PureX]

Can't you see how that could be dangerous? My bus example for instance. If we don't have enough evidence to believe something is true we should not believe it is actually true. I can hope I lose 20 pounds and I could just act like I was going to lose the weight and see what comes of it. Or I could do something to lose the weight.

Hope without action is of very little use. Acting on hope takes both courage and caution. I really don't understand why you're finding this so difficult to accept. We don't need to "believe" anything. We aren't going to know what the outcome of every action we take will be before we take action. And that's the role of faith in our life. Faith is choosing to take action based on hope when we cannot know what the outcome will be.

Yes, there is always some danger involved. But life is not safe. And yet we have to keep living it. So we are going to have to keep doing so with faith. By acting on hope. That's just the way it is.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately, religions are the only beliefs that have a superior as to which none can have arguments - God did it, God says this, etc. - and hence they are fundamentally different, in my view, to all other beliefs - as to which reason often prevails. Hence why I am so irreligious - and no pretence on my part, always have been. Given the amount of conflict such beliefs often cause and always have done.

Or, "the evidence says, ... objective reality is ..." is just as subjectively derived and held as "God did it ... God says ...", and yet those who claim the former are just as blind and opinionated as those who claim the latter. And the conflict comes when any of them try to inflict their opinions of anyone else.

What people are calling atheism these says is no less antagonistic and blind to it's own inhumane nature as the religions they constantly blame for everything. The problem is not the ideologies so much as the blinding self-righteousness with which they are being held, and pushed on everyone else.

The problem is the human obsession with being in control. And the fact that the more control we get, the more harm we do to everything and everyone around us, with it. And this is the big lesson that almost none of us have maneged to learn, yet. ... How, when, and why we should NOT be in control.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While not always the case, discussing God with a nonbeliever is tantamount to asking someone to gaslight you for an hour. What sane person wants to do that? So the discussions are necessarily brief.

What do atheists say or do that you consider gaslighting?

(And FYI: I often feel the same thing from theists)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Or, "the evidence says, ... objective reality is ..." is just as subjectively derived and held as "God did it ... God says ...", and yet those who claim the former are just as blind and opinionated as those who claim the latter. And the conflict comes when any of them try to inflict their opinions of anyone else.

Try telling that to the children who have religions imposed upon them. And you are being a little ingenuous here with the evidence. People are hardly blind when they are open to and seek evidence - all evidence - and as to which the materialists have made better progress than most others.

What people are calling atheism these says is no less antagonistic and blind to it's own inhumane nature as the religions they constantly blame for everything. The problem is not the ideologies so much as the blinding self-righteousness with which they are being held, and pushed on everyone else.

Let's not get carried away. I doubt any such atheists are blaming religions for everything - just the more intractable problems that have occurred since they first originated, and which tends to come from so many of the doctrines. I think the major issue with most who criticise religions will be as to the authorities not being so dogmatic as to 'this religion is the truth', and which then tends to cause the conflicts, slows progress, as well as much dogma affecting modern humans rather the what the religions were built around.

The problem is the human obsession with being in control. And the fact that the more control we get, the more harm we do to everything and everyone around us, with it. And this is the big lesson that almost none of us have maneged to learn, yet. ... How, when, and why we should NOT be in control.

Well, when religions tend to have the most control of so many - wherever it happens to be - where would we look? Even in the USA, supposedly the most advanced and richest country in the world, we have about a third of adults who believe an utter load of nonsense (usually coming from a literal interpretation of the Bible) - and coming from religions alone. Perhaps there is a need for more control in this country.