Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Mister Emu]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

The music coming from my radio depends on said radio... that does not mean that is all there is to it though...

The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

Evolutionary origins of species does not, of necessity, overturn the idea of creation or design for the human race

Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

From the angle of one God. This assumes that all would understand that communication in the same way, that they would reliably convey it, and that it would be passed correctly from generation to generation, or that constant contact with the deity would be established in all places. It also assumes not other beings that could be mistaken for divinity that might make the effort to appear so.

From the angle of multiple deities, there is no issue as there could be any number of deities, perhaps even regionally dispersed.

Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

Assuming the deity/deities in question were desirous of that.

Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

They might not necessarily completely contravene natural laws,there is the term "medical miracle" for a reason...

 

[Copernicus]

Might want to be a bit more specific about the god-concept you're talking about, then. I do not believe in external, supernatural gods. I believe in aspects of the human psyche that do not exist beyond it, yet influence it in very powerful ways.

I usually give an explicit definition of gods, but I did do that in the post you are repsonding to. Let me just elaborate on that. I define gods as intelligent spiritual agencies that control some aspect of physical reality. By "spiritual", I mean that they inhabit a different plane of existence from physical beings. Usually, people conceive of human minds as spirits that can exist in the same spiritual realm as gods. Humans are, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, instinctively dualistic in their thinking. We think of minds and bodies as existing on two different planes of being. Minds are typically thought capable of continuing to exist beyond physical death. (You have already said that this is not your belief, however.)

That is a fair, modern definition, and certainly part of the overall definition. However, it's not the only one.

Agreed, but it is hard to discuss anything about God or gods without taking a definitive stand on what such terms mean. My response to you has usually been that I would not include your different definition in the category of beings that I am talking about, which I consider more conventionally sound.

Are you aware that the "many different paths" outlook has been there in India for thousands of years? "Truth is One, Sages call it by many Names." (Rig Veda 1.164:46... it should be noted that several hymns of the Rig Veda are the oldest surviving religious texts, at least one of which [not the one I quoted] dating back over 5500 years.) Looks like India was culturally ahead of us until the Islam invasion. Before then, each "religion" was just a different way of looking at the same thing in the eyes of a typical Indian. Even now, that outlook still exists among many schools of thought.

I am not going to argue with you on the advanced state of classical Indian culture and civilization. I am a great admirer of India. After all, Hindu scholars pretty much invented my chosen discipline, linguistics. My view of the Vedic tradition, though, is that it was most probably a blend of the Indo-European pantheon and the indigenous Harappa religion. I believe that religious ecumenism has evolved as a means for empires to incorporate diverse tribal religious traditions. So the "many different paths" argument came to be a fairly standard way of people from rival religions learning to co-exist with each other. But they are still rival religious traditions.

I do not believe in "false" religions. I do believe in "false" practice, and I do believe in "false" literalism. These are paths that lead to feelings of being "trapped" rather than "free." If atheism makes you feel liberated, than that is your path. Likewise, if Satanism makes you feel liberated, then that is your path. The only time a religion can be considered "false" is if it doesn't fit anyone's nature, and anyone who joins it ultimately feels trapped rather than liberated.

You and I disagree on this point. I think that any belief system which leads you to draw incorrect conclusions about the nature of reality is false. If your religion tells you that lightning struck your house and caused it to burn down because some deity is angry with you, then I would say that you are the victim of a false belief. (Of course, maybe that is really what did happen in your case, and my house is next for my brazen attitude. But I'm willing to take that chance. )

I'm just reminding you that there will always be exceptions, and that the majority doesn't necessarily represent the only form of religion. In fact, when it comes to religion, I'd probably argue that there really isn't a "majority" considering all the various sects of individual religions; the only religion that can reasonably claim to even have a majority is Islam.

No, I believe that Christian traditions are still more popular, but Islam is growing faster. It does not surprise me that Islam more typically seems to promote a more anthropomorphic conception of God, though. I think that the majority of people are predisposed to believe in a God that they can relate to on a personal level, and more liberal religious traditions (which are more common in Christian cultures) ultimately self-destruct on their failure to satisfy the need that people have for a personal relationship with a god.

Have you read the works of the Sages? Vedic texts frequently say that the mind is inferior to intelligence, which is also inferior to the Atman (translated as "Self"), which is (in advaitic, i.e., "non-dualistic," schools of thought) no different from Brahman. The Atman is the Hindu equivalent of, and is therefore often translated into English as, "soul."

Actually, I've studied Sanskrit and even been trained in Hathayoga. I do not consider myself an expert on the Vedic tradition, however, as my interests have always been more in the linguistic and philosophical schools than the religions. I really do wish that we had more left of the Carvaka (or Lokayata) traditions, though. Unfortunately, most of what comes to us in modern times has been preserved throught the mental prism of those who rejected those earlier materialist atheist schools of philosophy. I suspect that much of the greatness of Indian culture may have been rooted in skeptical traditions that we no longer have access to in the historical record. The Indians were at least as advanced as the Greeks in the sciences, and they were more advanced in many areas (e.g. linguistics).

I'll remind you that Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, with over a sixth of the human population following it.

I am very much aware of that. And it is a very diverse religious tradition, just like Christianity and Islam. Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism certainly need to be counted as part of the Vedic tradition, although those religions split off and even rejected large parts of Hindu tradition.

A god is certainly a divine agency that is reported to interact with the material world, but it is also an object of worship, either material or abstract. It is also a symbol of perfection of a certain attribute, or multiple attributes. (These definitions are coming off the top of my head.) Which definition is certainly important in communication, hence why I specify which god-concept I'm talking about. In this case, external, supernatural gods.

That's a lot of very different things for a god to be. People traditionally worship gods, because worship is felt to influence gods in the same way that it does humans. Gods hold ultimate power over our physical reality, so religion plays the role of empowering humans. Take that kind of empowerment away from them, and religion loses much of its attractiveness for most people. That is why theism can never really escape anthropomorphism, although I think that the more intelligent, sophisticated believers try their best to downplay or mitigate traditional anthropomorphism.

I do not believe in, nor do I worship, such gods. If such belief liberates someone so they can live up to their full potential of their individual nature, I will encourage them down that path so long as it's not harmful to themselves or others. (Another indication of a "false" religion.)

It is hard to say whether religion is ultimately more harmful or beneficial to humans. Myself, I tend to agree with Dawkins and others that it has become more harmful in the modern era, because it makes people prone to misjudging their circumstances. If your one and only life becomes all about preparing for the afterlife, then there is a tendency not to prepare for contingencies.

Copernicus, have you ever read Joseph Campbell?

Long ago, but I first watched his series on TV. He was a great intellect. I enjoyed his work.

 

[Riverwolf]

I usually give an explicit definition of gods, but I did do that in the post you are repsonding to. Let me just elaborate on that. I define gods as intelligent spiritual agencies that control some aspect of physical reality. By "spiritual", I mean that they inhabit a different plane of existence from physical beings. Usually, people conceive of human minds as spirits that can exist in the same spiritual realm as gods. Humans are, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, instinctively dualistic in their thinking. We think of minds and bodies as existing on two different planes of being. Minds are typically thought capable of continuing to exist beyond physical death. (You have already said that this is not your belief, however.)

Agreed, but it is hard to discuss anything about God or gods without taking a definitive stand on what such terms mean. My response to you has usually been that I would not include your different definition in the category of beings that I am talking about, which I consider more conventionally sound.

I am not going to argue with you on the advanced state of classical Indian culture and civilization. I am a great admirer of India. After all, Hindu scholars pretty much invented my chosen discipline, linguistics. My view of the Vedic tradition, though, is that it was most probably a blend of the Indo-European pantheon and the indigenous Harappa religion. I believe that religious ecumenism has evolved as a means for empires to incorporate diverse tribal religious traditions. So the "many different paths" argument came to be a fairly standard way of people from rival religions learning to co-exist with each other. But they are still rival religious traditions.

You and I disagree on this point. I think that any belief system which leads you to draw incorrect conclusions about the nature of reality is false. If your religion tells you that lightning struck your house and caused it to burn down because some deity is angry with you, then I would say that you are the victim of a false belief. (Of course, maybe that is really what did happen in your case, and my house is next for my brazen attitude. But I'm willing to take that chance. )

No, I believe that Christian traditions are still more popular, but Islam is growing faster. It does not surprise me that Islam more typically seems to promote a more anthropomorphic conception of God, though. I think that the majority of people are predisposed to believe in a God that they can relate to on a personal level, and more liberal religious traditions (which are more common in Christian cultures) ultimately self-destruct on their failure to satisfy the need that people have for a personal relationship with a god.

Actually, I've studied Sanskrit and even been trained in Hathayoga. I do not consider myself an expert on the Vedic tradition, however, as my interests have always been more in the linguistic and philosophical schools than the religions. I really do wish that we had more left of the Carvaka (or Lokayata) traditions, though. Unfortunately, most of what comes to us in modern times has been preserved throught the mental prism of those who rejected those earlier materialist atheist schools of philosophy. I suspect that much of the greatness of Indian culture may have been rooted in skeptical traditions that we no longer have access to in the historical record. The Indians were at least as advanced as the Greeks in the sciences, and they were more advanced in many areas (e.g. linguistics).

I am very much aware of that. And it is a very diverse religious tradition, just like Christianity and Islam. Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism certainly need to be counted as part of the Vedic tradition, although those religions split off and even rejected large parts of Hindu tradition.



That's a lot of very different things for a god to be. People traditionally worship gods, because worship is felt to influence gods in the same way that it does humans. Gods hold ultimate power over our physical reality, so religion plays the role of empowering humans. Take that kind of empowerment away from them, and religion loses much of its attractiveness for most people. That is why theism can never really escape anthropomorphism, although I think that the more intelligent, sophisticated believers try their best to downplay or mitigate traditional anthropomorphism.

It is hard to say whether religion is ultimately more harmful or beneficial to humans. Myself, I tend to agree with Dawkins and others that it has become more harmful in the modern era, because it makes people prone to misjudging their circumstances. If your one and only life becomes all about preparing for the afterlife, then there is a tendency not to prepare for contingencies.



Long ago, but I first watched his series on TV. He was a great intellect. I enjoyed his work.

Well, then as it appears we understand each other, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. ^_^

(BTW, I'm aware of the combination of the Indo-Europeans and the Dravidians merging theory, and accept it as the most likely scenario; I don't believe there's really enough evidence to postulate that Hinduism is 100% native to India. But I also believe the Vedas to be a combination of hymns from both cultures.)

 

[methylatedghosts]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Could it be argued that the mind needs the physical brain to interact and communicate to a physical reality?

That without the brain, it can't?

Yeah experience tells us mind needs brain, but experience cannot be had of a mind independent of a brain to communicate the experience to us in a physical existence.

 

[Copernicus]

The music coming from my radio depends on said radio... that does not mean that is all there is to it though...

Metaphors can be useful at explaining concepts, and we could go back and forth with this one. If the music is your mind, then what happens to it when you smash the radio? You could, of course, say that the same music could come from any radio, but the music is still dependent on some physical medium for its existence.

Evolutionary origins of species does not, of necessity, overturn the idea of creation or design for the human race

True, but it makes that idea less likely. We can trace our origins in the fossil record. BTW, the note at the end of the OP made it clear that I was more interested in plausibility than possibility.

From the angle of one God...

And also from the angle of multiple gods...

This assumes that all would understand that communication in the same way, that they would reliably convey it, and that it would be passed correctly from generation to generation, or that constant contact with the deity would be established in all places. It also assumes not other beings that could be mistaken for divinity that might make the effort to appear so.

I am not trying to show that God is impossible, merely implausible. If there were a single true deity or set of deities communicating with humans, it is reasonable to assume that the deity would reveal itself in more than just one geographic location. In fact, false religions spread from a single location, because they are made up in those locations. One would expect a true divinity to spread word of its existence by a different method than one that could be easily confused with false revelation. I think that the alternatives you seem to suggest would be rather more of a stretch of the imagination.

From the angle of multiple deities, there is no issue as there could be any number of deities, perhaps even regionally dispersed.

Right. I considered that point, and it is true that different tribes and nations had different sets of deities in the ancient past. People thought that their gods went to war when they went to war, and sometimes victims would take the god totems of the vanquished as spoils of war. However, that idea fell into disfavor as different ethnic groups were forced to live together as empires grew. By the 4th century, Roman emperors were actively looking for an ideal religion to help knit its diverse empire together. The Christian religion was seen as a better fit than some of its rivals, e.g. the similar Mithraic tradition that was popular with soldiers.

Assuming the deity/deities in question were desirous of that.

It is hard to believe that deities, especially the Christian God, actually want to be worshiped by fawning human beings. On the other hand, if they did not want that, then we would have nothing to offer them. And that would certainly undercut the main point of praying to gods and worshiping them. Theism empowers people because they think they have something to offer in return for the gifts that they imagine or desire their deities to confer on them.

They might not necessarily completely contravene natural laws,there is the term "medical miracle" for a reason...

Yes, there is. It describes an unexpected cure, and it is always a type of cure that is within the scope of science to explain. So we see unusual remissions of cancers, but those appear to be driven by our natural immune system. (Indeed, we probably all have some cancer cells in us that are continually being suppressed or killed by the immune system.) What we never see is the spontaneous regrowth of a human limb (although that might one day be physically possible) or a genuine resurrection of a dead human being. At best, we see "miraculous" revivifications after a body seems to have been in temporary suspended animation. If these were not "medical" miracles, they might actually be real miracles.

 

[Copernicus]

Could it be argued that the mind needs the physical brain to interact and communicate to a physical reality?

Yes, but I think it could be more persuasively argued that the body needs a brain to generate a mind in order to navigate its physical environment. After all, that's what brains are--very sophisticated guidance systems for bodies.

That without the brain, it can't?

Again, I think that a brain without a mind would be of utterly no use to a body. What evolution tells us is that self-replicating organisms succeed when they leave around lots of copies of themselves. Brains and minds actually play a vital role in allowing humans to leave copies of themselves around. We are so smart that we have overpopulated the planet.

Yeah experience tells us mind needs brain, but experience cannot be had of a mind independent of a brain to communicate the experience to us in a physical existence.

There are lots of living organisms that lack brains. It is only the mobile ones that seem to have developed them. Why? Well, minds are good at keeping bodies from self-destructing before they can produce copies of themselves. Just trying to give you a different perspective on the relationship between minds and bodies here. It is not the minds that need the bodies, but the reverse.

 

[Alceste]

...mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions...

There are many religious traditions with the explicit aim of overcoming mind-body dualism.

Your reasoning is pretty sound for most Occidental religions but nonsensical for most Oriental ones and many shamanic / indigenous beliefs. There are billions of people in the world who do not bother themselves with the main concerns of monotheists. The existence of a soul, the efficacy of prayer, the accuracy of scripture, even the ontological existence of god/s are all but irrelevant to the majority of Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, First Nations People, etc. Even many Christians are not particularly fussed about these things. The second largest Christian denomination in Canada once had a Moderator (head honcho) who openly did not believe in the divinity or the resurrection of Christ.

I find American atheists insisting all religious people MUST believe in erroneous facts to qualify as "religious" almost as winsome as American Christians insisting the same.

 

[cottage]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

I think this one is something of a sticking point. Our saying that mind depends upon brains seems true because we observe that a complete loss of consciousness follows death and destruction of the body (and the death of the brain). And yet all we are concluding is that evidence for what we call consciousness is no longer apparent. Consciousness is simply an awareness of one’s existence, an ability to think and perceive. We identify other minds by the actions of the corporeal forms that contain them. We say ‘I am conscious and I see others who act similar to me, therefore they too are conscious’. And so we assume of a dead body that its mind is dead because minds, we say, are just brains and the brain is now dead. But if mind is not corporeal then it doesn’t follow that consciousness is absent. Yet all human beings, alive or dead are entirely the same in a certain respect: we are carbon-based substances. So it seems correct to say:

That which exists is physical.
Consciousness exists.
Consciousness is physical.

This is asserting that only physical things can exist. Now we define a physical thing by its sensible qualities, by one or more of the five senses, but consciousness cannot be touched, seen, tasted, smelt or heard. And if we can’t conclusively identify or dismiss awareness in others by reasoning from our own, then it certainly makes no sense to deny the possibility of disembodied consciousness by arguing that the dead are not responding. We know there is a correlation between brain states and particular actions, which shows that brain processes are physical, but this doesn’t identify them as causal, and on that account it may perhaps be said that the brain is just a physical intermediary for the conscious mind. Very simply there is no organic proof for this private state that we call consciousness.

Yet while the idea of an existence in the form of pure consciousness is logically possible it isn’t, of course, logically entailed. And the concept of an infinite number of souls, as formless entities, minds that must forever wander about in the ether, raises more questions than there are answers.

 

[footprints]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Yeah atheists will cling to anything to keep their faith of belief.

1: World wide, there are more intelligent people, higher educated people, who have a belief in a deity or a religious belief, than there are people of atheist belief. This resoundly defeats the faith based belief in item 1.

2: Trying to pin all evidence on one thing, borders on irrationality, whilst showing a high faith of belief.

3: As yet I haven't seen any revelations fail. Sounds like a blind faith belief to me based purely on perception and personal observation.

4: Too many people will tell you of answered prayers, to hold this in any validity.

5: Science gives method to many so called miracles, these are not as far fetched as once imagined. Albeit many keep the imagined as a belief.

 

[blackout]

If the music is your mind, then what happens to it when you smash the radio? You could, of course, say that the same music could come from any radio, but the music is still dependent on some physical medium for its existence.

for it's amplification/translation to the human ear/mind yes.

not for it's existence.

 

[cottage]

1: World wide, there are more intelligent people, higher educated people, who have a belief in a deity or a religious belief, than there are people of atheist belief. This resoundly defeats the faith based belief in item 1.

It does no such thing. First of all, you’ve not even attempted to answer the question of mind-body dualism. And secondly you’ve resorted to a fallacy (argumentum ad populum), sometimes known as the Argument from Other Believers, and an appeal to authority. An appeal to belief wants to say a thing is the case because x number of people believe it to be so; but popularity does not make a thing true. Consider the contrary position, which is that if atheism outnumbered theism to the same degree it would not prove that atheism is true and that God doesn’t exist.

2: Trying to pin all evidence on one thing, borders on irrationality, whilst showing a high faith of belief.

The fact is there is not even one argument or demonstration that proves ‘God’ or gods exist - unless of course you know differently?

3: As yet I haven't seen any revelations fail. Sounds like a blind faith belief to me based purely on perception and personal observation.

Perhaps, then you would care to give us some examples of these proven revelations? However, I must agree with what you say. It does rather seem that revelation owes more to faith as some kind of subjective observation.

4: Too many people will tell you of answered prayers, to hold this in any validity.

We also hear of unanswered prayers. And as the poster says, we do not see specific groups of people leading lives that are evidently more fortuitous than those of the rest of us.

5: Science gives method to many so called miracles, these are not as far fetched as once imagined. Albeit many keep the imagined as a belief.

You say things but do not even attempt to support them with examples or further argument.

 

[Troublemane]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Not true. On several fronts. First, religion does not require belief in souls, as Buddhism clearly proves. Second, you should give us a definition of a soul if you are going to claim it does not exist. In order to refute something, you are required to prove it does not exist. As the best definition for the soul I have found is simply "the conscious awareness which allows me to be aware of my own existence and the existence of others", and gives us a moral compass, I believe the existence of souls to be self evident. If you try to say consciousness does not exist, I will simply ask how we are able to communicate?

Record of failed explanations.

Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

Okay, here you seem to confuse the writings of primitive people, who thought that the sun went around the earth, and literal reading of sacred texts with belief in God. Not everyone who believes in God believes in the literal reading of 2000 year old books. It is possible to have a belief in a superior being without confining one's belief to the literal reading of an english translation of ancient greek and hebrew. Otherwise, we might be killing people who eat lobster and pork while gathering stones on Saturday.

Record of failed revelation.

Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

Again, this is based on human ignorance and ego. People who undergo a divine experience are often changed by it radically, and other people tend to idolize those people--to the extent that their message is lost, drowned out by a cult worshipping their image. None of this has any bearing on the perfection or lack thereof of the Deity him/her/itself. Whether a human claims to be the embodiment of Gawd or not, or whether their followers claim them to be, makes no difference on the Deity, neither diminishes it or negates it. All it does is show how petty and foolish people can be.

Record of failed prayers.

No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

This argument seems to be saying that the primary purpose of religion and spirituality should be based on gains in the material world, which is not what the clear message of religion is at all. My advice is to do your homework, and stop projecting onto genuine spirituality what you think it is based on the words you hear from televangelists. The two are vastly different.

Record of failed corroboration of miracles.

Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.
Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Mythology has been the mode of conveying a story for centuries. Perhaps with the Christian faith, such belief became frantic to the point where many people got burned, due to the literal belief in scripture. Belief in miracles such as raising the dead through prayer, seeing the virgin mary appear in a cheese sandwhich, are simply superstitions. They have absolutely no bearing of proof or disproof of God's existence. All they show is that superstitious people are easily fooled. Mythology, however, has a purpose, in that the drama of life is described symbolically in a way that the rational mind is bypassed, and the creative mind is actively engaged.

Why is the savior born of a virgin? The question can be re-phrased to ask, how is it that Life (the savior) arises from inanimate Matter (the mother, the virgin)??? That is the true Mystery of LIFE, and its the main question religion asks. True spirituality merely meditates on the Mystery. As it is the mystery itself which is important, not the literal answer.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Absolute belief that gods do not exist is based on as flimsy an amount of evidence as the assertion that they absolutely do exist. As with all things of this nature, the truth is probably stranger than we can imagine at this point in our development.:angel2:

 

[Willamena]

Second, you should give us a definition of a soul if you are going to claim it does not exist...

Well, he did. "Minds that can exist independent of bodies..."

 

[Mister Emu]

Metaphors can be useful at explaining concepts, and we could go back and forth with this one.

Indeed, and they are inherently limited...

The music exists in two forms... it exists in, is embedded into, the radio waves sent out from the station, and after it is received and interpreted, as the sound waves that we hear, no? Now when the receiver is damaged, it might seem the music is damaged, and if the receiver is destroyed the music stops existing in the one form. The form we hear.

Our minds could be similar... Our minds could exist in a form that we cannot, yet at least, detect, that continues to exist after the brain fails.

True, but it makes that idea less likely.

I do not see why that is the case. It certainly makes some ideas on method less likely, but at the moment I cannot find a reflection on the idea in totality...

And also from the angle of multiple gods...

I was responding from multiple angles and was differentiating between them

If there were a single true deity or set of deities communicating with humans, it is reasonable to assume that the deity would reveal itself in more than just one geographic location.

Perhaps the deity/deities did and were rejected?

One would expect a true divinity to spread word of its existence by a different method than one that could be easily confused with false revelation.

The manner of revelation is of secondary importance to the convincing nature of the false deity. If the true deity said certain things that people did not like, and the false one said things they did like it is more likely that the people would follow the false one.

I think that the alternatives you seem to suggest would be rather more of a stretch of the imagination.

I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to go from one supernatural being to multiple with possible conflicting goals...

However, that idea fell into disfavor as different ethnic groups were forced to live together as empires grew.

Normally, I would say the popularity of an idea would not reflect its truth, but I'm not sure that is the case in this situation...

It is hard to believe that deities, especially the Christian God, actually want to be worshiped by fawning human beings.

That is not exactly what I meant... I was saying that it assumes the deity in question desires their followers to be especially benefited in life...

 

[footprints]

It does no such thing. First of all, you’ve not even attempted to answer the question of mind-body dualism. And secondly you’ve resorted to a fallacy (argumentum ad populum), sometimes known as the Argument from Other Believers, and an appeal to authority. An appeal to belief wants to say a thing is the case because x number of people believe it to be so; but popularity does not make a thing true. Consider the contrary position, which is that if atheism outnumbered theism to the same degree it would not prove that atheism is true and that God doesn’t exist.

It most certainly does.

Dualism is a false concept and why I ignored it. Focusing on human intelligence instead, which is where the faith of belief in the OP came from as it pertains to question 1.

All my information says is, people in religion have intelligence. The rest is knowledge trapped in your own brain that you read in between the lines.

The fact is there is not even one argument or demonstration that proves ‘God’ or gods exist - unless of course you know differently?

As nobody knows whether a deity exists or not, the point is mute.

As for evidence, unless a person relates they cannot associate, ancient cultures seen something which we now relate to as deities, spirits et al.: Paths of enlightenment exist and they work, too much empirical evidence to deny them:

Perhaps, then you would care to give us some examples of these proven revelations? However, I must agree with what you say. It does rather seem that revelation owes more to faith as some kind of subjective observation.

Your assocation patterns amaze me. To say that none have failed, doesn't always conclude that they have succeeded.

We also hear of unanswered prayers. And as the poster says, we do not see specific groups of people leading lives that are evidently more fortuitous than those of the rest of us.

And that is what the original post said. So now we have records of failed prayers and prayers which have been answered. A null point.

And what pray is a person more fortuitous? Fortuitious in this respect is perception based.

You say things but do not even attempt to support them with examples or further argument.

I have already proven this to my satisfaction. You need to prove them for yourself, in whichever way you conclude. The same knowledge is available to everybody.

 

[cottage]

It most certainly does.

Then kindly explain how the existence of a supernatural being is proved not to exist by people believing that no such being exists?

Dualism is a false concept and why I ignored it. Focusing on human intelligence instead, which is where the faith of belief in the OP came from as it pertains to question 1.

Why is mind/body dualism false? I don’t see how such metaphysical concept can be demonstrated true, but by the same token it can’t be shown as false.
And I did you mean belief as faith?

All my information says is, people in religion have intelligence. The rest is knowledge trapped in your own brain that you read in between the lines.

And what sort of argument is that supposed to be? (!)

As nobody knows whether a deity exists or not, the point is mute.

…which is the precise conclusion found by the poster: there are no proofs!

As for evidence, unless a person relates they cannot associate, ancient cultures seen something which we now relate to as deities, spirits et al.: Paths of enlightenment exist and they work, too much empirical evidence to deny them:

People believed in the Sun god, gave human sacrifices, hanged witches, believed in sprites and goblins, prayed to trees, flagellated the Devil out their own kin, worshipped animals, etc. Is that supposed to count as proof for something? And what is the empirical evidence that you refer to?

Your assocation patterns amaze me. To say that none have failed, doesn't always conclude that they have succeeded.

I’m sorry but I can’t make any sense out of that!

And that is what the original post said. So now we have records of failed prayers and prayers which have been answered. A null point

And what pray is a person more fortuitous? Fortuitious in this respect is perception based.

It is statistically based. Believers don’t live longer than unbelievers; cancers are not less prevalent in those with faith; wealth isn’t more evident among the religious; believers also suffer with depression, mental illness etc. There is no evidence that prayer works. In fact there was a famous scientific study known as the Great Prayer Experiment, which tested intercessory prayer, in which those who were prayed for actually did worse than those who were not.

I have already proven this to my satisfaction. You need to prove them for yourself, in whichever way you conclude. The same knowledge is available to everybody.

This is a debating forum, and the idea is that we test our views publicly. It is assumed that by posting here you want to explore your ideas with other people, rather than just make unfounded assertions?

 

[painted wolf]

My 2 cents....

1) There is some very interesting points of biology that make me doubt on this. Box-jellies have eyes but no brain.. they can process information and change direction without anything resembling a brain. Just one fun example.

2) So what? What does the inability of people to figure out their surroundings have to do with the existence of a deity? What about allegorical tales that are meant to provide a relio-cultural framework for how people should or should not behave? Do such tales need to be scientifically accurate? Do the lessons of Grandfather Coyote loose their strength because the animal coyote can't actually talk or wear pants?

3) Does a religion need to use soothsaying to tell the future to be valid?

4) This assumes that god intervenes in our lives... there are plenty of faiths that don't have an intervention happy deity.

5) No miracles in my faith... I fail to see how this applies. (unless you count "miracle" the white buffalo who was born white and then changed color to all of the sacred colors of the medicine wheel before she passed away. I guess we do have miracles... but they are rather mundane to outside eyes, though steeped in meaning to the culture.)

wa:do

 

[Copernicus]

Not just Abrahamic? Let me tell you why these points are not entirely revelant to Hinduism:

1) Your understanding of the soul is incomplete. There is no 'mind without body'. The soul is life essence. It is the Self. There is no thought involved.

Hinduism promotes belief in reincarnation, which involves survival of some mental function independently of the body. I do not think that Hindus have arrived at a uniform or coherent definition of just what that mental function is, but that is the impression I get from making a serious effort to understand it. There are lots of different versions of Hindu thought on the subject.

2) Evolution does not contradict Hinduism, unless you are a strict literalist. Many scientific theories relating to the universe correlate with Vedic explanations (like how the universe is expanding). Even the age of the Earth is similar. According to Hinduism, the various ape species are considered to be related to humans.

The similarities between Hindu cosmology and modern science-based cosmology are too vague and superficial to make your case. There is no evidence that reincarnation actually takes place, not to mention the fact that it is hard to explain where souls came from before there were any living beings to sustain a chain of reincarnation. And most Hindus, like most Christians, have a lot of trouble with the theory of evolution for exactly the same reasons--because it robs theistic creationism of its explanatory force. I saw lots of anti-evolution screeds in Indian English language newspapers when I visited India.

3) Gods do not necessarily communicate through revelation. There is good reason why there are various models of reality in this world, according to Vedic understanding.

The Vedic understanding, as I have witnessed it, depends on revelatory experiences as much as Christian and Muslim understandings do. Hindu gods are as appreciative of bhakti as the Abrahamic God is.

4) God is not expected to answer prayers, according to Vedic beliefs. We do not ask God for material things. We do not attract positivity into our lives based on our beliefs, but based on our actions. I'm sure you have heard of Karma.

Worse yet, I have attended Hindu religious services and witnessed people praying for both material and spiritual salvation. Hindus are as likely as Christians to believe that a god is behind good fortune. Hinduism, however, does emphasize acceptance of one's station in life to a greater extent than Abrahamic religions do. That is one reason that people of lower caste have found conversion to Islam and Christianity attractive.

5) That is not true. There are many documented cases of unexplainable things but they are quickly ignored or dismissed through 'logic'. I've heard people talk about a man in entertainment (tv I guess) who offered a million (sorry if the facts are slightly off) to anybody who could genuinely show supernatural powers that he could not prove wrong...

Is that man Sanal Edamaruku? I am a great admirer of his.

...This man has also been shown to completely ignore and dismiss people who he could not prove wrong or explain scientifically. That is what always happens. As soon as something really fascinating happens, people dismiss it.

In Sanal's case, I do not think that he has ever been proven wrong. Quite the reverse, I think.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hinduism promotes belief in reincarnation, which involves survival of some mental function independently of the body. I do not think that Hindus have arrived at a uniform or coherent definition of just what that mental function is, but that is the impression I get from making a serious effort to understand it. There are lots of different versions of Hindu thought on the subject.

Indeed. For example, I don't really believe in human consciousness reincarnating: I think it's simply a matter of the elements used for life getting recycled for other uses. I, for one, don't believe memories or personalities survive death.

I do get the impression from reading the Scriptures that the Self (Atman) is supposed to be a mental function of some sort, and I don't think there is a uniform consensus as to what it may be. That's not surprising to me, as I'm aware that Hinduism isn't a single religion, but an umbrella term for several religions.

The similarities between Hindu cosmology and modern science-based cosmology are too vague and superficial to make your case.

From what I've read, this may be true. I've read that the person who first came up with the idea of Quantum Theory got the idea from the Vedas, but that's about it. (I think according to Vedic scripture, the age of the earth, for example, is about twice what scientists have theorized.)

There is no evidence that reincarnation actually takes place, not to mention the fact that it is hard to explain where souls came from before there were any living beings to sustain a chain of reincarnation. And most Hindus, like most Christians, have a lot of trouble with the theory of evolution for exactly the same reasons--because it robs theistic creationism of its explanatory force. I saw lots of anti-evolution screeds in Indian English language newspapers when I visited India.

Huh. I never saw mention of the evolution-creation controversy in ANYTHING during my couple of years of studying Hinduism. Then again, I've never been to India, so I don't know how things are over there.

Then again, considering the state of India right now, I'm not really surprised there'd be anti-evolutionary movements over there.

However, just because many Hindus deny evolution doesn't mean they're incompatible. Hinduism doesn't have any set doctrines or dogmas; any that do exist are sectarian.

The Vedic understanding, as I have witnessed it, depends on revelatory experiences as much as Christian and Muslim understandings do. Hindu gods are as appreciative of bhakti as the Abrahamic God is.

Here, it depends on the Hindu. There are Hindus who do not engage much in bhakti at all.

Worse yet, I have attended Hindu religious services and witnessed people praying for both material and spiritual salvation. Hindus are as likely as Christians to believe that a god is behind good fortune.

I, too, have seen this, and have even been tempted myself to try chanting some mantras I found online for selfish reasons.

Hinduism, however, does emphasize acceptance of one's station in life to a greater extent than Abrahamic religions do. That is one reason that people of lower caste have found conversion to Islam and Christianity attractive.

The hereditary caste system is no longer legal in India, nor is is it supported by the most important Vedic Scriptures. The "each is great in his own place" philosophy for me is about learning about, and subsequently living in harmony with, one's nature, which I believe is primarily built during childhood (in the nature-nurture controversy, I believe both have an impact, but nurture has more of one), and not dependent on birth.

 

[Copernicus]

There are many religious traditions with the explicit aim of overcoming mind-body dualism.

Not that many, but my generalizations obviously do not cover all possibilities.

Your reasoning is pretty sound for most Occidental religions but nonsensical for most Oriental ones and many shamanic / indigenous beliefs...

There is a lot of variation, and I certainly have not exhausted all possibilities, but the OP was intended to address what I think are common themes in theistic traditions. I do think that most people of faith in Asia are fundamentally theists. Most Buddhists are, although they seem to have some different ideas about how one should behave towards gods.

I find American atheists insisting all religious people MUST believe in erroneous facts to qualify as "religious" almost as winsome as American Christians insisting the same.

But I was quite careful not to insist that all religious people MUST be that way. Unfortunately, people do not read such caveats very carefully, or maybe I need to make more of a fuss over them.