Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[atanu]

Atanu, thanks for the discussion. ---- You are just going to repeat your belief that consciousness has nothing to do with embodiment. Fair enough. I won't push it further. Perhaps we can have more useful discussions on other subjects.

That is wrong interpretation again. But thanks to you too.

 

[forwhatitsworth]

you can analyze religion all you want,but Individual Knowing Faith is not subject to your musings and assumptions.

 

[waitasec]

you can analyze religion all you want,but Individual Knowing Faith is not subject to your musings and assumptions.

your right, religion is based on the musings and assumptions of the individual

 

[Sum1sGruj]

your right, religion is based on the musings and assumptions of the individual

How you get by on this forum is beyond me.

Religion is the reason mankind even prospered the way it did. If everyone was atheist throughout the beginning until now, there wouldn't be an 'until now'. We would have wiped each other out.

So non-religious folk should be a little more respectful of religion. We didn't invent the nuclear bomb, after all, so it's not as if all atheists are in the clear either.

The origins of reality will never be known. If one has 'truth', than I say go with it. That poses a problem with atheists.. and that's why atheists are now establishing themselves as a group. Dakwins as a prophet, the A/tom as their symbol. Ironic.

 

[Revoltingest]

So non-religious folk should be a little more respectful of religion. We didn't invent the nuclear bomb, after all, so it's not as if all atheists are in the clear either.

Old nukey was a collaborative effort of Jews, Xians, heathens & perhaps more.
I'd be glad to let us take all the glory, since it seems technically elegant &
of neutral moral value to me, but credit should fall where credit is due.

As for origins of reality....no problem for me to not know or understand.
There is much I won't ever know, so I've come to terms with that.
No need to make up stories.....reality is just where I live.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Old nukey was a collaborative effort of Jews, Xians, heathens & perhaps more.

And there was no atheists involved at all. Clearly not, religion is just evil and the bomb was built in the name of religion and atheists wept at the evilness.

It's a position that atheists cannot defend, so why point fingers at religion?
Why generalize? sound familiar

 

[waitasec]

How you get by on this forum is beyond me.

Religion is the reason mankind even prospered the way it did. If everyone was atheist throughout the beginning until now, there wouldn't be an 'until now'. We would have wiped each other out.

no mediocrity and the sheep mentality helped pave the way for the few that lead

 

[Sum1sGruj]

no mediocrity and the sheep mentality helped pave the way for the few that lead

Lead what? Atheists talk about religion dying, not realizing that the world will probably go with it.

 

[waitasec]

Lead what?

the mediocre sheep

Atheists talk about religion dying, not realizing that the world will probably go with it.

what moral act can a believer do that a non believer cannot?

like it or not, atheists have been able to figure out morality without being "told" what to do in order to be moral. without threat or ultimatums...
so really the source for religious morality comes from a selfish motivation

morality comes from the reason and logic that says solidarity is what helps us survive... the abrahamic religions does nothing more than divide people...by competing for which is more right than the other...who god smiles at for their type of faith rather than being responsible for their actions of murder throughout history...
oh yes even atheists have done wrong...so what makes religion so special as having it be set aside from atheistic actions...god? ... these abrahamic religions gives divine justification for hate and division...

 

[Sum1sGruj]

the mediocre sheep

what moral act can a believer do that a non believer cannot?

I don't know, what moral act can a non believer do that a believer cannot?
Atheistic intrigues do not work so well either. In the end, atheists will want to control everything according to their standards. Capitalism of the human race, where greed is not a punishable offense.
I see a billion atheists sitting on their *** playing with gadgets while the world burns. No atheist has any room to talk about religion, it's that simple.

 

[Copernicus]

Guys, please don't derail the thread with a general debate about the value of religion. Try to address content related to the OP while in this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you can analyze religion all you want,but Individual Knowing Faith is not subject to your musings and assumptions.

What do you mean by "Knowing Faith"? How do you know it's "knowing"?

As for the last bit you gave: do you mean that there's something wrong with the reasoning given in the thread, or are you trying to say that "Individual Knowing Faith" (whatever it is) is beyond reason?

Edit: IOW, are you saying that the reasons given in the OP are wrong, or are you saying that it doesn't matter whether they're right or not?

 

[atanu]

Actually, this analogy was used in Hofstadter's book to explain the concept of emergence. The anthill represents the product of self-organizing behavior in an ant colony. The behavior of the ants occurs at an individual level, but it is the system of interactions that produces the anthill. So the system does have an effect on individual ant behavior. A working brain similarly produces high level activity that emerges from simpler low-level interactions between neurons.

Now I have got some introduction to Hofstadter.

Perspective of Mind: Douglas Hofstadter

Actually, you seem to point out only a fraction of what Hofstadter says. No doubt, he talks of emergent intelligence and infinite loop. But he also points to an underlying base level consciousness and one mind. And this what I have been saying. Kindly read the following fro above page:

He infers that in relation to what we perceive as explicit in a formal system, there is also an aspect that is intrinsically implicit.

Hofstadter succinctly states, the brain "has a formal, hidden hardware level which is a formidably complex mechanism that makes transitions from state to state according to definite rules embodied in it." [Ibid, p. 559]

Intelligence resides in this brain hardware. Yet, it is of a *different quality* so infers Hofstadter. Intelligence, although brain bound, "can be lifted right out of the hardware in which it resides...or in other words, intelligence [can] be a software property."

Hofstadter demands an external consistency from this world behind the rules; and, he believes that this implicit world is truly there! Throughout his treatment of intelligence, of thinking, he harkens back to that sense of a deeply embedded, creative implicitness in the software aspects of intelligence.

Actually, Hofstadter pours forth a gamut of statements suggesting this sense of creative implicitness in the brain system's software. He alludes to the endless potential of creativity, when he observes that "our minds contain interpreters which accept two-dimensional patterns and then pull from them high-dimensional notions which are so complex that we cannot consciously describe them."

But what is this inner meaning behind the mechanics of intelligence, behind the sense of something implicit embedded deeply in the brain system? For the great mathematician Kurt Goedel, from whom Hofstadter draws, it is a universal, nonlocal Mind. [Rudy Rucker, INFINITY AND THE MIND, p. 183.]

Perhaps Hofstadter could not say outright that the brain/Mind is a vessel for the expression of a Cosmic Ground, but he points his finger in that direction.

Discussing perception, Hofstadter quietly says that "by gradually widening the scope of the brain/Mind system, one will in the end come to a feeling of being at one with the entire universe." [Hofstadter, GOEDEL, ESCHER, BACH, p. 479]

Only difference that we Hindus might apparently have with Hofstadter is that we do not believe that the base of the software -- the pure consciousness ground called Atman is changeable, since it in itself is unborn. Only, the products emergent of the software are born and interact. Goedel would agree. And actually Hofstadter seems to say the same:

Douglas Hofstadter - Wikiquote

Chapter 9: "Mumon and Gödel"

• Below Every Tangled Hierarchy Lies An Inviolate Level

 

[atanu]

Two interviews:

An interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter » American Scientist

Q. Getting away from artificial intelligence—having spent so much time in thinking about thinking, about the human mind, is it possible to extrapolate on that? Do you see an eventual outcome—will the mind one day understand itself?

Depends on what you mean by understand itself. If you mean in broad-principle terms if we will come to understand things, yeah, I don't see why not. -----

If you mean, will we understand the basic ideas of what it is that makes a human self, I think yes, I think we will. But if you mean will I, Doug Hofstadter, understand everything about my brain, exactly why I do every single thing I do, no, we will not. We will always remain mysteries to ourselves—if we were totally transparent to ourselves, then the whole idea of an "I" would vanish.

An Interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter, following ''I am a Strange Loop''

Q. Do you share Kurzweil's view of hardware being able to execute human soul software within the foreseeable future? Do you agree with his view of this being the equivalent of immortality — will the software running on the electronic brain be the same “I”?

I think Ray Kurzweil is terrified by his own mortality and deeply longs to avoid death. I understand this obsession of his and am even somehow touched by its ferocious intensity, but I think it badly distorts his vision. As I see it, Kurzweil's desperate hopes seriously cloud his scientific objectivity.
....
Rather ironically, this vision totally bypasses the need for cognitive science or AI, because all one needs is the detailed wiring plan of a brain and then it's a piece of cake to copy the brain in other media.
.....
Well, the problem is that a soul by itself would go crazy;
....
Well, to me, this “glorious” new world would be the end of humanity as we know it.
....
In any case, the vision that Kurzweil offers (and other very smart people offer it too, such as Hans Moravec, Vernor Vinge, perhaps Marvin Minsky, and many others — usually people who strike me as being overgrown teen-age sci-fi addicts, I have to say) is repugnant to me. .........

It is not that I, as a Hindu, agree fully with Hofstadter (at least I have not read his work in original at all). The above are just to demonstrate that to Hofstadter many ideas presented in this thread, are from overgrown teen-age sci-fi addicts.

 

[Copernicus]

Atanu, I recommended Hofstadter to you, because I thought you might enjoy his work. That commentator you quoted may be reading a bit too much into his, though. His next book--The Mind's I--was co-authored by Dennett.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, I recommended Hofstadter to you, because I thought you might enjoy his work. That commentator you quoted may be reading a bit too much into his, though. His next book--The Mind's I--was co-authored by Dennett.

Does that prove that your reading was correct? In fact in I Am a Strange Loop, Hofstadter seems to carry his idea further, suggesting that each human "I" is distributed over numerous brains, rather than being limited to one brain -- and that is opposed to your suggestion in OP. Hofstadter clearly suggests that the software part of mind is distinct and can be lifted as such away from the hardware.

However, the concept of formation of mind from elements individually incapable of thought is only theoretical. I relish it immensely when Hofstadter labels Kurzweil and others as teen-age sci-fi addicts for proposing that which is actually just a logical step ahead of what Hofstadter himself proposed. Hoist with his own petard.

I will also call your attention to:

..............Hofstadter and Dennett's commentary suggest that self-knowledge is elusive, to say nothing of the experience of other minds.

The Mind's I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it is not possible to know self exactly (both Hofstadter and Dennett seem to say so), how it is possible to create an algorithm? In my opinion, these are all speculations that only help to confuse the matter. Speculators make a neat pile but no one gets any peace from reading these speculations.

Idea of unborn consciousness is simple in Vedanta and in Buddhism. The thoughts are the structures (mind) that hide their substratum. Once, the mind is stilled, the substratum shines on its own without any subject-object division.

 

[jtartar]

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.

Copernicus,
Have you ever heard of this concept; Epistemological Predicament, or Egocentric Predicament???
I noticed that you used the term reason. Can you imagine just how rediculous a person is to try to reason on anything above his knowledge? Remember, a person reasons with what he already knows, so how can he determine an answer to something far above himself and his very limited knowledge, understanding, and wisdom???
Think about the creator!! God has perfect knowledge, Job 37:16, 36:4. God created everything and knows everything about everything.
How ignorant it is to question God, Job 40:2, Rom 9:19-23.
Your premises are based on false assumptions. Your idea of soul and spirit are incorrect.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not one shred of evidence of evolution. The fact is; in nature there is a law, and science knows this; Prestabilism, which means that everything God created will ONLY produce after its own kind. Any fluxuation from this cannot reproduce.
Science knows that ABIOGENESIS is impossible, so where did life come from in the first place??? Ps 36:9.
Are you aware that there is a greater gap between the highest non-living matter; Crystals, than between the lowest one-cell animal and man. This means that there is more of a likelyhood of a amoeba left in a petri dish to become a fully developed man over night than something non living to become a living being.
Can anything be more silly than the Big Bang Theory??? One of the first principles of science is the fact that an explosion causes chaos, and the bigger the explosion the greater the chaos. The Heavens are a picture of harmony, the very term Cosmos means the heavens are in harmony.
If something cannot be proven today, does that mean it did not happen?? Religion is EXTRASCIENTIFIC, it cannot be explained scientifically, but religion does not expect a person to blindly believe as does evolution. The Bible is full of prophecies that have come true exactly as prophecied, and exactly on time. The Bible tells about things that no human could know at the time of writing.

 

[PolyHedral]

However, the concept of formation of mind from elements individually incapable of thought is only theoretical. I relish it immensely when Hofstadter labels Kurzweil and others as teen-age sci-fi addicts for proposing that which is actually just a logical step ahead of what Hofstadter himself proposed. Hoist with his own petard.

I think Hofstadter thinks that Kurzweil is a sci-fi addict not because he thinks post-humanism is possible, but because he thinks it'll happen far too soon. It's entirely believable to me that we could create artificial intelligences; it's completely implausible to say we'd manage to do that by 2045, as Kurzweil thinks.

I noticed that you used the term reason. Can you imagine just how rediculous a person is to try to reason on anything above his knowledge?

It's called second-order logic. Reasoning can be applied to the method of reasoning itself.

Remember, a person reasons with what he already knows, so how can he determine an answer to something far above himself and his very limited knowledge, understanding, and wisdom???

Easily. Knowledge bootstraps itself.

God created everything and knows everything about everything.

I assure you that that is quite impossible. There are some questions that cannot be answered, in any fashion.

Contrary to popular belief, there is not one shred of evidence of evolution. The fact is; in nature there is a law, and science knows this; Prestabilism, which means that everything God created will ONLY produce after its own kind. Any fluxuation from this cannot reproduce.

Right... So you'll be fine with me dropping nylon-eating bacteria in your underwear drawer, since they don't exist?

Can anything be more silly than the Big Bang Theory??? One of the first principles of science is the fact that an explosion causes chaos, and the bigger the explosion the greater the chaos.

No, that is one of the first principles of "science" taught in elementary school when you still don't understand basic arithmetic. The Big Bang is not an explosion; it is wrong to think of it like that.

If something cannot be proven today, does that mean it did not happen??

It means it probably didn't happen.

The Bible is full of prophecies that have come true exactly as prophecied, and exactly on time. The Bible tells about things that no human could know at the time of writing.

There's actually an entire genre that tells us things that no human could possibly have known at the time of writing: science-fiction. How do you know you are not worshiping the sky people? How do you know that God is not akin to the Wizard of Oz, albeit doing a much better job of hiding the man behind the curtain?

 

[Scots99]

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.

I think you have no clue what your talking about in most aspects, and I'm not trying to offend you. Here are my rebuttals to each point.

1. Come on seriously? No religion even claims they aren't talking about minds without brains. What religions say is that there is something deeper and more intricate that happens in afterlife. The fact that you are assuming there is no afterlife, and if there was you are assuming there is not brains is quite frankly ignorant. I respect your free will to believe what you want, but don't go assuming that you have all the answers.

2. You can't even use science as an argument for this point. One, there is several historical texts that confirm many of the events that religions claim take place. Two, science is no more proven than religion. How do you know evolution is real? I am guessing that you read what scientists tell you and believe them. Even though they don't really show you the experiment, or prove that they actually did the experiment. This was recently experienced with the global warming myth. You haven't seen the proof yet you still believe, so why is it bad that religion does that? Plus if you researched you would find that creationists are actually winning more debates than evolutionists, because creationists have better and more convincing scientific data. I always loved scientists who scorned religion for believing in something they never saw, and yet they believe in the big bang which supposedly happen millions of years ago. So tell me what scientist was there to witness that? ....0 that's what I thought.

3. Again illogical argument! People have the right to choose what they believe. It is impossible for anyone to sit up here and tell me they know the full truth. I believe God gave us free will to think for ourselves and choose what we believe, and I find it ironic that your using religious texts that say false gods where worshiped to make this point. I thought you didn't believe in those texts? Plus how do you know their false...did the scientists tell you that?

4. Again if you knew anything about religion you wouldn't make this point. Most religions have Gods or a God who clearly explain that prayer is not meant to make your life easy, but rather to bring you closer to your Gods or God.

5. Well that's funny because I could of sworn that Oprah had a guy who raised from the dead, and his wife witnessed it. There have been numerous eye witness accounts of miracles you just choose not to believe them. I mean the big bang is a scientific miracle of some explosion eventually helping create the intricate bodies that we possess...you choose to believe that or something close yet you have no verification.

If you look at my points you will see that I am not trying to get you to believe in anything. I am simply showing you that what you believe in involves just as much faith as religion. So don't get all high and mighty and think you have to truth to life. I certainly don't

 

[waitasec]

]if i may,

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.

1. What religions say is that there is something deeper and more intricate that happens in afterlife. The fact that you are assuming there is no afterlife, and if there was you are assuming there is not brains is quite frankly ignorant. I respect your free will to believe what you want, but don't go assuming that you have all the answers...

then why are you assuming you have the answers?
what we do know is we need our brains to be sentient...
religious belief of the after life is the carrot the few use to control the masses...that we can easily see through the eyes of history.

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.

2. You can't even use science as an argument for this point. One, there is several historical texts that confirm many of the events that religions claim take place.

like?

Two, science is no more proven than religion. How do you know evolution is real? I am guessing that you read what scientists tell you and believe them.

evolution is fact. just as gravity is fact. there are theories about both.
evolution is supported:
in the lab or documented in nature.
by fossil evidence, genetic evidence, molecular evidence (DNA),
evidence from proteins, vestigial and atavistic organs, embryology (how embryos develop), biogeography (locations of species on the planet).
homology, bacteriology, virology, and immunology.

Even though they don't really show you the experiment, or prove that they actually did the experiment. This was recently experienced with the global warming myth. You haven't seen the proof yet you still believe, so why is it bad that religion does that?

go to any natural history museum and see for yourself

Plus if you researched you would find that creationists are actually winning more debates than evolutionists, because creationists have better and more convincing scientific data.

please provide these sources...

=Scots99;2466327] I always loved scientists who scorned religion for believing in something they never saw, and yet they believe in the big bang which supposedly happen millions of years ago. So tell me what scientist was there to witness that? ....0 that's what I thought.

Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a priest from the Catholic University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom".
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

3. Again illogical argument! People have the right to choose what they believe.

sorry, but that has nothing to do with god revealing himself the same way in different locations around the world...
basically, god or gods are/is a subjective experience...it is not an objective experience...
meaning everyone gets wet when it rains...that is an objective truth...god or gods are not understood that way.

... and I find it ironic that your using religious texts that say false gods where worshiped to make this point. I thought you didn't believe in those texts? Plus how do you know their false...did the scientists tell you that?

have you heard the saying, for the sake of argument?

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.

4. Again if you knew anything about religion you wouldn't make this point. Most religions have Gods or a God who clearly explain that prayer is not meant to make your life easy, but rather to bring you closer to your Gods or God.

so being closer to god means what exactly...?

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

5. Well that's funny because I could of sworn that Oprah had a guy who raised from the dead, and his wife witnessed it.

that is very suspect...come on, his wife? really?

There have been numerous eye witness accounts of miracles you just choose not to believe them.

so as i thought, miracles are meant to make your life easier...

I mean the big bang is a scientific miracle of some explosion eventually helping create the intricate bodies that we possess...you choose to believe that or something close yet you have no verification.

i'm confused didn't you say, "they believe in the big bang which supposedly happen millions of years ago"?
i'm sorry i'm not getting what you are saying here...

If you look at my points you will see that I am not trying to get you to believe in anything. I am simply showing you that what you believe in involves just as much faith as religion.

evidence vs. faith...

So don't get all high and mighty and think you have to truth to life. I certainly don't

it certainly seems like you are... not to offend you