What is wrong with those people who don't believe in God?

[Sunstone]

This whole 'gods were created as a means of control' of argument is one of my pet hates as it is so vapid yet many 'sceptics' and 'freethinkers' parrot it as pretty much self-evident fact.

Imagining some caveman deciding to create something called a god that he didn't believe in but he reckoned could be a useful tool of control is a preposterous scenario.

Even if we broaden gods into popular religions, they were not created top down by a power figure with nefarious intentions, but evolved bottom-up. It vastly overstates the ability of a ruler to enforce a belief system on their subjects to see them as custom built tools of control.

Also seeing religions as things used cynically as a means of control, rather than something that people really did believe was true is assuming a modern mindset and is people assuming that their way of thinking is universal across time and space.

Of course they have been a means to power by some but they weren't created for that purpose. Even in these cases, it's probably fair to assume that most people believed in what they were doing, people found it pretty easy to believe that god's will was exactly the same as their own.

It's also true that religions have often been subversive to the powers that be and have been tools for empowerment rather than control.

Regardless of why and how the gods were created by us, several early civilizations seem to have at the least stumbled on their use as a means of legitimatizing the social order. I don't think that's disputable, do you?

As for the notion that the gods were actually created to legitimatize the social order -- that is, intentionally created as a means of social control -- I find that without much in the way of evidence for it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Regardless of why and how the gods were created by us, several early civilizations seem to have at the least stumbled on their use as a means of legitimatizing the social order. I don't think that's disputable, do you?

As for the notion that the gods were actually created to legitimatize the social order -- that is, intentionally created as a means of social control -- I find that without much in the way of evidence for it.

It's a possibility. They may also have been created to explain the unexplained, or to help mankind cope with mortality. Btw, I like your religion of choice.

 

[Sunstone]

It's a possibility. They may also have been created to explain the unexplained, or to help mankind cope with mortality.

I suspect the gods were created in large part because the human brain has a number of functions -- such as Agent Detection and Theory of Mind -- that give our species a predilection to certain forms of religiosity. If not actual gods, we are inclined to believe in spirits, ghosts, etc -- which can be seen as the precursors to deity.

But none of that precludes what you're saying about explaining the unexplained, etc. There could have been several factors involved in the creation of deity.

One thing that intrigues me is how something can be created for one use, yet take on some other use once it's been created. e.g. The gods might have been created for the reasons stated above, but have later been found useful not just for those reasons, but also in maintaining social control.

Btw, I like your religion of choice.

Thanks.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This whole 'gods were created as a means of control' of argument is one of my pet hates as it is so vapid yet many 'sceptics' and 'freethinkers' parrot it as pretty much self-evident fact.

I did not say that gods were created as a means of control, I merely said that it has been made to work quite well, many times.

Imagining some caveman deciding to create something called a god that he didn't believe in but he reckoned could be a useful tool of control is a preposterous scenario.

I happen to think that humans, because of our ability to infer the presence of other minds, also manage to make that same inference about non-human things, and the continuance of once-present human mind after the death of the body. This is a very easy inference to accept (whether it is true or not).

Once that’s done, it’s not hard to imagine your cavemen supposing that a dead chieftain or leader can still have some influence in life. And from there, it’s a very short step to supposing that one or a few of them is still able to communicate with the lost chief – and to use that (pretended) communication for their own purposes.

The steps from that to “god” seem fairly easily made from that.

Even if we broaden gods into popular religions, they were not created top down by a power figure with nefarious intentions, but evolved bottom-up. It vastly overstates the ability of a ruler to enforce a belief system on their subjects to see them as custom built tools of control.

Some were, actually. Joseph Smith did precisely that with his “Book of Mormon.” And even worse, his “revelation” that he got to have multiple wives – who had little say in the matter – was made in 1843, after the BOM was completed. And BOM says nothing about multiple wives.

And creeds and religious doctrine made it really quite easy to compel – or to punish – obedience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is wrong with those people who don't believe in God?

We have a terrible flaw of requiring our beliefs to make sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

In Islam they teach us that Allah gave us freedom not to believe.

The duty of every Muslim is only to deliver the message of truth and no more.

“O people, the truth has indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever goes aright, goes aright only for the good of his own soul; and whoever errs, errs only to its detriment. And I am not a custodian over you.”

It is too bad that the Qur'an contradicts itself in that respect, as in so many others.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can Buddha harm you? If not, then how can he help you? He ate food like regular people, while God does not eat.

Do you think people must be able of hurting you before they can help you?

I will much rather have a helpful person who eats than a fictional, contradictory and authoritarian deity that does not.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't understand your question. Entirely different like how? He is The Maker of Order. Are you saying that He is not the maker of order?

I'm not saying anything about what god is, I'm just reversing your own question.

Earlier, you asked what atheists would do is god revealed himself to them. The point was essentially "What if you're wrong?". I'm asking you the same question, not as much to get an answer to to try to get you to realise that people who have different beliefs to you about a god or gods aren't actually all that different to you in any other way.

Our reactions to discovering we're wrong about our beliefs would probably be much like yours.

 

[sovietchild]

Do you think people must be able of hurting you before they can help you?

I will much rather have a helpful person who eats than a fictional, contradictory and authoritarian deity that does not.

Some people in Thailand confuse Buddha with The Pure One.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some people in Thailand confuse Buddha with The Pure One.

You mean the God of Ibrahim?

Indeed, the two are unfortunately and unfairly mixed far too often.

The Buddha is not a deity. That is why I respect him.

 

[Augustus]

Regardless of why and how the gods were created by us, several early civilizations seem to have at the least stumbled on their use as a means of legitimatizing the social order. I don't think that's disputable, do you?

I'm not sure there was even any distinction between religion and the social order, the religious/secular divide is Christian. In this sense saying religion was tied to power is like saying politics was tied to power.

In the ancient world, disfunctional societies didn't usually survive. Societies that succeeded had effective social orders that allowed them to prosper. Prospering was a sign of the favour of the gods. On the other hand, failing was a sign of disfavour and some societies even killed their king if the harvest failed as he had lost the gods' favour.

Religion could both legitimise and delegitimise the social order.

As for the notion that the gods were actually created to legitimatize the social order -- that is, intentionally created as a means of social control -- I find that without much in the way of evidence for it.

It's specifically this argument that I find so inane. Moving from obviously intertwined natures of religion and power to 'therefore religions were invented to control people' (and it's even more inane when religion is replaced by gods).

I'd go further than you saying there is not much evidence for it though. I'd say there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Seeing as gods of some kind seem to be ubiquitous across the entirety of human society, they are just something that we are cognitively predisposed to (for a variety of reasons).

We have a need to seek meaning via myth, theist and non-theist alike. That religion was cynically invented as a means of control and is a relic which prevents humanity from reaching its 'true' potential is part of the myth of reason favoured by a certain type of modern atheist.

 

[Katzpur]

And even worse, his “revelation” that he got to have multiple wives – who had little say in the matter – was made in 1843, after the BOM was completed. And BOM says nothing about multiple wives.

You'll excuse me, I hope, if I correct you on a couple of points: (1) I'm not sure what makes you think that Joseph Smith's multiple wives "had little to say in the matter." Joseph Smith neither forced nor coerced anyone into marrying him. All of the women who married him did so willingly. (2) Neither Joseph Smith nor any of his successors ever claimed that the Book of Mormon contains all of our doctrines. Many of them are found in our Doctrine and Covenants, a book we also consider to be scripture.

 

[sovietchild]

I believe the opposite of a believe in The Governor is anarchism. Anarchism promotes tension, lawlessnes and disorder.

I want to make a new topic. A contrary topic. What is wrong with those people who believe in God?

 

[Kirran]

I believe the opposite of a believe in The Governor is anarchism. Anarchism promotes tension, lawlessnes and disorder.

Does it? In the political sense of the term, anarchism is a political philosophy advocating the replacement of the state with total democracy and a society organising itself through bottom-up mutual association.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You'll excuse me, I hope, if I correct you on a couple of points: (1) I'm not sure what makes you think that Joseph Smith's multiple wives "had little to say in the matter." Joseph Smith neither forced nor coerced anyone into marrying him. All of the women who married him did so willingly. (2) Neither Joseph Smith nor any of his successors ever claimed that the Book of Mormon contains all of our doctrines. Many of them are found in our Doctrine and Covenants, a book we also consider to be scripture.

It is recorded that Smith's first wife, Emma, was publicly and privately opposed to the practice of polygamy, and Joseph may have married some women without Emma knowing beforehand (Fawn Brodie, 1971, “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith” (2nd ed.))

 

[GoodbyeDave]

What's wrong with atheists?

1. One cannot prove existence or nonexistence by a priori arguments, unless one is denying the existence of something that is logically impossible, like a three-sided square. The concept of a god is not logically impossible, hence atheists are illogical.

2. Surveys say that about half the population have had a religious experience. To deny the validity of their experiences is like my denying the existence of green because I can't see it. To deny it by questioning the honesty or sanity of those who have had such experiences is to ignore the psychological testing that has been done on such people, not to mention being very arrogant.

3. About 85-90% of the world's population practice a religion. The atheist, or at least the atheist who feels compelled to proclaim their atheism in places like this, is again displaying arrogance: they are claiming that they have the one true word and the majority are deluded. Of course, Christians and Muslims do the same, but they have the excuse that they think the answer was revealed to them.

This is basically why I'm hostile to atheists: their combination of irrationality and arrogance. The Christian and the Muslim may be factually wrong in my opinion, but the atheist's attitudes betray a moral deficiency in addition.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's wrong with atheists?

1. One cannot prove existence or nonexistence by a priori arguments, unless one is denying the existence of something that is logically impossible, like a three-sided square. The concept of a god is not logically impossible, hence atheists are illogical.

2. Surveys say that about half the population have had a religious experience. To deny the validity of their experiences is like my denying the existence of green because I can't see it. To deny it by questioning the honesty or sanity of those who have had such experiences is to ignore the psychological testing that has been done on such people, not to mention being very arrogant.

3. About 85-90% of the world's population practice a religion. The atheist, or at least the atheist who feels compelled to proclaim their atheism in places like this, is again displaying arrogance: they are claiming that they have the one true word and the majority are deluded. Of course, Christians and Muslims do the same, but they have the excuse that they think the answer was revealed to them.

This is basically why I'm hostile to atheists: their combination of irrationality and arrogance. The Christian and the Muslim may be factually wrong in my opinion, but the atheist's attitudes betray a moral deficiency in addition.

1

Of course the concept of God is logically impossible. There's not even a logical basis to even start with, much less debate forthright past what's incorragbly and hopelessly conceptual .

2

Experiences are highly personal and subjective. It's not the experience itself. People clearly have them. It's the substance of those experiences that need to come into play that requires investigation and comfirmation.

If I only had a nickel for every person claiming to be Jesus Christ or something.....

3

Atheism is not a proclamation. Never was.

It's a response to the proclamation of theism. Remember the burden of proof?

It's strictly in the theistic ballpark.

 

[sovietchild]

Does it? In the political sense of the term, anarchism is a political philosophy advocating the replacement of the state with total democracy and a society organising itself through bottom-up mutual association.

Anarchism is a rejection of authority in all of its forms.

God is The Absolute Ruler - The Governor.

 

[Katzpur]

It is recorded that Smith's first wife, Emma, was publicly and privately opposed to the practice of polygamy, and Joseph may have married some women without Emma knowing beforehand (Fawn Brodie, 1971, “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith” (2nd ed.))

Fawn Brodie probably isn't your best source of information. Regardless, Emma's feelings about her husband taking another wife are certainly understandable, but have nothing to do with your statement that his additional wives "had little to say in the matter."

Incidentally, "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard L. Bushman is widely regarded by scholars to be the most accurate source available on Joseph Smith's life, should you have any interest in the topic. And now, back to the actual subject of this thread.

 

[Shad]

1. One cannot prove existence or nonexistence by a priori arguments, unless one is denying the existence of something that is logically impossible, like a three-sided square. The concept of a god is not logically impossible, hence atheists are illogical.

Not all atheist do this. Some use probability to render God as having low probability.

2. Surveys say that about half the population have had a religious experience. To deny the validity of their experiences is like my denying the existence of green because I can't see it. To deny it by questioning the honesty or sanity of those who have had such experiences is to ignore the psychological testing that has been done on such people, not to mention being very arrogant.

We question the soundness of their conclusion. That these experiences and explanations of are true. Considering many of these experience involve mutually exclusive religious view points it is accepted to conclude that some of these experiences are false.

3. About 85-90% of the world's population practice a religion. The atheist, or at least the atheist who feels compelled to proclaim their atheism in places like this, is again displaying arrogance: they are claiming that they have the one true word and the majority are deluded. Of course, Christians and Muslims do the same, but they have the excuse that they think the answer was revealed to them.

No I just reject the claims that theist are taught mostly at a very young age and are ignorant as facts as per indoctrination. You are treating the label atheist as gnostic atheist

This is basically why I'm hostile to atheists: their combination of irrationality and arrogance. The Christian and the Muslim may be factually wrong in my opinion, but the atheist's attitudes betray a moral deficiency in addition.

You are hostile due to your own caricature of atheists, nothing more.