Why I am an atheist

[Audie]

Please refer to what I just posted:
#39 Trailblazer, A moment ago

Never mind, I know a nothingburger when I see it.

(Liie not the least trace of evidence for it )

 

[Trailblazer]

Never mind, I know a nothingburger when I see it.

(Liie not the least trace of evidence for it )

whatevers

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Below is a post I sent to an atheist with whom I conversed on Delphi forums for about six years. He claimed that all alleged messengers represent imaginary gods (in other words, they were false prophets).

Atheist said:
Also, every imaginary god ever believed in did as well as to have at least one alleged messenger. These messengers also had their gullible followers who thought their messenger was the real deal, and also fantasized that they had evidence of their messenger being the real deal. So a god having a messenger thought to be the real deal doesn't mean ####.

I said:
A God having a Messenger thought to be the real deal does mean something if He was really a Messenger of God, but you will never know that because you assume without even looking at the Messenger that He cannot represent a real God.

Here, let’s go over this again:

That is true that the world is full of men who claim to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

There are two logical possibilities: A = true Messenger; B = false Messenger.

There have been many false messengers, (a) ones who thought they got a message from God (psychotics) or (b) ones that were lying (con-men), but logically speaking that does not mean that there were never any true Messengers of God.

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all messengers were false.

The only reason anyone should believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God is because of the evidence that indicates that. It is completely irrelevant how many false messengers there have been. It is also completely irrelevant that God could communicate directly if He wanted to. That is a red herring because it is unrelated to this argument about Messengers.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

You are making a hasty conclusion without any evidence (since you never researched the claim of Baha’u’llah) that Baha’u’llah represents an imaginary god. Thus, you have based your conclusion on “insufficient evidence,” essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. There is no way you can wriggle out of this unless you can prove that Baha’u’llah was a false messenger.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. messenger a represented an imaginary god
2. messenger b represented an imaginary god
3. messenger c represented an imaginary god
4. messenger d represented an imaginary god

Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) represented an imaginary god.

Yet not a single word that you wrote provides a scintella of evidence that Baha'u'llah actually represented a real god. You merely make the case that, if there were a real god, it is possible that Baha'u'llah represented him. To which I reply that it is equally likely that a real representative of god was the Easter Bunny. Not more likely, not, just equally likely, both based on precisely the same lack of evidence.

And so while you may decide that you've accepted one, not any others, I have decided that I can accept none. That's all there is to it.

 

[Audie]

whatevers

NONONO! " whatevs "

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet not a single word that you wrote provides a scintella of evidence that Baha'u'llah actually represented a real god.

There is evidence but such a thing can never be proven, since God cannot ever be proven to exist, and that is why some faith is necessary to believe in God or a Messenger. However, it should be a reason-based faith, a faith based upon the evidence the Messenger presented to back His claim, not a blind faith.

You merely make the case that, if there were a real god, it is possible that Baha'u'llah represented him. To which I reply that it is equally likely that a real representative of god was the Easter Bunny. Not more likely, not, just equally likely, both based on precisely the same lack of evidence.

No, that is not the case I am making. What I am saying is that I believe there is a real God and that Baha'u'llah was His Representative for this age.

And so while you may decide that you've accepted one, not any others, I have decided that I can accept none. That's all there is to it.

I believe there have been many other Messengers of God who were also Representatives of God, but aside from their spiritual teachings, what they revealed is not pertinent to this age in history.

 

[Trailblazer]

NONONO! " whatevs "

Sorry, I will try to remember that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is evidence but such a thing can never be proven, since God cannot ever be proven to exist, and that is why some faith is necessary to believe in God or a Messenger. However, it should be a reason-based faith, a faith based upon the evidence the Messenger presented to back His claim, not a blind faith......

To me Jesus did Not use ' blind faith ' (credulity) because Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures as a basis for his teachings.
Sometimes it is said that which can't be proven does Not have to mean unprovable, impossible, but rather just Not known by current knowledge of law or science.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sometimes it is said that which can't be proven does Not have to mean unprovable, impossible, but rather just Not known by current knowledge of law or science.

Indeed, that reasoning applies to both God and the spiritual world (heaven).
Not known by current knowledge of law or science does not mean does not exist.

How many solar systems are there that we know of?

So far, astronomers have found more than 500 solar systems and are discovering new ones every year. Given how many they have found in our own neighborhood of the Milky Way galaxy, scientists estimate that there may be tens of billions of solar systems in our galaxy, perhaps even as many as 100 billion.

How many solar systems are in our galaxy? - NASA Space Place

As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 152-153

 

[Audie]

To me Jesus did Not use ' blind faith ' (credulity) because Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures as a basis for his teachings.
Sometimes it is said that which can't be proven does Not have to mean unprovable, impossible, but rather just Not known by current knowledge of law or science.

He supposedly went about doing miracles.
That ain't logic.

It's been pure blind faith ever since.

 

[Trailblazer]

He supposedly went about doing miracles.
That ain't logic.

And it is also not proof. Miracles are proof only to those who witnessed them, although many people who read about them believe they are proof.

“Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ…” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

 

[Audie]

And it is also not proof. Miracles are proof only to those who witnessed them, although many people who read about them believe they are proof.

“Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ…” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

Well obviously. In the event, there were no miracles.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well obviously. In the event, there were no miracles.

Nobody really knows.

 

[Audie]

Nobody really knows.

True.

But the daemons-into- pigs thing is
ridiculous.

When there's no evidence, try the smell
test.

 

[janesix]

(Continued from last post...)

Answering My Objections

No theist has ever actually answered my objections, although I answer all of theirs. Instead, when I raise what I consider to be a killer argument against god, they simply move on to another statement, usually unrelated. I’ve observed this many, many times in debates, for example between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Dawkins gives direct answers to Collins’s points, while Collins frequently rebuts with discourses on “god’s purpose,” and similar arguments which are irrefutable.

But the truth is, the counter-argument to “red and green make purple,” is not “yellow and blue make green,” no matter how true the latter statement might be.

No Answers From Scripture(s)

Answers from Judeo-Christian scripture are no better to me than answers from other scriptures, or from Shakespeare or any other fiction. In fact, every answer from scripture is easily refuted, and almost always by a different selection from the same book. If this were not so, there would be no need for the very busy apologetics industry.

Religion, it seems to me, teaches that we should be satisfied without bothering to try and understand, to accept without questioning. All I ever have is questions, and magisterial answers, fully dependent on authority and nothing else, leave me completely unsatisfied.

God’s Greatest Creation

I’ve seen the human race at work. God’s greatest creation is responsible for a list of horrors too long for recitation here.

But it’s not just the evil that men do. It’s the sheer bloody stupidity of so much of the race. Watch the football hooligans in the stands, or in the streets after the game. See this creature, a little lower than the angels, this “piece of work...so infinite in faculty,” as it watches endless hours of “reality television.”

I’ve heard Joel Osteen, a “good Christian,” describe gays and lesbians as “not god’s best work” on Larry King Live on CNN. Yet Osteen seems unable, at least in this particular case, to follow the one thing that Christ is said to have really insisted upon – to love his fellow man without judging. Having failed at this single Christian duty, he still considers himself to be, one must assume, among “god’s best work,” and therefore competent to judge the “sins” of others.

Guessing Game

A universe with god, well actually, with all the gods that humanity has created, is an endless guessing game, with poorer odds of being right than the lottery. What does god want? You’ll never figure it out by observing and trying to make sense out of who suffers and who enjoys happiness. If we can’t tell here on earth, what hope have we of understanding the rules by which one merits “heaven?”

Confusion

No god worthy of the position could possibly have arranged to be so variously, and badly, misunderstood. One hundred thousand religions later, and still no agreement on who or what god is, and what He/It wants.

Spirituality Needs Art, Not god

Spirituality is not aided by unwarranted fear nor unjustified hope, but rather by deeper understanding of ourselves and our universe. For true spirituality, put aside your scripture and turn instead to art – any art. And having done so, recognize that scripture is likewise art, able to provide us with new perspectives on ourselves and our world, worthy of similar (but not greater) respect.

Too Many Beliefs, Too Little Reason

I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in ghosts, the Yeti, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, gnomes, ogres, gremlins, banshees, naiads, dryads, jinn, fairy god-mothers or spontaneous human combustion, among a rather longish list of other nonsense routinely held to be reasonable by far too many people.

• Every “fact” of science can be demonstrated again and again in controlled experiments. Every theory makes predictions which can be tested for. Not a single “fact” of such pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense ever has been, nor ever can be, tested, and none makes predictions that I’m aware of (or when they do, as is sometimes said of astrology, they are either to general to be useful, or turn out to be wrong a statistically correct number of times).
• When a theory of science is finally shown not to fulfill some criterion or other implicit in itself, then the theory is either corrected or discarded. Pseudo-science and religion are immune to that sort of self-correction, since there is never going to be any evidence to “disprove” their assertions anyway.
• If anything must exist, it might as well be the universe as god. Is a naked singularity so much less likely than a consciousness without any other sort of existence, (or means to support itself)? Why propose a middle-man, which only complicates matters?

Morals and Ethics

Throughout my entire atheist existence, I’ve managed to behave both more morally and more ethically, with more concern for my fellow man of whatever condition, than many of the religious people that I’ve known. I am in myself proof that morality needs no god – Torquemada, for example, is proof that believing in god does not guarantee moral behaviour.

What a tragic notion must be held by the faithful that if, by some calamity, they lost their faith in god, they would suddenly be unable to restrain themselves from theft and murder. The atheist is in no doubt at all that – should he suddenly believe in god – he should continue to behave as morally as he did before.

The problem with morality guided by religion is that religion (at least the human ones that I’m familiar with) is manifestly unintelligible. If this were not so, there would not, could not, have arisen about 100,000 of them in the course of human history.

God’s Infinite Mercy

I could never believe in both Hell and a merciful god. Mercy is not needed at all except by those who are not worthy of it. It is completely wasted on those who don’t need it.

Religion Gone Bad

I have seen human nature – that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But to get a whole church or mosque panting for the deaths of the homosexuals, the idolaters, the “sinners” of every sort – yes, that takes religion.

Original Sin

Few things offend me as much as the idea of “original sin” – that I (the child abused by those most accountable for my security) inherit guilt along with their genes. The Bishop of Hippo would excuse god for deformed and still-born children on such a vile supposition, but I will not.

Conclusion, My Purpose, Not God's

Mostly, I am an atheist because I think, and none of my thinking led me to any notion of god. Nothing led me to understand that there was any other purpose to my existence than what I chose to make of it. My parents gave me life, but it is mine to live, not theirs. They can hope anything they like for me, but I will go my own way.

I am not interested in being the object of “god’s purpose,” whatever that might be (and I challenge anyone to tell me what it is). I’m the object of enough other purposes over which I have little control. Regarding a meaning or a purpose for my life, I prefer my own. And at the, least I have some hope of knowing what it is.

Post Scriptum

I was mentioning this the other day to a friend, who said to me my analogy of winning the lottery and belief is flawed with respect to belief. She said,"I play the lottery because I hope to win, not because I believe I will win."

Point taken. And it is true that I, too, play the lotteries. I also hope to win. But you know, if I believed that I could not win, I would not play. So, what does that suggest about my beliefs (even though I actually do know the odds)? Beliefs can, in fact, be much stronger than knowledge, for reasons that are so completely human. It's funny, but it's also a bit endearing sometimes -- as long as it doesn't get destructive!

Another point about my original post. I said "I am an atheist because I think." Someone I know told me that was pretty arrogant, and that many intelligent, thinking people believe in a deity.

For my comment, then, I must apologize, because of course there are intelligent people on this forum who also believe in a deity. My thought perhaps didn't read as well as it could, and I can see how it looks.

Ah, well, this is a work in progress, and I'm open to change. Still, I did not mean that believers don't think and atheists do. I meant that I have always spent a lot of time thinking, and every avenue of thought that I traversed led me to a different conclusion than the vast majority of other people.

Still, I wonder sometimes if it isn't true that most people don't really spend a lot of time and effort really thinking about the things that they take for granted, and if they actually did stop and examine more closely, they might arrive at different conclusions. This might be especially true, not so much for belief in god, but for rigid adherence to the particular dogmas of most formal religions. It would still be possible, I think, to believe in god and the message of Christ without believing that Mary was a virgin, that water turned into wine, or that the dead got out of their graves and wandered around town, and nobody thought to actually write a memo about it. Or that Jesus actually and literally died for our sins.

Seems you don't like God because you think he's a jerk. I will remind you that we as humans can only see things through our limited animal persective.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Seems you don't like God because you think he's a jerk. I will remind you that we as humans can only see things through our limited animal persective.

Then you've misread me. I don't dislike God -- I can't possibly, since I don't believe in any such thing. I don't hate anybody I don't know anything about.

What you might have read from what I wrote, if you had read it, is that the reason for my disbelief is that the god that was presented to me simply does not reconcile with the reality around me. Very simple, really.

 

[Audie]

Seems you don't like God because you think he's a jerk. I will remind you that we as humans can only see things through our limited animal persective.

You 100 % don't get it.

You think "god" is, like, real.

An atheist does not.

This bible-god is just a character in a semi
historical NOVEL.

As a character, he is way worse than a jerk.
More like a psycho.

 

[Audie]

Then you've misread me. I don't dislike God -- I can't possibly, since I don't believe in any such thing. I don't hate anybody I don't know anything about.

What you might have read from what I wrote, if you had read it, is that the reason for my disbelief is that the god that was presented to me simply does not reconcile with the reality around me. Very simple, really.

The earth is a book that does not lie.

 

[janesix]

Then you've misread me. I don't dislike God -- I can't possibly, since I don't believe in any such thing. I don't hate anybody I don't know anything about.

What you might have read from what I wrote, if you had read it, is that the reason for my disbelief is that the god that was presented to me simply does not reconcile with the reality around me. Very simple, really.

Then maybe you are looking at the wrong God.

 

[janesix]

You 100 % don't get it.

You think "god" is, like, real.

An atheist does not.

This bible-god is just a character in a semi
historical NOVEL.

As a character, he is way worse than a jerk.
More like a psycho.

The Bible is not historical at all. It is a book of esoterica and parables. Only a fool would take any of it literally. Or think that is supposed to be taken literally.

 

[Audie]

The Bible is not historical at all. It is a book of esoterica and parables. Only a fool would take any of it literally. Or think that is supposed to be taken literally.

An awful lot of fools out there.
And in here.