FairFiend

I think debating about the existance of God and religion in general is a supurb way of sharpening one's critical thinking skills. It challenges widely held, sacred beliefs that are full of inconsistancies, contradictions, and illogical assumptions. To that end, religon is a benefit to freethinkers like myself. What I learn about thinking critically here I can apply better to other areas of my life.

But, I've come to the conclusion that debating the issues with theists for the purposes of enlightening them on the virtues of reason or in the dim hopes of deconverting them is ultimately pointless. It is pointless in the sense that I feel that no matter how strong or logical an arguement we atheists can put forth showing the theists that there is no God, it will do little to dissuade them. That is because the belief in God is not a logical one born of reason, but an emotional and a sociological one. Therefore, isn't much of the discussion here pointless (save for the reason I mentioned above)? Does anyone feel that they have reached the theists that post to this board? Does anyone want to refute my claim that belief in religion is purely emotional and sociological?

WJ

Fair!

I'm willing to listen to any rational, logical, and/or any other convincing reason and/or lack of physical evidence to believe either in atheism, or your superior knowledge that God doesn't exist. Start convincing me!

Walrus

Samhain

FairFiend:

I've also held this view for quite some time, and I've expressed it several times throughout SecWeb.

Walrus:

What exactly are you trying to get at, here? These arguments have gone on ad nauseum here at SecWeb. The burden does not lie with the atheists on this matter, it lies with the theists. Atheists really should not have to prove that a god doesn't exist, rather theists must prove that god logically does exists. This is another problem with the atheist/theist debate.

FairFiend

I agree with Samhain, the burden of proof is on the theist. Where I to claim the existance of unicorns, it would be my burden to produce evidence of their existance. I think that for theists to charge atheists to prove the non-existance of God is more than unfair. Although I believe there is strong logical evidence that the concept of God is contradictory and thus cannot possibly exist, proving that God doesn't exist 100% (anything less being unacceptable to most theists) is as impossible as proving 100% that unicorns don't exist. There's always someplace, somewhere they could be hiding. If there's one game God is great at is hide-and-go-seek.

It all comes down to what is considered to be sufficient evidence for the belief for the existance/non-existance of God. Atheists simply have a higher standard than theists. The problem is that I think theists selectively tailor what they feel is sufficient evidence for a particular belief. For God, their threshold is low, but for something like, evolution, it is high. They require a greater "proof" for evolution, but for God, well, they just believe everyone should just take it at faith.

Getting back to my original point. I think religious believers accept a lower threshold of proof for the belief in God because their belief is motivated by an emotional need for an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful wise old man who'll take care of them after that scarry thing called Death, who'll answer all those pesky questions we humans have, and who will punish all those nasty people who got away doing all those terrible things. I think it is also because religious believers are socialized to believe in their religion. Rejecting those beliefs because of reason could mean being rejected by those we love like our friends and family. That is a powerful incentive to maintain one's beliefs--even more than the fear of hellfire.

Mageth

FairFiend:

There have been a handful of theists who've deconverted while participating on this forum, including some who are very intelligent and well-versed in theology (one recently comes to mind, and he may chime in here eventually).

Further, there are always the "lurkers" and questioners to consider. Not everyone is firmly in one camp or the other, so to speak; many are wavering trying to find the truth.

When I came to these boards, I was in the process of leaving my theism behind, and was not at all familiar with atheism or the arguments for atheism/against theism. This forum (and the atheist vs. theist discussions) has been instrumental in my education and convinced me that atheism is the correct position.

rainbow walking

rw: But have you learned enough? Thinking clearly and rationally doesn't always require critical analysis as much as just being intellectually fit to conduct a reasonable contemplation of the ideas presented, especially when they come at you from outside the box.

rw: I see, and you know without a doubt there is no god? You've been to all points of existence and back and found no sign of one anywhere?

rw: Now that's a conclusion I wouldn't expect to hear from a seasoned skeptic unless he's never been in the ring with a theist that doesn't fit into his pigeon hole. Twisting such arrogant generalized assumptions about theists into stammering stuttering knots of insecure confusion is what I do for liesure. When I really get serious I have been known to turn atheists into livid, contorted monsters who curse and foam at the mouth capable of nothing more than invective ad hominem who eventually slunk off into silence to nurse their wounded pride for a few days or a week or more.

First I would start by accepting their imagined burden they coweringly wish to divest themselves of by defining a god concept they simply were not prepared to critically dissect...something like this:

Let us see if we can “deduce”, from what we know to exist, enough information to conclude a god concept that is both reasonable and sustainable.

First we start with invisibility.” How”, you may ask, “can we “envision” a concept that is invisible?” How do you envision the concept of GRAVITY? By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that our universe is governed by forces we call LAWS which are “invisible”. What IS visible are their effects. The cause is not. This leaves us with an observable universe under the direct control of invisible forces. The recent discovery of “quarks”; sub-atomic particles that blink into existence and vanish again without rhyme or reason, further support this factor, as evidence that there are dimensions of this universe which we have yet to un-veil.

The second factor of a god concept is “dynamism”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that the universe is in constant motion from the sub-atomic to the macros of the galaxies not one particle is absolutely still. A god concept must necessarily represent the dunamis underlying this property of the universe. The amount and type of “power” required for “dynamism” is only that which is necessary to get things started, including the “laws” which ensure that everything moves in rhythm. Once the system begins the forces/laws kick in and it becomes virtually a perpetual motion machine.


A third factor necessary to a god concept is “bio-logical”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that “LIFE” is uniquely contradistinctive from all other aspects of the universe. Not only must a god concept encompass invisible power but “invisible LIVING power” in order for there to be a “BIO” logic connection. Since we know ourselves to be biological creatures we cannot justify or sustain an in-animate god concept being responsible for our animated biology.

A fourth factor necessary to a god concept is superior intelligence. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that bio-logic functions progress from the simple to the complex; that the more complex the function, the more information is required to be stored and processed to sustain the complexity; that the more information involved the more intelligence required; that all molecular structures contain data; that the non-molecular energetic forces of the universe “convey” data; that the entire biological apparatus has been synchronized into a “food chain” whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts by virtue of the data contained therein. A god concept would necessarily encompass an “intelligence” superior to any singular functional species within the “food chain”, by virtue of the incredible amount of data contained within and conveyed throughout the system. Data that appears meaningless until interpreted by the bio-logic functioning of scientific enquiry, a function of “intelligence” developed by humans as a means of collecting, assimilating, organizing and applying said data to the “purpose” of sustaining and elevating their position within the food chain. The superior intelligence factor is a necessity of the god concept by virtue of the FACT that the “organization” and “activation” of such a HUGE amount of data into what is collectively recognized as the “UNIVERSE” is a function that EXCEEDS the intellectual capacity of any species within said universe actively involved in the “food chain”.

A fifth factor necessary to a god concept is “macro-logical. By observation “WE” have discovered THAT we are, WHAT we are, and WHO we are. By conceptual “agreement” we have established WHERE we are and WHEN we are. During the process of reaching this point we discovered that certain data collected could be assimilated into the body of data already interpreted creating a “progressiveness” that “evolved” into a “systematic” approach being facilitated by the tools of ‘logic” and further developed into “scientific enquiry”. Via “scientific enquiry” we discovered a consistency inherent in the data collected and began to develop “theories” based on this “consistency” The more consistent data being categorized as “laws”, while data under investigation as hypothesis. One such “law” which “reveals” the “macro-logical factor of the god concept is the law of “CAUSATION.” Causation interpreted says that “something” CAUSES all data in the universe to be “consistent” because the “EFFECT” of that consistency is readily “observable”. Macro-logic incorporates the interpretation of data into a cosmic “search” for the original “cause”. Due to the “invisibility” factor of the god concept the search continues. The macro-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept in order to fulfill the “law of causation” which will provide us with an answer to the “WHY” we are.

The final factor necessary to a god concept is psycho-logical. This factor incorporates several “invisible” characteristics of the “bio-logical”. Consciousness, rationality, emotionality, will and reason. The effects are readily observable; the cause remains elusive. The psycho-logical “profile” of the bio-logical reveals a “determinism”. One characteristic determines the function of another thus “dictating” the EFFECT. The manifestation of the “dominant” characteristic will be “determined” by the INPUT and COMPUTATION of data. The “default” dominant characteristic is the “will”. The “will” is determined by data computed into REASONS which are either “rational” or “emotional.” Reason is the computational faculty of assimilating data from external and internal(memory)sources into conclusions that can be logical, illogical, or an admixture of both. Consciousness is the characteristic that correlates all the other factors into a sense of “self” which is developed into an “identity” peculiar to each bio-logical entity. The psycho-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept as it ascribes a “PURPOSE” to all data and an “IDENTITY” derived from said purpose.

In conclusion we can see that the factors incorporated into this god concept are both reasonable and sustainable. Dynamic power, intelligence and three variations of logic are all scientifically substantiated concepts. The “invisibility” factor should not be an objectionable inclusion since we know there are many aspects of our universe which are invisible, such as the wind, but which we can readily observe the effects.

A final summary: What is portrayed as a viable god concept is an "(1.)INVISIBLE,(2.) POWERFUL,(3.) LIVING,(4.)SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE,(5.) WHOSE IDENTITY IS REVEALED IN HIS DESIGN if you're not afraid to LOOK before you LEAP.

Then, before they had the time or presence of mind to erect a serious objection to such an omni-max ridden god concept I'd hammer the second nail into their coffin by reminding them of the very real literal existence of the nation of Israel along with 3000 year old biblical prophecies declaring that existence to be a predicted decree of this god. I would point to the fact that both the prophecies and the nation do, literally, factually exist and defy them to deprogram the obvious.

Usually by this time the weaker atheist was spending more intellectual energy trying to effect a noble retreat than actually addressing the salient points that I would score all along the journey.

But if you really believe there are no logically minded serious theistic challenges to your position may I recommend you walk softly in these parts as you may awaken a few, and trust me, you don't want none of that breathing up your ass if you're only in it for the intellectual challenge cause I can assure you that before they get through with you if you ain't totally dedicated to your position you may find yourself in a corner somewhere praying for somebody to get your ass outta that crack while you've still got a modicum of integrity left.



rw: Oh yeah, some of the brightest minds have managed to reach a few of them...just a few of them...that was enough.

rw: Belief in religion isn't required. I can assure you that religion exists. Consider it refuted.

WJ

All!

Once again, the brute 'facts' rear their ugly heads.

"This forum (and the atheist vs. theist discussions) has been instrumental in my education and convinced me that atheism is the correct position."

Now, how does one come to this conclusion? What is the 'correct position' [it] based on?

Walrus

Mageth

WJ:

What's with the "brute facts?" Did I say anything about "brute facts" or declare anything a "fact?"

Perhaps I should have said, correct position for myself. After all, I was talking about effects the forum has had on me. You're free to hold any "correct position" you want.

I'll restate my position for clarity:

The more I read (atheists' and theists' arguments) the more convinced I am by the atheists' arguments.

sandlewood

Yes, I agree that emotions are involved. The best suggested explanation I’ve heard—one that makes sense to me—is by a neuroscientist, Dr. Vilanyur Ramachandran. There is a part of the brain called the amygdala, which connects to the sensory area in the temporal lobes. The strength of the connection determines how emotionally significant something is. It helps us to sort out what things in our life are important and which are not. For example, if we see a picture of our mother, we will get an emotional response as opposed to seeing a picture of some other woman. It is a way to help us identify our mother. Given that the amygdala is near the center of the brain, it is possible that in a much earlier stage of our evolution this was the method for sorting these things out. If these connections are particularly strong, a person may see deep emotional significance in everything, a grain of sand, a piece of wood. There is a tendency to ascribe cosmic significance to everything. This in fact happens in extreme cases such as patients suffering from epileptic seizures. (I hope no one will misunderstand this. I’m not suggesting that theists are sick in any way.)

rainbow walking, I don’t know what you mean. There are plenty of atheists here prepared to critically dissect those arguments. I’d think you’d know that having been around for so long. But that would be another thread.

E_muse

I think it is difficult to attempt refuting your claim because you haven't really said why you believe it is true - or the evidence that you are basing the conclusion on.

Personally, in considering your arguement, I would find it helpful if you could say something like, 'I hold the view that religion is purely emotional and sociological because.....'. Observations of theistic behaviour that support your claim would be helpful too. After all, this is how any theory should be presented.

It would then be possible for others to appraise whether your view represented only a certain portion of Christianity, Western Christianity and so on. More importantly, it would be necessary to test whether your theory could apply to Christians throughout history and holds generally true on all occassions.

Hope I haven't missed the point!