Posted by Hemant Mehta in ***Update: I’ve corrected a few mistakes in the intro, and I’ve attached August’s PDF of the arguments (great for printing out) and added some of his own thoughts. The arguments themselves are unchanged. Sorry for any inconvenience!***
August Berkshire, the public relations representative for Minnesota Atheists and Vice-President of Atheist Alliance International, has put together a simple, concise list of “18 Unconvincing Arguments for God” (PDF).
August has said the list was written in order to give Christians (and those of other faiths) “insight as to what arguments are not likely to work with us, as we have already considered them and found them insufficient… It was meant to be a time-saving device for believers.”
And if you understand August’s points, you’ll certainly get more reception from the atheists you’re talking to. We’ve heard these arguments before and new arguments would better stimulate our curiosity and require new rebuttals.
August has been invited to give this talk the past few years at local Christian colleges and has been featured in the Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota) as a result.
Here is August explaining why he wrote the list:
I have been giving this talk for the past two years specifically to Christian colleges where I am invited to speak. The impetus happened three years ago, speaking to a “Creative Evangelism” class taught by Sherry Bunge Mortenson at Bethel University in St. Paul. A student asked what would convince me that God exists? I named a few miracles that would at least convince me that something supernatural exists. But the question stuck in my mind and I naturally began to think of what wouldn’t convince me. Thus, if the goal of these students was to evangelize an atheist, it seemed perfectly appropriate that I give them a list of what wouldn’t work, so they could creatively come up with some new arguments, as their class title suggests. I meant this to be educational and in no way condescending, and that is how I hope the students perceive my presentation.
His revised and updated list is presented for you here:
(1) Holy Books - Just because something is written down does not make it true. This goes for the Bible, the Qu’ran, and any other holy book. People who believe the holy book of their religion usually disbelieve the holy books of other religions.
(2) “Revelations” - All religions claim to be revealed, usually to people called “prophets.” But a revelation is a personal experience. Even if the revelations really did come from a god, there is no way we could prove it. As Thomas Paine said, it is a revelation only to the first person, after that it is hearsay. People of one religion usually disbelieve the revelations of other religions.
(3) Personal Testimony / Feelings - This is when you are personally having the revelation or feeling that a god exists. Though you may be sincere, and even if a god really does exist, a feeling is not proof, either for you or for someone else.
As a matter of fact, scientists have begun to study why some people believe and other don’t, from a biological perspective. They have identified certain naturally occurring chemicals in our bodies that can give us religious experiences. Studies of identical twins separated at birth seem to indicate that god-belief is about 50% nurture and 50% nature. Some claim to have found a “god gene” that makes people more likely to believe.
In studies of religion and the brain, a new field called neurotheology, they have identified the temporal lobe as a place in the brain that can generate religious experiences. Another part of the brain that regulates a person’s sense of “self” can be consciously shut down during meditation, giving the meditator (who loses his sense of personal boundaries) a feeling of “oneness” with the universe.
(4) “Open Heart” - It will do no good to ask atheists to “open our hearts and accept Jesus” (or any other deity). If we were to set aside our skepticism, we might indeed have an inspirational experience. But this would be an emotional experience and, like a revelation, we’d have no way to verify if a god was really speaking to us or if we were just hallucinating.
(5) Unverifiable “Miracles” / Resurrection Stories - Many religions have miracle stories. And just as religious people are usually skeptical towards miracle stories of other religions, atheists are skeptical toward all miracle stories.
Good magicians can perform acts that seem like miracles. Things can be mismeasured and misinterpreted. A “medical miracle” can simply be attributed to our lack of knowledge of how the human body works. Why are there never any indisputable miracles, such as an amputated arm regenerating?
Regarding resurrections, atheists will not find a story of someone resurrecting from the dead to be convincing. There are many such legends in ancient literature and, again, most religious people reject the resurrection stories of other religions.
Modern resurrection stories always seem to occur in the Third World under unscientific conditions. There have been thousands of people in hospitals hooked up to machines that verified their deaths when they died. Why didn’t any of them ever resurrect?
(6) Fear of Death / “Heaven” - Atheists don’t like the fact that we’re all going to die any more than religious people do. However, this fear does not prove there is an afterlife – only that we wish there was an afterlife. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
There is no reason to believe our consciousness survives the death of our brains. The mind is not something separate from the body. Chemical alteration and physical damage to our brains can change our thoughts.
Some people get Alzheimer’s disease at the end of their lives. The irreversible damage to their brains can be detected by brain scans. These people lose their ability to think, yet they are still alive. How, one second after these people die, does their thinking return (in a “soul”)?
(7) Fear of Hell - The idea of hell strikes atheists as a scam – an attempt to get people to believe through fear what they cannot believe through reason and evidence.
Then there is the problem of which religion’s hell is the true hell. Without evidence, we can never know.
(8) “Pascal’s Wager” / Faith - In short, Pascal’s Wager states that we have everything to gain (an eternity in heaven) and nothing to lose by believing in a god. On the other hand, disbelief can lead to a loss of heaven. We’ve already addressed the issues of heaven and hell, so let us address the faith wager part.
First, it assumes a person can will himself or herself into belief. This is simply not the case, at least not for an atheist. So atheists would have to pretend to believe. But according to most definitions of God, wouldn’t God know we were lying to hedge our bets? Would a god reward this?
Part of Pascal’s Wager states that you “lose nothing” by believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these conditions, you’re acknowledging that you’re willing to accept some things on faith. In other words, you’re saying you’re willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesn’t sound so appealing when it’s phrased that way, does it?
(9) Blaming the Victim - Many religions punish people for disbelief. However, belief requires faith, and some people, such as atheists, are incapable of faith. Their minds are only receptive to evidence. Therefore, are atheists to be blamed for not believing when “God” provides insufficient evidence?
(10) The End of the World - Like hell, this strikes atheists as a scare tactic to get people to believe through fear what they can’t believe through reason and evidence. There have been predictions that the world was going to end for centuries now. The question you might want to ask yourselves, if you’re basing your religious beliefs on this, is how long you’re willing to wait – what amount of time will convince you that the world is not going to end?
(11) Meaning in Life - This is the idea that without a belief in god life would be meaningless. Even if this were true, it would only prove we wanted a god to exist to give meaning to our lives, not that a god actually does exist. But the very fact that atheists can find meaning in their lives without a belief in god shows that god belief is not necessary.
(12) “God is Intangible, Like Love” - Love is not intangible. Unlike “God,” we can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by certain types of actions.
Unlike “God,” love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love.
Also, love depends upon brain structure – a person with a lobotomy or other types of brain damage cannot feel love.
Furthermore, if love were not physical, it would not be confined to our physical brains. We would expect to be able to detect an entity or force called “love” floating around in the air.
(13) Morality/Ethics - This is the idea that without a god we’d have no basis for morality. However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.
Christians can’t even agree among themselves what’s moral when it comes to things like masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty.
Christians themselves reject some of the moral laws found in the Bible, such as killing disobedient children or people who work on the sabbath.
Other animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a sense of justice. Morality is something that evolved from us being social beings. It’s based on the selfish advantage we get from cooperation, and on consequences.
(14) Altruism - People sometimes say that without a god there would be no altruism, that evolution only rewards selfish behavior.
However, it can be argued that there is no such thing as altruism, that people always do what they want to do. If they are only faced with bad choices, then people choose the thing they hate the least.
Our choices are based on what gives us (our genes) the best advantage for survival, including raising our reputation in society.
“Altruism” towards family members benefits people who share our genes. “Altruism” towards friends benefits people who may someday return the favor.
Even “altruism” towards strangers has a basis in evolution. This behavior evolved in small tribes, where everyone knew each other and a good reputation enhanced one’s survival. It is now hard-wired in our brains as a general mode of conduct.
(15) Free Will - Some would argue that without a god there would be no free will, that we would live in a deterministic universe of cause and effect and that we would be mere “robots.”
Actually, there is far less free will than most people think there is and, in fact, most atheists have no problem admitting that, indeed, free will may be an illusion.
Some believe that the only free will we have is to exercise a conscious veto over actions suggested by our thoughts.
(16) Difficulties of Religion - It has sometimes been argued that because certain religious practices are difficult to follow, nobody would do them if a god didn’t exist. However, it is the belief in the existence of a god that is motivating people. A god doesn’t really have to exist for this to happen.
Difficulties can serve as an initiation rite of passage into being counted one of the “select few.” After all, if just anybody could be “saved,” there would be no point in having a religion.
Finally, the reward for obedience promised by most religions – a heaven – far outweighs any difficulties religion imposes.
(17) False Dichotomies - This is being presented with a false “either/or” proposition: where you’re only given two choices when, in fact, there are more possibilities. Here’s one that many Christians are familiar with: “Either Jesus was insane or he was god. Since Jesus said some wise things, he wasn’t insane. Therefore, he must be god, like he said he was.”
But those are not the only two possibilities.
A third option is that, yes, it is possible to say some wise things and be deluded that you are a god.
A fourth possibility is that Jesus didn’t say everything that is attributed to him in the Bible. Maybe he didn’t actually say all those wise things, but the writers of the Bible said he did. Or maybe he never claimed to be God, but the writers turned him into a god after he died.
A fifth possibility is that Jesus is a fictional character and so everything was invented by the authors.
Here’s another example of a false dichotomy: “No one would die for a lie. The early Christians died for Christianity. Therefore, Christianity must be true.” What’s left out of this is that there is no direct evidence that anyone who ever personally knew Jesus (if he even existed) was ever martyred. We only have stories of martyrdom.
Another explanation is that followers had been fooled, intentionally or unintentionally, into thinking Jesus was God.
A final point is that if, for whatever reason, you believe you’ll end up in a heaven after to die, then martyrdom is no big deal. Does the fact that the 9/11 bombers were willing to die for their faith make Islam true?
(18) God-of-the-Gaps (Medicine, Life, Universe, etc.) - The god-of-the-gaps argument says that if we don’t currently know the scientific answer to something, then “God did it.”
God-of-the-gaps is used in many areas, but I’ll focus on the three main ones: medicine, life, and the universe. You’ll notice that God never has to prove himself in these arguments. It is always assumed that he gets to win by default.
Here’s a medical example: A person experiences a cure for a disease that science can’t explain. Therefore, God did it.
But this assumes we know everything about the human body, so that a natural explanation is impossible. But the fact is, we don’t have complete medical knowledge. Why don’t we ever see something that would be a true miracle, like an amputated arm instantaneously regenerating?
Several studies of prayer, where the patients didn’t know whether or not they were being prayed for, including a study by the Mayo Clinic, have shown prayer to have no effect on healing.
And, of course, this raises the question of why we would have to beg an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god to be healed in the first place. It also raises the Problem of Evil: Why would we be praying to an all-loving god to be cured from diseases and the effects of natural disasters that he himself created?
An example of god-of-the-gaps as it applies to life is creationism and “intelligent design.” It says we don’t know everything about evolution, therefore “God did it.” This ignores the fossil and genetic evidence and also fails to explain the many poor and sub-optimal “designs” we find in nature. Is “God” an incompetent or sloppy designer?
The final and most popular example of god-of-the-gaps is the universe. But to say we don’t know the origins of the universe – if the universe even had an ultimate beginning – does not mean that “God did it.”
Conclusion - Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true. If any religion had objective standards, wouldn’t everyone be flocking to the same “true” religion? Instead we find that people tend to believe, to varying degrees, the religion in which they were indoctrinated. Or they are atheists.
[tags]August Berkshire, Minnesota Atheists, atheist, atheism, Atheist Alliance International, 18 Unconvincing Arguments for God, Christians, Christianity, StarTribune, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota, Bible, Qu’ran, Koran, Thomas Paine, god gene, neurotheology, temporal lobe, Jesus, Third World, resurrection, Heaven, afterlife, Alzheimer’s disease, soul, Hell, Pascal’s Wager, Code of Hammurabi, masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, death penalty, sabbath, altruism, martyr, 9/11, God-of-the-Gaps, Medicine, Life, Universe, Mayo Clinic, creationism, intelligent design, Creative Evangelism, Sherry Bunge Mortenson, Bethel University[/tags]
Very nicely laid out–I’ll have to show this to some of my religious friends who occasionally like to try to lead me to God. I quite enjoy having friendly debates about religion, but it gets boring and frustrating when all they use are these poor arguments.
Personally, I think it’s a mistake to try to prove God anyway, and not just because it’s impossible. It seems almost a form of disrespect towards a god who, if he exists, evidently doesn’t want to be proved. As Douglas Adams said, ” ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God. ‘For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’ ‘But,’ says Man, ‘the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist, and so, by your own argument, you don’t. QED.’ ‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Hey, it almost looks like they got their inspiration from me:
http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/27/why-do-people-believe-in-god/
18 reasons, too.
I don’t think they actually copied anything from me, but there sure are some interesting coincidences.
[...] Well, before beginning that project, read Friendly Atheist’s offering of 18 Unconvincing Arguments for God. [...]
I don’t need to prove god exists. If you are unwilling to even consider the possiablity, why would I try? You can never convice people of something they refuse to even tey to understand.
How about this, you stop trying to suppress religous ideals through the courts and allow us to express our religous ideals???? I take it you do still support freedom of religon.
sonofdy wrote:
Was that directed at any person here in particular?
I’ve never filed a court case in my life.
To athesits in general.
Well, to christians in general, stop forcing your beliefs down our throats.
Now that we’ve got the generalizations out of the way, how about a friendly dialogue among equals?
Pedro– Just to clarify, August has been using this list and revising it for a few years, so any similarities are coincidental, like you said.
Not surprising since a lot of religious people use the same arguments repeatedly.
– Hemant
Sonofdy,
Why do you think we haven’t considered the possibility of a god? Not only did I consider the possibility, I actually believed in a god for many years.
I do support freedom of religion. When have you personally not be able to express your religious ideals?
sonofdy said:
No one is trying to supress “religious ideals” through the courts. There has been litigation, however, to stop illegal and unconstitutional proselytizing and indoctrination by governmental institutions and instrumentalities.
Most of the plaintiffs in these cases are not atheists. Historically, the vast majority of separation of church and state cases have been filed by members of “minority” faiths, mainly Roman Catholics and Jews, with a few believers of pagan, Native American religions and others. Although atheists have not been the initiating plaintiffs in most of this litigation, they get a lot of press when they do. Still, atheists have the same legal rights to complain about illegal government activities as anyone.
sonofdy also said:
You have freedom to believe anything you want to believe. At no time in American history, however, have believers been entitled to “practice” their beliefs if the activities violate the law. So we’ve seen Hare Krishna & other churches or religious centers, held to local noise abatement laws regardless of the “make a joyful noise” intstructions of their religions.
sonofdy sounds like he hasn’t paid any attention to the laws or realities of American religious freedom.
I respect your right to believe, I just don’t respect the belief. Nor do I respect the illegal practices of any sect or governmental entities that violate the Constitution.
[...] 13 Reasons Not to Believe in God Published January 25th, 2007 religion , philosophy , atheism , ethics , superstition , morality , theism Friendly Atheist has posted a list of 18 Unconvincing Arguments for God. Lists are always fun. Here’s my list of 13 reasons not to believe in God. These aren’t proofs that there is no God, but rather arguments for why you shouldn’t believe in God. This list is far from exhaustive, and isn’t meant to be. [...]
I was raised Catholic, but I have to agree, there’s no good argument to prove a god exists to someone who doesn’t believe. But you really can’t prove there is no god either… so there really isn’t a point in anyone fighting over it. I’m more of the opinion that everyone has their own beliefs and everyone should define spirituality on a personal level. When there can’t be proof, no one can be wrong.
To the previous poste, who says taht there is no way to prove that god does not exist.
First of all, various scientific discoveries such as evolution and physics dwindle the possibility of god to a vanishingly small number. Why should there be a god if anything he supposedly can do can be explained by another, more proven theory?
Second of all, historically, we see that the number of things that mainstream thought uses god to explain is decreasing, and approaching zero. Logically, one could assume that eventually there will be no need for god at all, and thus no proof.
Also, there is something wrong with the ‘every one should define their own spirituality on a personal level’ mentality. The unverse exists. It is a concrete, objective reality. The only way we can know anything about it is throuh reason. If everyone were to be subjective, then there could never be any real knowledge, because any one could claim that it is not true, simply because their subjective perception of reality is different than someone else’s.
Finally, I feel that this complacent anything-goes attitude toward reality is extremely detrimental to society. Not only because it causes people to deny what is real, on varying levels, but also because it creates a friendly environment for evil and fundamentalism to flourish. With god you can prove anything. And if one is one of the more consistent theists, this can lead to very evil things indeed.
“Without religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things; it takes god to make good people do evil things.”
As a super-dooper
leader to not just one but TWO (count ‘em TWO) Gods, based on
nothing BUT evidence
(As seen in philosophical implications of quantum mechanics)…
It is only logical to posit
two echoes of cosmic
‘rules’ (Gravitation, electro-magnetism et
cetera) namely the Law
of Opposits. For every
particle there is an equal and opposite
particle (with a few exceptions)
Posit a God that is
omnipotent can NOT
be Curious. So God2
teaches that only
knowledge is good
the only evil is ignorance. As soon as
I learn about webpages
My Church of Variable
Likelihood will
be up (I’m 79, I’m giving
myself a year…) Cheers! jjwilson@smartt.com
While I have no complaints or anything I find it most striking that atheists are just as prone to behaving like the fundies. In the above, the article was nice but some of the responses veer towards silliness, I have read everything from evolution to physic being cited as reasons that “god” can not exist. The irony is that to believe in a theory, say evolution, and an unknown discipline (such as physics) is just as much a faith based belief system as Christianity or Islam. (With, I have found, nearly as many “militants” who attempt to force others to believe in their beliefs - or non-beliefs as they may opt to call them.)
It is my lowly opinion that no one has the right (or even moral obligation) to attempt to force another person to feel the same way that they do, to think the same things they do, or to believe the same things they do. Believe it or not - there is no justification for telling someone else how to believe. You are either ethical as is defined in your society or you are not and provided your choices harm no one then who cares what you believe.
So, I suppose, this isn’t my blog but the uninteresting zealotry being posted as comments are barely addressing the subject. The subject, in this case, is how people of faith are going to be better off saving some time and presenting their faith system better if they should select to share it with another person. Of all the most compelling reasons I have heard to believe in a religion, my favorite has been, “Because it is what I believe.”
Good list, but the altruism response and the free will response could use a little work. The altruism one has the flaw of arguing against the idea of altruism using a straw man (we always do what we want is a tautology, and altruism is a case in which “what we want” is not in our percieved shallow best-interest.)
More important is the free will response, which relies on a feeble assertion “most atheists wouldn’t mind abandoning free will.” Maybe that’s true- I’d certainly have a problem abandoning free will though. For starters you’ve already produced a pretty good response to this one with your “meaning in life” response. We can’t believe in god because we want free will, and the “fact” the free will may be presently unexplainable by science means nothing but another god of the gaps argument.
I’ve got a good argument for free will- the Cartesian criteria of clear and distinct truths. Few things are more obvious to me right now than that I could take off my watch if I wanted to. It’s one of the most clear day-to-day truths I can find. Therefore it’s true until I can find evidence that it isn’t. There’s nothing unscientific about that- go ask David Hume if we have a better foothold than “clear and distinct” for things like induction.
Matt
I think that’s the basis for most of the actions against state sponsored religious activities.
This remark indicates, rather ironically, that the writer confuses the equivocal meanings of “faith” and “belief.”
The writer also seems to be unaware of the everyday verifications of the validity of the theories of evolution and physics. Our technological society has gained much from the advances in these sciences. One need not be a science expert to see that the main theoretical models have been fairly successful. This objective evidence can be readily observed, it needs no religious “faith.”
I’ve heard this so many times and it hasn’t improved through repetition.
When people make this comment, they seem to think that they have made some sort of insightful remark when they have, at best, done a weak turn at sophistry.
There is plenty of evidence against the god specified in the Old Testament and the Koran. Same with the Norse gods and the gods of ancient Rome. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all supporting the existence of any of those gods. Under no other circumstance would a “believer” accept the non-existent proofs of any other thing that are accepted as “proof” of their god.
As for science “disproving” god, as long as literalists insist on “proving” that their god exists by pointing to scientific concepts, it is appropriate to show that 1) they don’t understand the terms they attempt to use to “prove” god and 2) the science they claim supports their argument actually eviscerates it.
I have spent most of my life working with very intelligent believers. None of them have used the tired old arguments listed above and none of them have claimed that science proves the validity of their belief. They simply choose to believe because belief provides them with a great sense of comfort. What more could one want from a religion?
This is God, and I don’t exist, please stop arguing.
I respond to K Gill’s comment.
To equate physics with belief is really stupid. The fact that we can use the internet to communicate is due partly to the fact that some physicists spent time in their labs to discover the properties of semiconductors. The fact that I am typing this response is not belief. It is fact. And this is because science is useful. How do you explain the fact that Jesus or Mahommed for the same reason didn’t come up with a simple thing like aspirin for their followers. That is because they had no supernatural power. They were old versions of David Copperfield in a time of ignorance.
It’s a good list for us to consider, but Jesus doesn’t tell us to craft convincing arguments. He tells believers in Christ to share the good news with others.
The only way someone comes to believe God is one of two ways
1) Personal physical experience
2) Faith
That’s it, and the personal physical experience occurring before the faith is oh, so rare. The second one, Faith is a strange concept to someone who does not believe. Want to know why? Because it takes faith…
Yes, it is circular, but it requires that first step - just like on that Indiana Jones movie where he stepped off the cliff.
If you demand a personal, physical experience from God, that’s between you and him. Unfortunately (for you) that won’t keep others from sharing the good news… their personal experience and testimony.
Many do, but Jesus never called Christians to punish. Some did - but that isn’t the issue… unless you are believing in a church rather than a God.
Athiests are not incapable of faith - that is a choice.
God does provide sufficient evidence - people choose what to accept and not.
Can Athiests be blamed? Yup. Unless you live in a “victim mentality” world where people have no self-responsibility. What we believe is entirely up to us. C’mon dude - even athiests know that.
I agree with Alan C. (rhyming unintentional). This is an argument that should be added to the list. Atheists are often accused of acting like fundamentalists and that their belief in science is like faith. This is not true, Atheists are convinced of certain things in science by repeatable experiments that have given birth to our myriad of technological advancements.
The difference between Atheists and Fundamentalists is that if a theory is proven wrong in science, the atheist will change his belief to match that new theory. When the fundamentalist has parts of his/her beliefs proven wrong they turn a blind eye and become irrational.
To be honest, no atheist is going to change his beliefs due to an argument based upon religion. Religion(s) were created by man to help explain things he doesn’t understand (i.e. death) and as a primitive form of governing his actions. If you want to argue with an atheist and use a religion in your argument, you will never convince him, unless God Himself comes and tells him your right and then performs a miracal or 2.
If you want to engage an athiest and make him think there might be a God than you must go to the one place that it would make sense for there to be a God. The origin of everything. Ask questions about why the rules of Physics are what they are, Why is there gravity? This will not convince them there is a God, but it reaches a point that can never be explained and this is where a person makes their mind up. Either they believe there is something behind it all, or they believe it just is. I personally think it could be either, but I hope there is something behind it.
Matt L, was it your choice to be a guy? Was it your choice to have your family? Is it your choice that you like the taste of certain foods? You cannot change the way you are. To not believe in something isn’t a choice. It would be much easier if I did believe, much more comforting. The problem is no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn’t. Is that my fault? I hope not.
Matt L,
It seems to me that having faith without evidence is always a bad thing outside of religion. For example, would you agree that it would be bad if I believed in a poorly supported scientific hypothesis solely on faith, and proceeded to teach it to students? Why should faith be positive only when it’s applied to religion?
Also, free will is a tricky thing. We can choose what we want to choose, but it’s rather difficult to change what we want. Why should I want to have faith? And it’s not that I want to be an atheist (though I do want to be friendly); I just want to go with what I perceive as most likely.
I think if people of all faiths/lack thereof (atheism included) learned not to look down on each other for feeling differently, then this would not be a problem….I used to be an atheist when I was in high school (and years before that I was a Christian), but recently I’ve begun to think of things a little differently.
I’m not a “believer” in any sense of the word, but unlike an atheist, I don’t firmly believe in objective “nothing,” spiritually speaking. Nor do I look down on either party (religious or atheist) for feeling the way they do, because I’ve been to both places. I now rest at a comfortable “happy medium,” and I’ll probably stay that way. I don’t worry about what I can’t know for sure, and so I don’t waste all that time trying to convince everyone else either way. Rather than support one belief over another, I prefer to take situations as they come and decide if they can be attributed to faith or science, vice-versa, etc., and think about them.
That’s why I get bored when I hear tired religious arguments. If you have proof one way or the other (i.e. objective proof that God does/doesn’t exist), then I’ll listen….but if it’s not something objective that doesn’t require a specific interpretation, then it’s not going to be sufficient. I don’t like to restrict my beliefs to interpretation, and I hope there are people out there who are the same way
Christianity was created by Satan!
Satan created christianity to trick the gullible into worshiping him and following his religion of suffering and hate. Whilst he appeared to preach peace and forgivness, his true agenda was hate war and suffering. Those that refused to worship him were generally burned alive by his evil followers.
He then used christianity to cause suffering, torture, death and genocide for centuries - on a scale that makes the nazi holocaust look like a chimps tea party.
Christianity is the institution that is responsible for more evil, more suffering, more pain and more violent deaths than any other in the history of mankind. An evil whose victims are Suffering even today.
We will all be better off when it has been totally eradicated, and its
hate filled followers of satan who cause such misery are no more.
B Campbell,
You can prove that the universe, evolution, science itself was not created by a god? Perhaps as part of a plan to make people make their own decisions, it was all created so that science could explain it all as well. But I really don’t see anyone saying where the universe itself came from?
I’d also like to point out that blindly following any religion is foolish. Each person needs to have a starting point but you should be able to make your own decisions on what you believe in. You can’t have other people telling you what to believe in. For example, I’m Catholic. The Catholic church does not believe in evolution. I do. I believe that God created everything so that it couldn’t just be looked at with no explanation. (Again, see the Babel Fish reference haha) But I also believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ… which is to live a good life and look out for your fellow man, which is what everyone should do regardless of religion.
God, Satan, Organized Religion… the only thing that dictates if you are a good or evil person are your own choices. How many people have killed their fellow man in the name of a god? How many of those people missed the point?
As a Christian, I am completely disappointed with this list. In all of the defenses I have heard for Christianity, almost none of these even ranks in the top ten and the ones that do are completely misrepresented.
[...] Well, that stood out for a number of reasons. First thing I didn’t get from it was, unlike actual corporations, I don’t want to run my life where everything either immediately, or eventually benefits and profits me. I’m not like that. Now, It’s true that there are no completely altruistic acts (See: Number 14); However, there are things that I might feel aren’t necessary and I won’t get a worthy profit from, but I just, quite frankly, feel like doing. [...]
Adam,
You wrote:
Belief is the only true choice you have and has nothing to do with physical attributes such as ones you listed. Ask even a person who doesn’t believe in the same God I do, or believe in God at all.
People unjustly imprisoned stated in biographies that though they could be physically detained, their mind is free. Beliefs are totally subjective. If someone can’t accept self-responsibility that their beliefs are a choice, then they will be a prisoner the rest of their life to whatever physical circumstances that stand against them.
I chose to believe a bunch of crazy things when I was younger - that alcohol was the answer to my problems, that people were really “out to get me”, that I would never escape the problems stemming from my childhood, and many other harmful things.
Those were beliefs… my perception of reality. As it turns out, none of them were true. Fortunately God changed my perceptions and taught me the truth. I wish the same for those who don’t believe.
Miller,
You wrote:
The first person to do anything had faith without evidence. The results from their faith became the evidence by which others followed in their footsteps.
I stepped out in faith that God was who the Bible says. The evidence of the complete change in my life is a result of the faith. Those that know me personally have no explanation for the change. If you believe Adam’s last question to me, he would have you believe that I could not change - that people’s beliefs are incapable of changing. I am proof that is false.
Apply scientific principles to my life - I was a raging drunk, sexaholic, liar, brawler, and grade-A jerk. The evidence and fruits of my life are now distinctly different.
People will always find a reason to not believe, just as others will find reasons to believe.
Matt L wrote
I don’t think this is analogous. What exactly did the first person have faith in? What particular fact did he/she need to believe to be true in absence of evidence? Before I say anything more, I think you should be more explicit.
The atheist reply to your personal story is that you give God the credit, when clearly, you deserve the credit.
I’m probably starting to annoy people by so frequently stating that words like “faith,” “belief,” and “god” are capable of being defined in so many different ways that religious “believers” and atheists / rationalists seldom use the words in the same way. I think we could all benefit by being more clear about what we mean by these terms. Admittedly, this would be rather time consuming and sometimes it can be more fun to just argue
Matt L seems to be equating “belief” with “opinion” — they are not the same. A person arrives at an opinion based on some sort of subjective choice mechanism. An opinion may be well reasoned or not but it does represent choices made.
A religious “belief” is not the same as an “opinion” nor does it mean the same thing that “belief” means in other circumstances. “Belief” may mean “support” of a particular position, it may mean “expectation.” It doesn’t require “faith” to have a “belief” about the truth or falsity of a position.
I don’t agree that a person can “choose” to have a religious “belief”. This type of acceptance of “god” arises independent of someone’s will. Rather like a spontaneous infatuation. A person can, however, choose to practice certain religious rites.
“Faith” in the religious sense has little to do with the meaning of “faith” in other contexts, where it may mean something more like “confidence” or “reliance” or “loyalty.”
With all due respect, but Matt L is a loser. I wonder why he doesn’t believe that he can jump off Empire State and stay alive. I think he needs a dose of reality. How does he know that there is one god and not many. Maybe god is actually satan and he is deluded. Maybe actually Allah is god and not god and maybe Mohhamed is the prophet that went to heaven. Maybe god is actually a pink unicorn that roams around. Maybe god is a female looking for sex.
How the f— can he know what god is? Did he get a call in the morning from god? In this case I want to hear the tapes.
Or maybe Matt is just a drunk who got sober and started to believe the shit that some old people put together to stop young people from having fun and keep women subjugated to men.
This assertion makes no sense to me at all. Can anyone provide an English translation?
Another friendly atheist displaying dispassionate Reason
I’m glad to hear that Matt L’s life has improved. Many people hit “bottom” before they move on to a healthier life. I don’t doubt that Matt L found some sort of solace or inspiration in his religion that helped to bring about this improvement.
What I’ve noticed is that people with what they describe as wretched or miserable lives will attribute changes in their circumstances or behavior to what ever new behavior or resource they happened upon during a critical transition. I’ve heard this same type of story from vegans and practitioners of esoteric exercise or diet regimens and from those who gained inspiration or motivation from self help books or biographies.
Healthy changes are good things. But we can’t always attribute those changes with accuracy.
So, applying a “scientific” (i.e. rational) analysis to Matt L’s experience reminds us that correlation is not causation and that people assign significance to things based largely on emotion and the natural tendency to believe that correlation usually is sufficient proof.
@ Matt L
“Yes, it is circular, but it requires that first step - just like on that Indiana Jones movie where he stepped off the cliff.”
You stupid hobo, he didn’t do that on faith, he threw pebbles out to see if they fell first. Then he walked only where the pebbles didn’t fall.
Worst crossing of ideas in an attempt to gain support ever. No really, there has never been a worse one in the history of mankind.
What’s with all the name-calling going on here?
Do we really need to be calling people losers and stupid hoboes?
Does acting like that really advance whatever position you hold?
What Siamang said.
Nice.
It is obvious that there are no such things as gods. It’s not meaningful to debate ‘if there was a god’, or to try and prove or disprove the existence of one. Religious people are either delusional, indoctrinated, hoping for a bigger meaning, or - the healthy way - seeing ‘god’ as a personal guideline of right and wrong.
Great article. I have to show this to my Catholic roommate. However, I wish you included the poor argument “God works in mysterious ways.” I think this statement fits in with the God-between-the-gaps, but is distinct on its own too.
My counterargument for this would be, coincidences work mysteriously, and how could you even tell if God was behind a certain event. Also, in the Bible, Qur’an, New Testament, God’s pretty darn explicit in his actions. Why would he be subtle and uninvolved with mankind nowadays, with religious conflict overshadowing that of the Bible?
Anyway, I like what I see in the site and plan on visiting often, along with the Skeptics Annotated Dictionary.
PS: There is one good thing about believing in God though. Those who are devout tend to make excellent guitar teachers (I have yet to see if mine is ok with me playing Black Sabbath).
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” - Author Unknown
believing in God is neither a feeling, intuition nor chemicals, but it is because God first make us believe, not through our prideful reasoning, intellect or proofs. I used to be an atheist with similar so-called “strong” arguments above, but later He made me know He does exists. I just KNOW.
Anyway, everyone will know one day.
For those who set their dinner table with the forks to the left, no explanation is necessary . . .
People who believe in god or any superstition do so for a reason, even if they can not articulate it and it is nearly always accompanied by strong feelings, which have a biochemical basis.
Most people believe because they were inculcated into a belief system at a young age. Religious leaders rely upon the weak descriptive powers of their followers and supply what is supposedly an adequate explanation or rationalization for believing in nothing.
Stop with the insults, you’re a poor example of your faith, even if you are a typical one.
Another insult in the form of one of the most hateful, senseless, and despciable threats around. Belief based on fear of being condemned to hell is not faith but obedience to a gruesome, immoral tyrant.
If you were an atheist, which is doubtable, you were not apparently a very well informed one. Otherwise you would recognize that the above comments were lightweight banter rather than “strong” arguments. Belief in the supernatural cannot withstand even the lightest touch of reason or insight. So to one who styles himself as “believer” does, any use of reason probably comes across as infamiliar and uncommonly “strong”.
MTran, when I wrote all that above, I’m not trying to insult anyone, or to think that i’m better than everyone else. I’m deeply sorry to have made you feel that way or anyone who has read it. And, I admit I’m sometimes a pretty bad example of my faith. I still need plenty of molding. but thank you for pointing that to me.
But, what came across my mind when i wrote that was just stating plainly why some people believe and some don’t, and no explanations, argument etc will change that person’s stand, only God will. God is the true evangelist.
The last part where i said “everyone will know it one day” was not in an insulting tone but a sighing one knowing many many will reject God in the end.
My belief is not based on fear but on a choice. It is not that I better be good or else I’ll be condemned to hell; but of first making the choice to abandon the self totally to Him and allow Him to make us good instead (because i’m corrupted in one way or another). It is not based on our own works to be good(fear) to win His approval or acceptance but simple submission to allow Him to change and mold us.
I have one question to atheist here (my motive is sincerely to understand why you don’t believe in God, not trying to insult, provoke, annoy etc):
Have you ever think of what will happen to you after you died, say 70 years old, is it that’s all to it? Is there by any chance something inside you telling you there’s something after death? (i’m not talkin about fear of hell or heaven here but just a simple built-in voice inside you)
sorry for my bad english, btw.
Hello believer,
I’m sorry I mistook your comments to be just more of what I’ve heard before. Our communications are far too easy to get misunderstood on-line, so I’ll try to respond with a little more care here.
You asked:
Yes I have thought about what happens after I die. And no, there is nothing inside telling me that there is something other than “no life” after this one. I suspect that it is more likely that believers have more fear that there is nothing other than this life, especially when I see their grief at funerals. I don’t fear the prospect of not existing.
When people say “Is that all there is” it saddens and frustrates me, for several reasons. First, because it grossly belittles the wonders of life and reduces our existence to a waiting game for some great hereafter. This is what causes me to categorize these types of beliefs as death-obsessed-cults rather than life cults.
Second, there is no reason to believe that any part of our awareness continues after death. And I’m speaking as someone with far too many out-of-body experiences due to health crises. When we die, that’s it. Our bodies linger for a while before decomposing, so you might say the body outlasts the “soul.” I have no interest in pretending that my existence is somehow magically different from the existence of anything else. Sheesh, even stars die in the end.
It wouldn’t bother me so much if the people who thought there was some type of life after this one just lived in a way that made them feel better about how they conduct themselves and experience this life. But they have had the habit, throughout history, of destroying life and opportunities to enjoy it in the here and now in order to enforce their supernatural concepts. They deliberately seek to make my real life miserable in order to feel good about their own hypothetical after-life.
This life does matter. It’s the only one we get. Don’t denigrate it. If this life is unjust, and it is, work on making it more just. Surely we can work together to improve this one life we agree on.
Thanks MTran for sharing what you believe. Really appreciate it because what you’ve said is helpful in my offline life, i have many people who close to me who doesn’t believe in God and i somehow wanted to know them better (their perspective) without annoying them like hell with my sometimes insensitive remarks…
although I don’t agree with some of things you said but i do respect your thinkings. and i think its better to agree to disagree agreeably than to argue until the cow, mule,donkey and what not come home!
i realize many non-believers, including my boss, have the same viewpoint of why religion make people neglect their responsiblties in this world in a way by behaving badly and “grossly belittles the wonders of life”..creating suffering, pain and war. The best example is suicide bomber. i can truly understand why atheist are saddened and frustrated by this.
but, i would like to share here what Christianity actually says about life in this world (i hope i’m not insultin anyone again, boy…):
1. first of all, christianity does not belittle the wonder of life in this world, in fact we acknowledge it as great gifts from God to us. We are called to be a good steward of God’s creations. Our world now matters dearly to us…
2. we see life as a test, a temporary assignment on how faithful and responsible we are to others and God’s creations; by seeing ourselves tested in character, faith, obedience, love, integrity, humilty etc. this test is not based on fear but of a genuine and childlike faith, love and submission to God and a servanthood heart to others. so, what we do now matters and like what Maximus said in the movie Gladiator “What We Do In Life Echoes In Eternity.”
i think i’ve said enough ‘we’ above, again this may have caused some to think my belief is better than others, really sorry if i have made any of you think this way but what i am trying to say is what christians actually believe in.
Reasoning from historical data needs to be consistent. How can you quote Thomas Paine (article 2), a historical figure, on one point, and question the existence of another historical figure in your argument (article 17)?
Thomas Paine, while I am sure he existed, was never photographed, I don’t think. How do we know for sure that he really existed? There are paintings and portraits. How can we be 100% certain that these were not fradulent? There are works attribiuted to him, but how can we be certain these are authentic? Perhaps someone was attempting to propagate certain theories and needed a personality to which these theories could be attached.
I know that the aforementioned sounds ludricrous. It is. I never have seen video footage of Thomas Paine. I do however believe he existed. I also believe that the majority of what is attributed to him is legitimate.
I find it interesting that someone would quote Thomas Paine (article 2), and in the same argument would go as far as to question the existence of Jesus (article 17). Thomas Paine is a well known American. However he is only well known to those who have been educated in U.S. History. Jesus is a well known religious figure. He is known of to a much greater extent than Thomas Paine.
If we quote one person from history, who would probably be obscure to most people of the world, and at the same time raise various questions as to the work, sayings and even existence of another historical personality whose influence is basically world wide; there is a demonstration of more than a skepticism or disbelief toward the existence of God. Also present is an unbelief, “un-faith”, in humanity. Because in the arguments presented there is an underlying theme: All of humanity embracing more than the “here and now” is made up of fools.
Lots of bad genes out there, eh?
J.R.
There is a difference though. Documents and books were written and signed by Paine. There are no accounts of Jesus by anyone during his alleged lifetime 4 BC -33 AD. Josephus was the closest and his works came after 33 AD as well as many scholars concur they were altered by Eusebius
Anyone ever heard of Antony Flew?
http://www.leestrobel.com/
Very interesting website with lots of free video about this topic.
Happy Hunting!
Stephan
Flew’s is a god of the gaps. His misunderstanding of biology is not sufficient proof of God.
Very good list. I found that one about willing oneself to believe and pretending to believe so not to lose good ones. By the same token, I was listening to the author of “Losing Faith in Faith” on Free Thought Radio (FFRF), who was a Fundamentalist minister turned Atheist. He said it took a period of four or five years before he became an Atheist. He became an Atheist through education- learning about Liberal Christians, studying the writings of Liberal Ministers, and alike. For a while, he continued to preach, but he realized his heart and head was not into it and quit. However, he still considers himself a minister, but not a Christian minister.
My point is, one can go either way with education and education can be a powerful tool for disbelief more often than not. However, with education one has more knowledge and stable ground for which ever direction they go. I find it very hard for those who read Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” are suddenly Atheists because they have nothing else to refer to as to why they are an Atheist. With continuous learning, one can have more resources to support why they believe or do not believe, which time to gain a solid ground of knowledge, but… Knowledge is power.
I didn’t read through all the other comments, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologize. In the bible, Jesus never said he was “god” or “divine”. None of the passages that are supposedly direct quotes have him claiming to be either. The closest anyone gets is “son of god”, but no refs to divinity. I believe the whole notion of Christ’s divinity was attributed to him a couple centuries later when some people came up with the whole “trinity” idea. That might be something to double-check with someone more familiar with the bible than me, and then maybe revise the article.
WOW WHEN RAPURE HAPPENS THEN WHAT?
Regarding Flew,
If I recall properly, Flew was deliberately misled about certain issues and observations in physics by someone he trusted as a physics expert. But the “physicist” was only interested in converting Flew to theism. And Flew should have known better to rely on mere authority.
Upon learning of this misadvice, he promptly withdrew his endorsement of theism based on “physics.”
Flew never got to the point of accepting a personal, interacting god, instead he only got as far as positing the possibility of a lukewarm, deistic “god” that ejoated with whatever got the whole thing rolling.
The continued flaunting of this supposed conversion by thiests is, at best, misleading.
I don’t know what Flew believes at the moment but the comments on alt.atheism at the time led me to surmise that Flew was in his declining years and health at the time he was misled by a stealth “expert.”
Final point, almost no-one other than active philosophy majors ever even heard of Flew. Although the Christian Right held him up as an example of a “leading atheist” who had “followers” who should now “follow” him to Christianity (which he never embraced and firmly denounced even as he posited deism) atheists do not “follow” the teachings of atheist experts. That is a mindset and social/cultural activity of believers, not atheists as a “group.”
George L Ayers said,
Well, I don’t smoke so I usually just lay back, relax and engage in some after-glow cuddling.
According to the laws of philosophy and logic, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Believers and Atheists make up opposite ends of the same spectrum, for they both assert a “knowledge” which does not exist. “Knowledge” is defined as “true, justified belief.” There is no empirical justification to support either the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent being. Both believers and Atheists must admit that their beliefs are just that- beliefs. They are based upon faith, not fact. Just as there is no concrete evidence to support the existence of a god, there is none to combat it, either. Only agnostics can base their beliefs on true knowledge- that is, one cannot know, one way or another.
Nat,
I’m not sure exactly what these laws of philosophy and logic are that you are referring to, but it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God only because of the Catch-22 description of God offered by believers.
First, believers assert that God is real. Then when asked why he is invisible, inaudible, intangible and unverifiable they sheepishly add that well, he’s somehow outside the realm of ordinary existence but still somehow he’s real anyway. So only because of the believers’ lame excuse for the embarrassing absence of their God added on to their definition is he both not provable and not disprovable.
The mistake that some atheists make is to try to argue within that framework. Only when believers attempt to offer evidence for their assertion can atheists respond to the strength or weakness of the evidence, and in those cases the believers’ arguments are most often full of holes.
It’s usually better for an atheist to respond to a theist’s assertion of God by only saying, “Hmm, a remarkable claim. Please show me the remarkable evidence.”
Before lumping all atheists and believers into the same belief basket, you should get to understand the differences between “strong” atheists and “weak” atheists. The former believe that God does not exist. The latter do not believe that God exists. They are very different. Once you see that it is possible for people to not partake in the mental activity of belief, that is they can completely abstain from the persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of convincing evidence, then you will understand this important distinction between these two types of atheists.
As for agnosticism, well I just don’t know…
What do you mean by “justification”? There is plenty of “justification” for the assertion that the god of the Old Testament does not exist. Start with the age of the earth and the notion that the sun had to exist prior to the existence of “days” or “day light” on earth. Look at all the compelling evidence that describes a different sequence for the arrival of various species.
Plus, there are so many inconsistencies in the biblical descriptions of god that the inconsistencies themselves are “justification” for the position that god does not exist.
I’ve seen this smug assertion all my life and it is, at best, a self congratulatory description of someone who has very effective filters on the information they are willing to consider. Agnosticism is not a knowledge based position, it is an ignorance based position.
There is nothing particularly laudable about religious agnosticism. One might as well be agnostic about the existence of magic dragons, invisible pink unicorns, the philosopher’s stone, a fountain of youth, a magic lamp, a flying carpet, or any other legend or fantasy. If you are not agnostic about other fantasies, then your agnosticism regarding god doesn’t mean much. If you are agnostic about other fantasies, you should get counselling because there are medications that can help that sort of thing.
LOL! MTran, you are so bad. Keep up the good work!
(You mean there aren’t any invisible pink unicorns?)
Thanks Richard. Hope Hemant doesn’t get so tired of my congenital flippancy that he blocks me from the site!
MTran– I wouldn’t do that to you
Thank you for this list; it was very informative. After believing in God my entire life (simply because I was raised that way) I have come to the conclusion in recent years that he does not exist. And while I feel that religious belief (or lack thereof) is a personal and private thing, unfortunately most of my family thinks otherwise and have repeatedly tried to “win me back”.
So while I know that this list isn’t going to convince any believers who don’t care to listen to reason, it’s at least a good starting point. Thanks
Hemant, Thanks! Glad I can stick around then.
And Nierlisse, thank you, too. Sometimes it helps believers to better understand your decision if you can provide them with a context to your position that doesn’t involve denigrating their own, very strongly and emotionally held beliefs. Other times, and other people, really won’t believe you are truly an atheist, however, until you make a blistering criticism of some important aspect of their beliefs.
If it’s any consolation, my mother (now in her 70s) continues to hope desperately that I will “find god” before she dies. I usually just laugh when she makes such comments. But it must have been difficult for her all these years, having all of her kids turn out to be atheists or (much more acceptable) agnostic. To make matters worse for her, we all decided against the existence of god while we were still in high school and living at home. If she couldn’t convince us back then, what hope does she have 30+ years later?