What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[realthinker]

i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

This has almost a Vedantic ring to it. 'God' or "Brahman" is the ground of all being - that from which the phenomenal world has emerged and continues to emerge. It is however not a wilful act of creation.

I see the universe in a constant state of emerging...an eternal 'now'. The process has been and continues to be evolutionary. This commenced with the emergence of the physioshere (the atoms and molecules of existence). After time this was incorporated into and transcended by the biosphere - living organisms. These two have been incorporated into and transcended by the noosphere (the mental). Each 'level' is complete in iteself but also part of the whole...they are whole/parts or 'holons' as Koestler named them.

What you're describing is a model, a mental model. The problem with this is that there are only so many decisions you can make from a model. Model's don't have the accuracy or precision that the reality has. And with such abstract notions as existence and the universe as part of a model there are practically no valid decisions, no conclusions, that can be made from it. So there's generally little use from such a model.

This is especially true when you try to broadcast that conceptual model to others. They're forced to fit that model into their own concepts, which ends up often becoming a pollution of both. Then as the originator of the model is speaking with respect to it, the listener is hearing with respect to their own concepts and the message has noise in it. The noise is the disharmony between the original concepts and the receiver's concepts.

Certainly conversations regarding the ideas of God and the Universe are filled with noise.

[zepper899]

What you're describing is a model, a mental model. The problem with this is that there are only so many decisions you can make from a model. Model's don't have the accuracy or precision that the reality has. And with such abstract notions as existence and the universe as part of a model there are practically no valid decisions, no conclusions, that can be made from it. So there's generally little use from such a model.

This is especially true when you try to broadcast that conceptual model to others. They're forced to fit that model into their own concepts, which ends up often becoming a pollution of both. Then as the originator of the model is speaking with respect to it, the listener is hearing with respect to their own concepts and the message has noise in it. The noise is the disharmony between the original concepts and the receiver's concepts.

Certainly conversations regarding the ideas of God and the Universe are filled with noise.

are you suggesting that discussion regarding teh concept of god is useless? if so, why are you here. attempting to understand and convey theories and concepts of the metaphysical is very useful to, i find, undersatanding your place in teh universe.

[realthinker]

What you're describing is a model, a mental model. The problem with this is that there are only so many decisions you can make from a model. Model's don't have the accuracy or precision that the reality has. And with such abstract notions as existence and the universe as part of a model there are practically no valid decisions, no conclusions, that can be made from it. So there's generally little use from such a model.

This is especially true when you try to broadcast that conceptual model to others. They're forced to fit that model into their own concepts, which ends up often becoming a pollution of both. Then as the originator of the model is speaking with respect to it, the listener is hearing with respect to their own concepts and the message has noise in it. The noise is the disharmony between the original concepts and the receiver's concepts.

Certainly conversations regarding the ideas of God and the Universe are filled with noise.

are you suggesting that discussion regarding teh concept of god is useless? if so, why are you here. attempting to understand and convey theories and concepts of the metaphysical is very useful to, i find, understanding your place in teh universe.

The discussion of the truth of god and the validity of religion has been unproductive for the last several thousand years, so yeah, i guess I am saying it's useless. I think there are much more constructive questions that we could be addressing than whether god exists or not, or if the bible is a literal source of guidance, or whether it's even the divine word of god. Yes, I think that's mostly noise. I think the validity of those concepts and the answers to those questions aren't going to help much.

True or not, religion has played a vital part in the evolution of our society. I believe that the aspects of religious belief that make it so difficult to prove are exactly what made it a social stabilizer for the centuries that mankind grew from small bands to the global society we have today. I think it's becoming a liability now, though, which is why I think it's more important to understand what has made it so helpful. We need to find what's going to take its place as that social glue at a global level so that religion doesn't tear the world apart. And from that aspect, it doesn't matter a whit whether any of it is true or not.

I'd love to elaborate on this, but I don't know yet how to frame it as a debate. There's a lot of background I'd have to build before I could ask anyone to debate it.

[zepper899]

What you're describing is a model, a mental model. The problem with this is that there are only so many decisions you can make from a model. Model's don't have the accuracy or precision that the reality has. And with such abstract notions as existence and the universe as part of a model there are practically no valid decisions, no conclusions, that can be made from it. So there's generally little use from such a model.

This is especially true when you try to broadcast that conceptual model to others. They're forced to fit that model into their own concepts, which ends up often becoming a pollution of both. Then as the originator of the model is speaking with respect to it, the listener is hearing with respect to their own concepts and the message has noise in it. The noise is the disharmony between the original concepts and the receiver's concepts.

Certainly conversations regarding the ideas of God and the Universe are filled with noise.

are you suggesting that discussion regarding teh concept of god is useless? if so, why are you here. attempting to understand and convey theories and concepts of the metaphysical is very useful to, i find, understanding your place in teh universe.

The discussion of the truth of god and the validity of religion has been unproductive for the last several thousand years, so yeah, i guess I am saying it's useless. I think there are much more constructive questions that we could be addressing than whether god exists or not, or if the bible is a literal source of guidance, or whether it's even the divine word of god. Yes, I think that's mostly noise. I think the validity of those concepts and the answers to those questions aren't going to help much.

True or not, religion has played a vital part in the evolution of our society. I believe that the aspects of religious belief that make it so difficult to prove are exactly what made it a social stabilizer for the centuries that mankind grew from small bands to the global society we have today. I think it's becoming a liability now, though, which is why I think it's more important to understand what has made it so helpful. We need to find what's going to take its place as that social glue at a global level so that religion doesn't tear the world apart. And from that aspect, it doesn't matter a whit whether any of it is true or not.

I'd love to elaborate on this, but I don't know yet how to frame it as a debate. There's a lot of background I'd have to build before I could ask anyone to debate it.

okay. i agree with you on many points. i in school right now studying social impications of religion as a major. but, aside from the concrete social aspects, christians, arguably the most persuasive body of people in the USA, believe in God. i think that many are themselves unsure of what an accurate definition of this is, and the more i discover about their primary concept, the more i can understand their general viewpoint as to social functions.

[bernee51]

i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

This has almost a Vedantic ring to it. 'God' or "Brahman" is the ground of all being - that from which the phenomenal world has emerged and continues to emerge. It is however not a wilful act of creation.

I see the universe in a constant state of emerging...an eternal 'now'. The process has been and continues to be evolutionary. This commenced with the emergence of the physioshere (the atoms and molecules of existence). After time this was incorporated into and transcended by the biosphere - living organisms. These two have been incorporated into and transcended by the noosphere (the mental). Each 'level' is complete in iteself but also part of the whole...they are whole/parts or 'holons' as Koestler named them.

so the universe is constantly emerging from an increasing infintessimal previous universe? it is more dense and more dense as one traces back in time?

The BB theory as I understand it holds that the universe emerged from an immensely if not infinitely dense singularity.

The emergent I am speaking of is our perception of the universe. This is emergent. We have an illusion of cause and effect that is there because of our concept of time.

[bernee51]

i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

This has almost a Vedantic ring to it. 'God' or "Brahman" is the ground of all being - that from which the phenomenal world has emerged and continues to emerge. It is however not a wilful act of creation.

I see the universe in a constant state of emerging...an eternal 'now'. The process has been and continues to be evolutionary. This commenced with the emergence of the physioshere (the atoms and molecules of existence). After time this was incorporated into and transcended by the biosphere - living organisms. These two have been incorporated into and transcended by the noosphere (the mental). Each 'level' is complete in iteself but also part of the whole...they are whole/parts or 'holons' as Koestler named them.

What you're describing is a model, a mental model.

Indeed it is. It is a model based on available evidence.

The problem with this is that there are only so many decisions you can make from a model. Model's don't have the accuracy or precision that the reality has.

Models can only reflect our perceptions of what we believe is reality.

And with such abstract notions as existence and the universe as part of a model there are practically no valid decisions, no conclusions, that can be made from it. So there's generally little use from such a model.

Religion is such a model. I believe you hold that religion has played a "vital part in our evolution". That sounds like a 'use'

This is especially true when you try to broadcast that conceptual model to others. They're forced to fit that model into their own concepts, which ends up often becoming a pollution of both. Then as the originator of the model is speaking with respect to it, the listener is hearing with respect to their own concepts and the message has noise in it. The noise is the disharmony between the original concepts and the receiver's concepts.

And there is always the possibility that a better model emerges from the 'noise'

Certainly conversations regarding the ideas of God and the Universe are filled with noise.

Indeed..and we can reflect on how these conversations have contributed to the evolution of the god concept and our understanding of the universe.

[bernee51]

True or not, religion has played a vital part in the evolution of our society. I believe that the aspects of religious belief that make it so difficult to prove are exactly what made it a social stabilizer for the centuries that mankind grew from small bands to the global society we have today. I think it's becoming a liability now, though, which is why I think it's more important to understand what has made it so helpful. We need to find what's going to take its place as that social glue at a global level so that religion doesn't tear the world apart. And from that aspect, it doesn't matter a whit whether any of it is true or not.

T

The primary purpose of belief systems, be they religious or philosophical, is to provide meaning and legitimacy to the our existence in the face of the obvious pain and suffering we encounter. Common beliefs bring a 'strength in numbers' approach. Until such time as enough individuals develop a non-theistic system of making sense of our existence then the religious meme, in some form or another, can only persist.

I'd love to elaborate on this, but I don't know yet how to frame it as a debate. There's a lot of background I'd have to build before I could ask anyone to debate it.

And I would love to discuss it with you. I too have 'ideas' on the development of a secular spirituality. The 'spiritual' has for too long been associated with the supernatural. It the 'model' described earlier there is a place for 'spirit', which I see as the process, the summation of our core values, by which we as individuals, as couples in a relationship, as families, as communities and so on live and evolve.

[DamarisE]

I know your discussion with others has carried on since my last post, but I will pick up where we left off:

All that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in god(s).

Again, then why does it matter if I propose one god or a thousand different ones?

I could be atheist as far as the christian version of god goes but deist in believing that god set up the whole shebang and destroyed itself in the process.

That seems to have answered my previous question...but not really, because I think deists don't fall under your definition of atheism. As far as I know deists believe god abandoned his creation, not that he killed himself in the process.

The straightforward answer, for me at least, is there is no need, reason or evidence of god(s) existing as anything other than a concept - a human construct.

I'm curious...if there is no reason to believe in God, what reason caused you to convert to Christianity in the past? You are a former Christian, right?

Also, you said my definition was that of a 'strong' atheist..I'd like to know if you consider yourself a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist?

Thanks

[bernee51]

I know your discussion with others has carried on since my last post, but I will pick up where we left off:

All that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in god(s).

Again, then why does it matter if I propose one god or a thousand different ones?

It matters not.

I could be atheist as far as the christian version of god goes but deist in believing that god set up the whole shebang and destroyed itself in the process.

That seems to have answered my previous question...but not really, because I think deists don't fall under your definition of atheism. As far as I know deists believe god abandoned his creation, not that he killed himself in the process.

The result is the same...god no longer takes an interest in his creation.

Nor am I a deist.

The straightforward answer, for me at least, is there is no need, reason or evidence of god(s) existing as anything other than a concept - a human construct.

I'm curious...if there is no reason to believe in God, what reason caused you to convert to Christianity in the past? You are a former Christian, right?

I did not convert. I deconverted. I, like most {christians}, was born into christianity. Of course there are those who claim that I was never a 'true christian' (tm) as i was never 'born again' in Christ (whatever that means)

Also, you said my definition was that of a 'strong' atheist..I'd like to know if you consider yourself a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist?

I am very much a strong atheist. I regard the existence of the christian god, if defined as all powerful, all knowing, perfect, eternal and creator of the universe as a logical impossibility.

And that does not even take into account all the other baggage (sin, salvation, sending sons to sacrifice et al) that he/she/it brings with it.

But these are just side issues.

A study of the history of religion shows the evolution of the god concept. Early humanity was animist in its beliefs - trees, rocks, rivers were gods. Then came the power gods and goddesses of the horticultural age who demanded blood sacrifices. The development of agriculture saw the coming of mythical beliefs and the development of the god of monotheism. The god of christianity is a remnant of the agricultural age.

It can be said that 'god' in some shape or form has been a constant companion of humans and it is a valid question to ask 'why'? Why do we have this sense of 'the other'? Why the longing for the 'spiritual'?

Many years of meditation and self inquiry have lead me to the conclusion that the 'other' is in fact our own conscious self awareness. When we evolved enough in consciousness to be able to ask the question - "Who am I?" - gods were invented. This ability to ask the question is the loss of innocence that is the metaphor of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.

The spiritual path is seeking the answer to the question "Who am I?"

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[Assent]

And I would love to discuss it with you. I too have 'ideas' on the development of a secular spirituality. The 'spiritual' has for too long been associated with the supernatural. It the 'model' described earlier there is a place for 'spirit', which I see as the process, the summation of our core values, by which we as individuals, as couples in a relationship, as families, as communities and so on live and evolve.

You are not addressing me, but I would like to hear your ideas on secular spirituality. I have developed my own ideas along these lines, and would like to know your thoughts.