Good without gods

Daniel ITLD – You say, “I believe in Providence.” What does Providence mean to you?

And back to my earlier question, “are you saying that what you see as the human inability to understand what motivates the world is what you call God?”

I appreciate you discussing this with me. I find it fascinating.

Daniel 12

You are wearing yourself out with this. I am not strategizing or trying to trick you.

We have 3 intellectual tools to view the word:
religion; philosphy; acience.

I think of atheism as being philosophy, not religion. People try to make analogies between religious belief and atheism but these analogies are not meaningful.

Your whole argument amounts to protracted navel-gazing and self-absorption. You need to rouse your awareness a bit.

Part one.

Lion's Den, you keep on doing a strategy that is getting old and resorted to countless times by atheists. Whenever a criticism of atheism is made by me I get the retort "you have not proven God exists", or "there is no point belittling atheists", or "you cannot get an atheist to change his views".

But one of my favorite of your strategies is this one which you have expressed better in other places: "But what about my points that atheists do not and have not sought to "eliminate" God as you repeat over and over? They are not "eliminating" God, snce they don't believe in God."

In other words what you say is that atheists do not eliminate God because God does not exist in the first place according to atheists! You say atheists cannot be against God because they do not believe in God in the first place! To put it absolutely clear, they cannot be a threat to religion because they do not believe anything is there in the first place to be a threat to! In other words, it is automatically taken that atheists are correct so they cannot be a threat to religion!

But why not address some of your points that you say I have not addressed? What about the one that a form of logic might exist which does not need an intelligent designer? Interesting you take this course when the attempts to prove such logic fall exactly along the lines the religious need to take to demonstrate the existence of God! In other words, if one wants to demonstrate a form of logic which needs no designer one has to articulate the logic then demonstrate it arose without a designer--kind of like trying to demonstrate God!

Another of your points (and why I am indulging you when you try a new course of dodging the issue by saying I am not addressing your points thus shoving the argument to me without at all addressing my obvious points which you say are unclear I have no idea) is: "Did you ever stop to think that a person who believes that there is no purpose to life, might then be caused by this belief to also, and consequently reject belief in God? This is just the opposite of what you say."

In other words I say the consequence of no God is that life is ultimately futile because there is nothing behind existence but you attempt to turn this argument to your advantage somehow by saying a person might first think life is futile then stop believing in God--as if reversing the order makes some sort of difference. What difference does it make if a person first stops believing in God and then concludes life is ultimately futile or not? There is no difference! The conclusion is the same no matter the order: the belief that there is no God and that life is futile!

Part two.

But the sickest strategy you are now relying on is the same old story of how religion can be so dogmatic but that atheists hold provisional views. Sick because still no admission of any of the contradictions or other problems of atheism. Still not the slightest giving ground and admission that atheism has problems of logic, etc. like religion. Still the same old defense of atheism which, again, does not give ground at all. Still the stubbornness while at the same time saying atheists are so open-minded, that they hold provisional views, and are so tired of being belittled by the religious.

Lion's Den, I think we can both agree you will never concede a single of the points I have made. I think we can agree no matter how much I point out the contradictions of religion and other problems of such, to be fair to atheism first before examining it, you will never give an inch--you will continue dodging the criticisms I make as if no such criticisms exist. You will continue saying I have not proved God exists, or that I have not addressed your points, or that my points are irrelevant, or--what next Lion's Den? What strategy next? And you say atheists hold things provisionally!

Where is this tolerant and provisional approach when I point out problems such as existence being ultimately futile if there is no God? Where is this provisional approach when I ask how it is everything including intelligence arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind things? Where is this provisional approach when I ask why it is intelligence is so important over ignorance when everything arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind things and obviously needs no intelligence at all to create things--why so pretentious about the value of intelligence? Do I need to go on?

The reasoning process in the last paragraph is not anything that should be difficult. Just basic acceptance of contradictions and reflections on such. But have I ever heard of an atheist willing to reflect in such fashion? No! Atheists with the greatest of ease apply logic when it comes to an examination of religion, have absolutely no problem pointing out contradictions such as the one already repeated in posts to you countless times, the one of how God can be good if evil is in the world, but when it comes to atheism the atheists are exactly like the religious--they do not give an inch, will not admit the slightest contradiction, slightest problem with their view. AND YOU LION'S DEN ARE PROOF OF EXACTLY WHAT I SAY. YOU HAVE NEVER, NOT ONCE, ADMITTED A SINGLE LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY, NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM. AND YOU SAY ATHEISTS ARE OPEN-MINDED, PROVISIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIEWS OF EXISTENCE.

Daniel 12

I do not think I have ever said that I am religious. I have said that I am not alienated from my personal religious heritage, which allows freedom of thought and doubt to coexist with traditional Christian thought.

I have also said that I am not an atheist, but that I do not see any point in trying to convince atheists that God exists, and I do not feel threatened by atheistic thought.

I see religious fundamentalism as seeking and believing that they have an absolute truth that is exclusive to all other religous beliefs, nevermind that they come in conflict with each other over the meaning of their absolute concepts.

I do not see any analogy in atheism; quite the contrary, one sign of atheistic thought is how provisional it is with regards to the nature of existence. It either stops at "there is no God" or it progesses to acknowledged uncertainty in the nature of existence.

Orthodox Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists say, in almost every conversation, that "God has a plan for you" and that any doubt or criticism of their religious view is actually shows your personal animostiy to God and struggle with him.

Atheists never take this approach. If they are aggressive at all, it is in reaction to this kind of belittlement that they are consistently subjected to. I do not see the point of belittling atheists; it does not move the argument; it does not change their beliefs; it is really an acknowlegement that the religious people have points to argue, but simply that they know that their complicated theological speculations are true, because the "Bible says so." That is no arguemnt.

You never really answered any of my points, but persist in saying that I do not understand what you are saying.

I think I do.

But of I do not and if people, in general do not, it is your problem to make your points clearer, not the reader's problem to figure out just what did you really mean.

Lion's Den, what it comes down to is this: You say you are religious (you have definitely mentioned this) but have no problem criticizing religion. To you religion is a flawed view of existence. And when the subject of atheism comes up you wiggle every which way in an attempt to dismiss criticism of such. But both the religious and atheistic views are flawed. No view of life in total has been free of contradictions or other problems. And you are one of the people incapable of living with this fact. What makes it astonishing though is how atheists pose as being people of reason. One would think they would admit the shortcomings in their view and just say for all the shortcomings they still prefer it to the religious view because the religious view has greater shortcomings. But no, every step of the way, with every, yes every, atheist, I have had to deal with refusal to admit any shortcomings in the atheistic view. Problems with religion are pointed out left and right but when it comes to atheism--apparent logical consistency and freedom from any other problems. So far as I can tell both the religious and atheists are incapable of living with the fundamental uncertainty of life.

There is really no difference between the religious and the atheistic on an extremely important point: both are incapable of living with uncertainty. Both try every which way to present their view as being logical, consistent, with no flaw, as settled. Both are incapable of accepting the fact of existence that ultimate questions are far from settled, that attempts to go beyond partial explanations of reality such as scientific views is to enter the ground of contradiction and other problems which result in the unsatisfactory. When it comes to such total views nothing has been explained to satisfaction--which is why we continue to pursue science not to mention philosophy. Both the atheists and the religious end philosophy and science though of course the atheistic view says without question that it is for science. The religious take their view as permanent no matter further advances in human knowledge--and the same with the atheists. Any number of scientific discoveries can be made but the atheists will say their view remains intact--that science is merely filling in the details, that atheism is the overall settled and permanent view. Both the religious and the atheistic are obviously dogmatic in their own way.

Lion's Den, one thing definitely: stop posing as a religious person, a person who believes in God as you have mentioned before in other posts. Your ridiculous attempts to defend atheism betray you--not least because your ridiculous attempts are almost always prefaced by saying atheists reject the views of the religious as deficient in some manner and that the atheistic view is a mere negation of the religious view and not any particular statement about reality which can be examined. Atheism is a view, is every bit as assertive a view of reality as the religious view. And I find it really a bit disgusting that you cannot admit this. Are you going to tell me a disbelief in God is not at all as weighty and definite and with consequences as believing in God? Both have the same weight with profound consequences in their train! Any honest person can see that. You, again, have no intellectual integrity.

Part one.

Lion's Den you are absolutely amazing. I am truly impressed. Here we are still at square one. I do my best to explain what I am trying to say by first indicting religion, pointing out contradictions and other problems with the religious view WHICH ATHEISTS OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE TO BE OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE FOR THEY BASE THEIR NON-BELIEF ON ALL THESE PROBLEMS OF RELIGION. THEN WE HAVE YOU AND ALL ATHEISTS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO SEE ANY CONTRADICTIONS OR OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE ATHEISTIC VIEW, IN FACT WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAYING THE ARGUMENTS I MAKE ARE IRRELEVANT. Contradictions and other problems of religion are obviously extremely relevant to atheists--they never tire of pointing out the very illogic, etc. of religion. Then we have you saying like criticisms of atheism have exactly no weight, are irrelevant. You have no intellectual integrity whatsoever Lion's Den. How you take yourself to be so moral (you constantly weigh in with a superior moral attitude) I fail to understand.

What makes it so amusing is you attempt to separate empirical reasoning from statements of logic in an attempt to declare atheism has empiricism on its side, which it does not anymore than religion, for both are metaphysical views, statements about ultimate aspects of reality for which we have no empirical evidence either way, then you try to logically defend atheism by arguing that an intelligent designer is no more logical than the lack of one.

Part two.

Then you split hairs and propose a logical process which does not need a designer. But maybe you can explain it better to me. And you say you believe in God with all these ridiculous attempts to defend atheism as a view? Then over and over again you have atheism not being a view in your own words but rather the disbelief in a view as if this disbelief is not a view which can be examined as to logical consistency...Am I understanding you correctly?

Lion's Den, saying there is no God is identical to saying there is a God when we ask which has the greater force, greater implication as a view. Both are profound metaphysical statements about reality. Not statements about aspects of reality such as evolution or relativity physics but absolute statements within which all other types of view are expected to reside. Atheism is not a nothing as you make it out to be, some sort of passivity which is opposed by the aggressiveness of religion, but a statement about reality as aggressive and decisive as any religious statement.

What makes it all the more astonishing, this constant dodging of the issues by you, is that the statements I am making are not rare statements but basic philosophy. There is no absolute view of reality which is perfectly logically consistent and/or without other problems. You and atheists are all too willing to see this obvious fact when it comes to religion, but then when atheism is put on the table you try every which way to have atheism as not only perfectly logical but with empirical evidence on its side.

Just a plain lack of intellectual integrity on your part.

Efavorite

I believe in Providence.

Daniel 12

I am not stupid;

I am not playing games;

I am not defending atheism dogmatically, or any other way.

Your logic may be clear, but it is irrelevant. Emperical evidence does not depend on any kind of logic; it just exists, apart from how logical or illogical you think it may seem.

Therefore there can be logical argument for or against the existence of God. And so the implications about which side is better or not better have no bearing on which side is emperically correct.

It may seem to be a logical contradiction that intelligent life could arise without an Intelligent Designer of some sort. But this seeming contradiction is irrelevant. It does not mean anything. Because that seem illogical nevertheless do exist. Isn't is just as illogical that an Intelligent Designer exists at all? And wouldn't intelligent life in the universer (us) seem illogical, from and Intelligent Designer?

And by the way, if there is no Intelligent Designer, how do you know that there is some other "logical" process that causes intelligence, but you simply are not aware of it?

I say that the relgious are the ones offering a viewpoint and atheism simply non-belief in such a viewpoint, because that is how it is.

The nature of religious belief is very different from atheistic belief. Religious belief is based on complex speculations which are then taken to be true. Atheism is rejection of these speculations. Yes, atheists do have faith; they have faith that complex religious specualtions about the world and life are not true. Yes, atheism is a view, it is view that someone else's view is not true.

Did you ever stop to think that a person who believes that there is no purpose to life, might then be caused by this belief to also, and consequently reject belief in God? This just the opposite of what you say.

Finally, and again, FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, atheists do not and have not "removed God" from anything. How can God be removed? What do you mean by that? They have killed God? Or they have erradicated God from all historical reference? Not believing in God does not remove God from anything, except fromt he beliefs of the person who is doing the believing.

You making an argument that is over your head about things that you have not thought throug very clearly. I think I DO UNDERSTAND what you are trying to say. It just not particularly relevant.

Daniel 12 said

"The religious are not against atheism for nothing. Atheism is not the piece of harmlessness you make it out to be."

Why is atheism a threat to people who believe in God? If they believe in God, then how does someone else's non-belief threaten them? That doesn't make sense. Alot of what you say does not make sense. You think you are being clear, but you are not.

Why cannot religious people just believe as they will, go to church, discuss stuff with their comrades in Sunday School, and feel assured at the good purpose of life, even if other people do not believe in God?

Lion's Den, you are literally unbelievable. You are either completely stupid or deliberately playing games with me to annoy me or you are defending atheism in the most dogmatic sense possible.

I keep pointing out with clear logic contradictions and other problems with the view of atheism and you just keep wiggling this way and that saying things like atheism is more reflective than the religious view on one hand, then on the other saying atheism is really nothing and would not be considered something if not for the conflict with religion.

You have the religious being the ones offering a viewpoint and atheism simply non-belief in such a viewpoint as if atheism is not a view, as if there are not intellectual consequences in not believing in God. Taking your responses I now know for certain atheists are no different than the religious in their dogmatism and rationalizing away inconsistencies and other problems.

How can you not see that in removing God WE CONSEQUENTLY arrive at a world view which makes all striving ultimately futile for the simple reason that according to atheists there is nothing behind existence and therefore nothing to be arrived at? The religious are not against atheism for nothing. Atheism is not the piece of harmlessness you make it out to be.

How can you not see that in saying there is no intelligence behind things but everything including intelligence arose nonetheless we have a contradiction? How can everything including intelligence arise without any intelligence behind things? Stop dodging the issue. I know you are not stupid so you are either deliberately trying to annoy me or are an intellectual coward. How much more clearly do I have to repeat myself? How can you not see exactly what I am driving at?

Let me repeat again, religion is logically inconsistent or has other problems intellectually. A good example, for the thousandth time, is that we are told God is good when evil exists in the world and could only have been created by God because God is all powerful and knowing. A clear contradiction here, one atheists are all too willing to point out by their superior method of thinking about things, as you say, rather than merely believing without questioning.

But when it comes to examining the view of atheism for inconsistencies atheists shut down as dogmatically as the religious. Atheists actually believe their view to be logically consistent when it is far from such. No "large view" as opposed to partial view which science deals with is free of inconsistencies. That is just basic knowledge of life. No one has explained, solved existence. How difficult is that to see?

Apparently very difficult because you will reply with still more dodging of the issues, not at all addressing what I have been saying.

Why in the Holy Holly Hel is it that 'atheists' start saying 'gods' when they want to paint all theists with the blame brush as *certain monotheists,* anyway?

Thank you, Daniel ITLD.

I wonder about this thought of yours: “For this inability to understand is… a fundamental condition of our existence, that we cannot understand that which motivates the world.

Not to over-simplify¸ but are you saying that what you see as the human inability to understand what motivates the world is what you call God?

Daniel 12

I think that belief in God as religious belief, does not compare to nonbelief in God.

Belief in God is founded on extensive speculative thought on the nature of existence, and the faith of the consequent religous belief is faith in validity of these speculations which can be quite complex and detailed.

Not believing in God requires a different kind of faith, a faith which is not religious in nature. It is faith in ones own intellectual capacity to distinguish what is true and what is not true. Such reflectiveness usually does not come into play in standardized, codified church religion.

In order to believe in God, there must me a concept of the thing that is believed in. Not believing requires no concept, since it is not anything. Atheism is not really anything, and we would not even need a word to describe it, except that being atheistic comes into sharp conflict with the political and cultural power of religion that is exerted against it.
There is no "there" there, as they say.

That religous belief has political and cultural power behind it to move its belief system forward does not prove that God exists.

But what about my points that atheists do not and have not sought to "eliminate" God as you repeat over and over? They are not "eliminating" God, snce they don't believe in God.

The fact of their non-reference to God as a concept that they do not acknowledge is what gets them into trouble with the religeously minded who almost always respond defensively that atheists are against God, which they are not.

Many of the religiously minded have a rigid and rock-solid belief in God that is absolute, and when they argue with atheists, they assume that this absolute fact of God's existence implies that anyone who does not believe in God is actually against God.

If atheists are against anything, it is against the organized promoters of belief in God, which means the organizations of standardized religion, which promote a theology that is ossified, calcified, and fossilized, designed to explain things, but which does not.

Part one.

Lion's Den, you still continue dodging the issue. I am not out to prove the existence of God. I am not out to convince atheists to give up their non-belief in God. What I am doing is showing that atheism is no more satisfactory at explaining things in the "large sense" than the religious view.
And I am doing so because atheists have no problem at all pointing out all the inconsistencies in believing in God and demolishing all the proofs of God offered. For an example of atheists enjoying debunking all proofs of God go right now to edge.org and see how 31, I believe, proofs of God are demolished (in the latest issue at edge.org). You say atheists are not out to do this or that, but they are out to destroy belief in God.

I am demonstrating that what we call scientific theories are "partial explanations", explaining this or that portion of reality but not being a view in total. Religion and atheism are total views, views in which it is expected scientific or other partial views will reside without changing the total view.

I am pointing out the atheists are no different than the religious in rationalizing away all the inconsistencies of their view, all the contradictions and other problems that might occur. And I am doing so not least because atheists give the illusion they are perfectly willing to see the shortcomings of their own view. I personally thought them more reflective concerning their view than the religious are of theirs. I was wrong.

Part two.

Every step of the way I have had to deal with the dodging of the issue this way or that. Atheists will just not admit any shortcoming in their view. They are as dogmatic as the religious. I point out that quite logically a universe with no God is ultimately futile. I point out the pretension of trying to play up intelligence when according to atheists everything including intelligence has come about without the slightest bit of intelligence behind it. I point out the pretension of morality in a world which is fundamentally amoral. I point out the pretension of free will in the atheistic view, which somehow arises by eliminating God and playing up indeterminism--as if that sways things toward free will when humans are born into something way beyond comprehension and die knowing really nothing. The problems of atheism just go on and on. And not a single atheist I have heard of is willing to recognize these problems.

The truth is anytime anyone tries to explain existence in total and not partially in the sense of offering a scientific theory of this or that aspect of reality, contradictions or some other problems ensue. There is no perfectly logical and coherant and satisfactory explanation of existence in total. If one believes in God, for example, we have the problem of how God can be good when evil is in the world. If one disbelieves, then one has the problem of how everything including intelligence arose without any intelligence behind things. Contradictions and problems such as these. That is all I am pointing out.

Efavorite

If you will look under Susan Jacoby's previous essay, near the last of the comments, I made a slightly more detailed comment, there, if you're interested.

Daniel 12

I am not dodging anything.

You are making alot of statements that either do not make sense or are not true.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.

It is not a view or a posiiton; it is failure to join go along with what religious people say about God.

Atheists are not "against" God, since they do not believe in God.

Atheists do not have a "problem" with God; they are not angry at God; they do not oppose God; they do not think they know better than God; they do not seek to obstruct God's plan.

Atheists have not eliminated God; they have not done away with God; they do not seek to destroy or kill God.

Because they do not believe in God.

To be engaged in a political conflict with people who seek to promote belief in God, even against the will of people who do not believe, is not the same as being against God.

Resisting a person or and organization's efforts to compel belief in God is not the same as being anti-God or against God.

In addition, you are not even arguing about the implications of belief or non-belief in God; you are arguing over the belief in a "good God."

Atheists don't believe in a good God or an evil God; they just don't believe in God.

The argument against atheism is to ask the atheist how all of this came to be, and how could there not be a God? But that does not move the argument. Atheists do not believe in God, because, to them, belief in God does not seem true.

Everyone believes in what seems true. Why do you think one things seems true, but another thing does not seem true? It is because of the way that you perceive the world and and the information in your head, which you have inherited from the place and time of your birth, the parents and care-givers who raised you, and a lifetime of experiences.

You do not really have any control over what may seem true and may not seem true; it just seems that way to you, but not to the nex person. The seeming truth of things comes to you, based on your inner self, which you did not choose and have little control over. And what seems true to you is really just another way of saying "what you believe."

If a person does not believe in God, then there nothing that you can say to him to dislodge this belief. The most that you can do is to try and show him a way that makes belief in God seem true. Pointing out all of the social, political, and existenital implicaitions of non-belief cannot accomplish this.

It is obvious that you are worried about this problem yourself. But there is nothing to be done about it. If it is really worrying you alot, then maybe you should get busier with real things in the world to occupy yourself with things not so worrying.

Efavorite

I am not sure.

I believe that human beings have the sensory and mental capacity to navigate the local landscape where they (we) exist. Our sensory perceptions are good enough; our mental capacity is a little extra.

I believe that there is much more that is beyond our capacity either to sense or to comprehend, by normal imagination, wondering, and even by science, extended to its maximum capacity.

I believe that there are "mechanisms," "aspects," or "phenomona" (for want of better words, and which word is the correct one is unclear and unknown) at the foundation of all things, or behind the workings of the world, (again, words are insufficien) that are beyound our capacity ever to comprehend or know.

So, by the normal meaning of the word "supernatural," I do not believe in that.

Or again, I believe that our world is a puzzle, and the key to understanding this puzzle is beyond our capacity to perceive or understand, even by the most sophisticated scientific means that anyone can imagine.

This means that by the kind of intelligence that operates our minds and souls, and which forms our personalities, none of us, can ever know the answers, not even the most intelligent person that might ever be born. For this inability to understand is not a matter of merely being not intelligent enough, and all we need do is wait until someone intelligent enough comes along to figure it out and explain it to us; it is a fundamental condition of our existence, that we cannot understand that which motivates the world.

Lion's Den, you are without a doubt a genius at dodging the issue. My point simply was that the metaphysical position atheism is no more logical than the religious position--and that in fact all of the "larger" positions have some sort of problem when considered logically or they are deficient in some other manner, unsatisfactory. And I have proceeded in the manner I have because atheists take their position to be logically impregnable, are really no different than the religious in dodging the issue of logical problems with their view and/or belief.

I pointed out simply that religion has logical problems such as a good God somehow reconcilable with the evil in the world which could only have come from this good God. And I pointed out that removing such a God--not believing in such--results in a universe fundamentally meaningless because nothing is behind existence. Furthermore I questioned the notion of everything not to mention intelligence somehow having arisen by exactly no intelligence behind things. And I questioned the pretension of atheists valuing intelligence over ignorance when according to their very view everything including intelligence arose by precisely non-intelligence. Problems of logic and/or deficient positions as these. Nothing more Lion's Den.

daniel12: -- "Furthermore, with no God no intelligence is behind things which means we have the problem of how everything arose--not to mention intelligence--by exactly no intelligence."

----------

Zygote + natural human development = Einstein

Hi, Daniel ITLD, I haven't been around here in a while, so I may have missed this, but it sounds like the God that you envision is not a supernatural god. Is that right?

Daniel 12

First of all, what has logic to do with it? Science is not logical deduction about how things ought to be. Science is observation and collection of emperical evidence.

The existence of DNA was not deduced. The "round" earth concept was not deduced. Almost nothing about chemistry, biology, or physics was deduced. Logical deduction could not even begin to explain all that we know of the world today.

Therefore, all of your deductive logical arguments about the consequences of belief or non-belief in God may be interesting mind excercises, but are irrelevant. Your logical arguments do not relate to the true existence or non-existence of God. Your repeated use of the word "logic" is pridefully misplace.

But that is apparently not what you care about; what you care about are the philosophical implications. That is a different question. Philosophical implications of belief to not cause belief, but are consequent to belief.

What you are really saying is that religious belief makes people feel better about the ultimate outcome of their personal lives and about the universe, and non-belief in God offers no assurances about the ultimate outcome of ones personal existence nor about the universe as a whole.

So, are you just figureing that out? Not a soul anywhere would argue with you on that. But then having established that, so what? That does not really have anything to do with the reality of existence.

You are right, there are complex philosophical implicaitons that go along with atheism. But do you really think that most people delve into "complex philosophical implications?" I don't think so. Therefore, why do you think all atheists worry about these things? They do not.

My belief in God in not based on a belief in an intelligent designer that causes all things to be. To the contrary, I believe that we cannot, by the nature of existential reality and the organization of our minds ever have any knowledge of things that, yet, exist.

In this, I can envision God. The nature of this God remains unknown. I come to this conclusion with ease, as the natural progression of my thoughts and not as a contorted proof of a pre-conceived God, that I wish to be.

Because I have this belief in God which has comes to me easily, I therefore have a peaceful mind with regards to God's existence and feel no need to prove it to atheists nor do I have any ill will towards people who do not understand or who may believe differently.

Part one.

To Lion's Den. You just keep sidestepping the whole issue of atheism. You just cannot admit that the view atheism is no more a satisfactory explanation of things than the religious view. You, like ALL ATHEISTS, YES ALL, are all too happy to point out logical inconsistencies in the religious view, but when it comes to atheism, no admission of problems of logic at all. To you atheism is an impregnable position logically, a view which is overarching (like the religious view is supposed to be) within which all other explanations of things reside (such as biological views, physical reality views.

I have no way to explain your dodging of the issues. You keep saying most people do not care about the consequences of belief or non-belief, you keep saying I am pressing some sort of political view, etc. To be honest with you, I am totally amazed how resourceful you are at dodging the issue. It really is simple to see what I mean Lion's Den. But then again atheists are just as terrified as the religious to realize their position is not logically impregnable. The fact is when it comes to reality in macro, all views are logically unsatisfactory. I will repeat myself for the thousandth time to try to make you see this. And I will begin with religion to make it easier for you.

We all know the problem of logic in religion. A good example is that we are told God is good when if he does have the powers he said to have he must have created the evident evil we have experienced in the world. There is no way out for the religious in this problem. One cannot dodge it any way. A clear problem of logic here--and one atheists are all to willing to recognize. Now we move to the position of atheism and examine it for logical consistency.

And the first thing we see is that if no God is held by atheists then quite logically there is nothing behind existence to save man--life is ultimately futile. Furthermore, with no God no intelligence is behind things which means we have the problem of how everything arose--not to mention intelligence--by exactly no intelligence. Furthermore if everything, including intelligence, arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind things we have to ask why exactly it is we so clearly celebrate intelligence over ignorance when of course non-intelligence has such a vastly superior record when it comes to creation than intelligence.

Part two.

The problems of logic go on. And this is no surprise. No one has logically explained existence. We have scientific theories but when we really grapple with existence we find our explanations are logically unsatisfactory or deficient in some manner. I consider atheists no different than the religious--yes, ALL atheists. Stop trying to dodge the issue by saying there are many types of atheist as if hopefully an atheist can be found not susceptible to my reasoning here. Both atheists and the religious prematurely superimpose a metaphysical view on existence when the correct course is to be open-minded and hold that God may or may not exist. It really is not that difficult to see what I mean. Or if you still cannot see what I mean then please present atheism in a logically consistent manner for me to see. But of course you will not be able to do this. When it comes to the large questions every philosophical, religious and atheistic position is logically vulnerable.

That is just basic understanding of life. But perhaps the most amusing thing you have said is the last paragraph in your most recent post to me--your scientific idealism. You believe scientific laws reside only in the head, that they are superimpositions on reality and not descriptive of anything actually there. Interesting, no God therefore no intelligence behind things but human intelligence just hangs in space, as it were, superimposing its thoughts on a reality which corresponds to no such thing. Atheism reconcilable with philosophical idealism? Perhaps. But then we have just another problem with logic.

If one is an atheist and is also an idealist when it comes to scientific theories--which is to say one holds that there is no intelligence behind things but that the most profound human thoughts are all in man's head and do not correspond to the outside world--then one is vastly more anthropocentric than the religious. The decline of religion was supposed to have been the decline of anthropocentrism, that everything does not revolve around the earth and man. But atheists eliminating an intelligence behind things and having all thoughts in only man's head? That less anthropocentric than the religious? How so when one has the pretension of one's intelligence in a universe which needs no such thing for creation, in fact arguably creation comes about in vastly superior fashion without intelligence? Just some problems with atheism.

Take the words out of the argument:

A, not A

The proof of the above is not possible without an external construct, we believe A and not A can not exist simultaneously, we believe A and not a are coexistent constructs, we believe A and not A are not mutually exclusive, and I am sure other logical possibilities.

In the material world this is established by a scientific empirical statistical methodology. The relationship of A and not A is established by empirical evidence. In the scientific process defining A and not A is critical. The poorer the definition, the poorer the meaningfulness of the result.

If that is too abstract I'll write later.

hariaum

One thing I find strange is this. You can oppose war and be secular. You can oppose capital punishment and be secular. If you oppose vivisection, you can still be secular. But if you oppose abortion, then you are immediately thought to be an ultra-relgious nut who refuses to mind her own business.

But why? It seems to me that people who think that killing a foetus is wrong, AND should be illegal are no different from people who believe that wife beating is wrong AND should be illegal.

I hope that the "ultra-seculars" would realize that people often take ethical values seriously, and SOME ethical values do impose restrictions on the behavior of other people.

I am not saying that all abortions should be banned. But we should give up the pretense that a ban on abortion or restrictions on abortion violate the separation of Church and State. They do not.

By the way, there do exist pro-life organizations called feminists for life, and also atheists for life.

Daniel 12

Atheism is not a position or a view; it is not believing in something. The only reason that there is an "ism" in atheism is because religious people are horrified at the lack of belief, and make a big, big deal about it. If they just let it go, then atheism would not even be a word, or a concept.

You say you are analyzing the consequences of believing in God or not believing in God. That is different than a search for the truth of the matter. Most religious people believe in God because "there is a God," not because of the consequences; and most atheists don't believe in God because "there is no God", not because of the consequences of non-belief.

Because you are arguing political motivation in belief and non-belief, people are not understanding you, since most of them are not arguing the political merits of God or no God.

When someone does not believe in God, they are not implyng anything at all about anything, but just that they do not believe.

You are also mis-using the word, ignorance. An intelligent person without knowledge is ignorant. A universe that is not ruled by Intelligent Design is not an "ignorant" universe; it is just a universe without God.

Atheists don't hold all the many beliefs that you project into them. They have many different beliefs or none at all. You seem to be critical of a particular person, either that you know personally, or of an author that you have read and disagre with. If you would state who this person is more clearly, instead of referring to "him" as "you people," then you would make more sense.

An atheist who does not believe in God still acknowledges the existence of intelligent man, and still acknowledges that intelligent man came into existence by some process. If you press an atheist to say exactly how intelligent man came to be, his lack of an explantion suitble to you will not change the fact of his atheism.

And there are no laws of nature either, at least not from a purely scientific point of view. This is a philosophical explanation that seeks to describe how science works. But these "laws of nature" that you keep referencing have no definable reality. If they do, then say what they are. If you can say what these laws of nature are, then you will be the first.

1) Atheists remove the concept God. This means no particular God but rather what people have meant by God no matter the names given to God. What people mean by God is intelligence behind the universe--the universe was created by intelligence. Atheists are essentially engrossed with pointing out that no proof of God has been made. They enjoy such conversation as "who made God? or if God is so good and created the universe, why is there evil in it--is evil not created by God?

2) Atheists frame the position of atheist to the religious to their advantage. Atheists never admit the slightest shortcoming to their view, their entire intelligence is toward framing the conversation in such a way that either the religious have to prove the existence of God or admit defeat and succumb to the superior view atheism. But we can see immediately problems with the view of atheism

3) If atheists hold no intelligence is behind things--not even the creation of human intelligence--then do they not have to explain how things arose in such fashion? Oh, sorry, silly me: the atheists have answered the question and it is that nothing is behind existence. I bow to this superior logic. Next, if everything arose from nothing is the human race not doomed to futility ultimately? Do we not have a pessimistic view here?

4) If everything including intelligence arose without the slightest need from a superior intelligence, then why should we take intelligence to be valuable? Would it not be better to celebrate ignorance, for ignorance created even the very intelligence we use and intelligence has done really nothing in comparison? Why is it exactly we should move from the ignorance of the religious to the superior intellectually view of atheism? How can intelligence be superior if everything, including intelligence, arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind it? Furthermore, why intelligence when we are doomed to futility anyway in a universe with nothing behind it? And why the pursuit of scientific laws when we have atheists already telling us they know the fundament of the universe and that it is that nothing is behind existence? Why bother searching for scientific laws? These are just some of the problems with the view of atheists. Do we expect atheists to admit these problems? Not at all. Atheists just like the religious think they have fundamentally solved things. That the universe is fundamentally understood. The one says God, the other nothing. And truth to tell, neither of them have said anything.

Good grief, the replies to me here are just preposterous. I never said the slightest thing about proving the existence of God. That you people would say so just proves a point I have long held concerning atheists: You frame the argument as you see it, attack, and feel you have solved things. Here you are framing the argument to mean that I am proving the existence of God so you can drag your arguments in, demonstrate I have not proved God then go away happy.

What I have done IS LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOLDING THE POSITION OF ATHEIST. THAT YOU ARE TOO COWARDLY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHOWS ME ONLY THAT YOU ARE AS COWARDLY AS THE RELIGIOUS..

What makes it even more preposterous is a person here actually believes Darwin demonstrated the non-existence of God--or rather that Darwin showed concerning life that no God is necessary which amounts to shoving God aside, which amounts to proof of no God.

The facts are these. The religious view is contradictory in the sense that we are supposed to believe God is good in a world in which evil exists and could have only come from God, for God is all powerful and knowing. A clear problem here. One which every atheist is only too happy to pounce upon.

But the atheist position more satisfactory? No, the position of atheism has serious problems as well. First of course the positing of nothing behind existence. Quite logically that means life is fundamentally futile. That should be easy enough to see.
Next we have the problem why exactly we should take intelligence so seriously over ignorance when according to the atheist's view everything including intelligence arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind it. If blind forces can create even intelligence then should we not bow to blind forces rather than try to develop intelligence further out of intelligence as if intelligence did not arise out of blind forces?

The atheists have us using intelligence to further intelligence when according to their very view intelligence arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind it and intelligence is doomed anyway in a universe with nothing behind it. Basic logic here. I would expect atheists to acknowledge the problems with their view. But do we have an admission of such? Not at all.

What we have instead is "you have not proved the existence of God". And no doubt I will have to again state that is irrelevant to examining the position of atheists and pointing out the shortcomings of the view. Colin Nicholas, Darwin did not at all demonstrate there is no God. He did not even know about DNA let alone whether a designer is behind existence. But I should not have to add anymore. it should be enough to state that atheists have the universe and even intelligence coming from essentially nothing and that we are supposed to value intelligence in the face of nothing when everything arose without the slightest bit of intelligence and seems to get along quite well without intelligence...And so on.

daniel12:

It's unlikely Dan Dennet or Sam Harris is going to respond to your questions. Since you seem to have some animosity towards them, I would suggest starting with a book entitled "Sense and Goodness Without God" by Richard Carrier.

Dude, did anyone tell you you look just like Santa Clause?

Santa was the man back in the day when kids just liked the hell out of Christmas and people weren't trying to jam their "my-way-or-the-highway" crap down everyone else's throat. When we "were good for goodness sake" it didn't involve excluding and hating others because the ignorant descendants of Abraham told us that was what we had to do.

We were happy to have a vacation full of time with family and love from everyone including our neighbors who didn't have to be evangelical, or Mormon or Catholic like us. We didn't care. It was good but now the theocrats and theologians tell it can't be good unless we agree with them on their wedge issues of praying for the President's death, killing abortion doctors, hiding pervert priests, denial of health care for the poor, demonizing Mexicans and Muslims and gay bashing. They're the ghost of Christmas now and of Christmas future in the intolerant Jesuslandia that once was the America I loved and volunteered to fight and die for.

Miss ya Santa.

D12.

It's impossible enough trying to figure out how the world came to be. Throwing a God into the mix as an answer complicates it enormously taking the discussion beyond reality-as-we-know-it.

We would have to ask how did this God come to be? That is a question that moves the discussion from the realm of reality into superstition. As far as we know there never were any Gods. They are mythical by definition.

Did this God that you posit have a mom and dad? Was this God born or did he just happen? Ridiculous questions of course. But they are the only kind of questions one can ask of this God. Also, where is this God? What does He do all day? Is he married? Does he have any babygods to inherit the universe when he moves on? How come nobody has ever seen or heard from him - ever?

Einstein thought that this kind of sky-God hypothesis was naive. Karen Armstrong thinks that God (as a Sopreme being) is an infantile concept, and she's been studying religion all her life.

Our forebears had Gods for everything. They were illiterate and understood nothing about the world they found themselves in, and were forced to make up Gods as explanations for the reality they were unable to understand; and since the scientific method of figuring things out didn't happen until Francis Bacon's inductive method of reasoning caught on in the 1600's, the God myth was never really looked at.

But people slowly began looking at the God hypothesis; the Enlightenment accelerated this, and Darwin sealed it. No gods necessary.

Bottom Line; the world is a lot easier to understand without Gods.

Daniel 12

Your argument is full of bitterness and does not relate at all to the man's essay.

All of your comments on intelligence are irrelevant. Here are the facts: we are intelligent beings in a world that we do not understand.

This fact alone may prove that God exists to you. But it does not to other people.

I take it that you believe in Intelligent Design, and your proof is that you cannot imagine a universe without an Intelligent Designer. But other people can.

Your proof of God's existence is that people would live in a dark and hopeless world without God. First, that is not proof. And second, alot of religious people live in a dark and hopeless world, full of fear and forboding. And alot of atheists are happy and cheerful.

So the emperical evicence alone, regarding how people are, counters your argument about how people should be.

If you are really interested in this, I think that this contradicting emperical evidence would prompt you to rethink your whole position, to find out where your mistake is. I think often, your criticisms of others are really criticisms of yourself.

An improvement in your more recent essays is your criticism of specific people with whom disagree. That always makes alot more sense than being angry at "you people" and "you atheists." When you make generalizations like that, it is unclear who you are arguing with or why.

Though I am not an atheist, the answer to Daniel would be: because we can't help it.

That is, in strict materialism and predestination of an omniscient god, we have no freedom. We act due to a series of causes that compel us, even to the question of what we mean by moral or intelligent.

In less strict materialism, or in the setting of a less than omniscient god, we can have some freedom but the odds are against us from freeing ourselves from our nature (derived by evolution or given by god). As such, we can't help but try to seek the moral and the intelligent.

Absolute freedom is beyond most of us so we can't assume we have enough freedom to prevent ourselves from trying the impossible.

To me the inverse problem is more interesting: if we can't help looking for a Truth beyond what we see, is there something there? When we see moral order across species, when we see intelligence across species,... That implies that there is a moral/intelligent construct that helps us to see deeper into the world. Let us keep looking, trying to do the impossible, to look beyond ourselves.

hariaum

Why exactly should one take seriously what you have to say? Correct me if I am wrong here, but you say Darwin demonstrated that life needs no creator, that Darwin literally turned thousands of years of believing in a top down God to a view which is "bottom up", that life can self-organize, etc. Essentially you have Darwin proving your atheism. But Darwin demonstrated no such thing. Yes, he did show more complex forms can come from more primitive forms, but that by no means is identical to life not needing a creator. You exaggerate. Darwin did not even know about DNA let alone whether life can come about without a creator.

What makes things even more silly is how you atheists contradict yourselves as much as the religious do. Essentially you hold that there is no intelligent design behind the universe. But then why are you atheists so concerned about man being less ignorant, less religious, more given to reason? According to your very view everything in the universe arose without the slightest bit of intelligence behind it including intelligence. Would it not be better to become more ignorant rather than intelligent, for after all ignorance has far more on its side by way of track record than intelligence does? The universe according to you was created in ignorance. The entire universe. Intelligence has no such track record according your view. So tell me what exactly is so important about intelligence.

And there is another reason to not bother with intelligence. Why bother being intelligent if there is nothing behind existence? Nothing behind existence means life is ultimately futile. Whatever progress is made is doomed to fail in random, accidental universe chaos. Your very view contradicts all those calls by you and your fellow atheists to become more intelligent.

Essentially we have the contradictory religious view of a good God somehow not being responsible for evil when he created everything traded in for the view of atheists which is that there is nothing behind existence and therefore life is fundamentally futile. Some progress in philosophy. Again why bother with intelligence when the universe came into being without the slightest bit of intelligence and any development of intelligence anyway is doomed to failure in the randomness of the universe? And what is this morality without God you speak of when a universe without a designer is amoral? Would it not be better to be amoral like the universe? And why morality when everything is destined for amorality? Same argument as applied to intelligence above now applied to morality. I would like to hear some clear explanations. It seems you atheists dodge the issues of atheism as much as the religious dodge their view.

Yup!2

hariaum

Yup!