An argument for the non-existance of deity

I'm not sure whether that was directed towards me or not, and I won't assume it was or wasn't but just for the record:
I DID put my energy towards it, for a long period of time... I tried to understand, tried to believe, and tried to find a place within God's existence---
My ultimate conclusion was: it was not satisfying for me. None of it worked within the realms of MY logic, and MY way of looking at the world. None of it coincided with the way my heart felt.

The whole gist of it, seemed hypocritical and bizaare to me. When I followed religious practices, instead of fufilling my life, as it does for some of you, it made me feel even EMPTIER inside.

Because, I am me, and I am a different person, and what may work for you, doesn't work for me.

As soon as I dismissed the idea of a god existing, and began to start forming my own beliefs, I felt full of life. And still do to this day.

For me, to not go any deeper than what I see in front of me, is happiness. To take what I actually have, and work with it is what makes me happy and feel fufilled.

Just because I do not believe, doesn't mean I am void of morals, or a conscience.

And that's just for the record. My two cents.

 

Libertine

And you would be incorrect.

For a 'god' MAY exist logically and rationally.
As well as naturally.
There is nothing in science that dis-allows a god.

Occam

 

I got into a discussion with my dad about this last night, who is a Catholic.
I wouldn't call him strict, as he has many differing opinions from those of what the Church says---and what not.

I've always felt this way, but more so after last night, I just realized how incredibly important it is to just leave your mind open. Not necessarily to believing other things, but to other people, and their perspectives and points of views.

My mother and the rest of my family knew that I was an atheist for a while, but I actually never came out and told my father until last night, because I always felt he was so strict with his religion that he would get angry with me, and be *disappointed*--- alas, he was not. He was truly intrigued by my philosophies and theories, and I really admire him for how accepting and open minded he was about the whole thing.

I think the most important thing, above all--- above believing what you believe, and stating what you believe, and discussing it...is to leave your minds clear, and open to others and their beliefs. And to actually think about it, and to expand your horizon and debate with yourself for a moment if you could see it that way yourself.

Although I still don't believe in what he does, and don't necessarily agree, it was a good time opening up the doors of BOTH of our minds and trying to understand what the other believed in.

He asked me at one point, "Bekka... you have lots of morals, I know that--- but why are they there if you don't believe in anything?"

First of all, I responded "It's not that I don't believe in ANYTHING. I have a great deal of faith, hope, positivity, and respect in people. I believe that being any sort of life form is extremely empowering, and that we need to take it upon ourselves to make the best of our time here. I believe that no matter how bad it seems, there is so much hope for humanity." then I went on to answer his question with this: "I have morals, because I learn... if someone has stolen something from me, and it hurts... I know that I should never do that to another person because I've been there, and felt it and it hurts like hell. I also have morals because we are only here on earth for a short period of time, and to make the best of it is key importance to living happily while you're here. If you treat everyone like shit, you're going to feel like shit. Although I don't treat people kindly for self-gratification, I still realize that if I want good to come to me, I have to treat others well also. On a final note, I grew up with you, and learned from you. Even if I don't believe what you believe in, I still learned how to be a good person ."

Although, he still didn't totally understand... I got much satisfaction of the whole conversation. It was nice to be listened to without a constant lashing of my beliefs [which DOES happen a lot around here.]

I also said to him, and I truly believe this and will always stick by it is: "Even if somehow there was scientific and factual proof that a god existed, and I had no choice but to believe because it was a for sure fact--- I still wouldn't believe in organized religion. I do not like the idea of everyone gathering together to worship the way that it is done...it seems redundant and cult-like to me"

And it does. I clearly remember... ever since I was a little girl, being utterly freaked out by Church and the whole process of it... such as when we would have to recite the "Apostle's Creed" before communion... everyone sounded so dead, so lifeless...as if it were a room full of zombies bowing down to their *leader*.

If I were to know or believe in something, I would go about it just that way...just knowing it inside, not following any specific regimen or mass, or worship. It just seems wrong to me.

I don't believe in a god or a higher power, but I do believe in people, and other creatures. I don't see... how that is so wrong. Even if it were FACTUALLY wrong, hypothetically--- I can't ever see that being a bad attitude to carry.

 

I also want to add that---
Being human, all boils down to almost the same thing that religion teaches: to treat others with respect, lead a fufilling and KIND life.

But, you don't have to be religious to do so, and that's my point.

I am very intrigued by religion, different religions, learning about them, and hearing different points of view--- just because I don't agree doesn't mean my mind is closed, and some of the beliefs...certain aspects of them, make a great deal of sense to me. The belief in a god or higher power itself does NOT, but the moral standards of living DO ---and quite frankly, no matter what your religion or lack of religion is... that's all you need.

Anyone with even half a conscience understands that to kill someone is wrong. Or to lie to someone is hurtful... I think the only people who may not understand this are those who are clinically insane. If I am a good person, and treat others with my utmost respect... and so do you, who cares??

 

Occam

Does a self-refutation exist?

Other than mere words and thoughts?

The defining factor is how "God" is defined. That which is self-contradictory cannot logically exist, cannot naturally exist, nor rationally.

 

libertine,

you can only disprove something if you have some kind of information about it, right? if you say "god is... (the christian god)," then you could possibly disprove that, through errors in "his word", or errors in the way he described creation, etc.

but if you MERELY say, "god is some being which created the universe," how can you prove or disprove that?
you can't, at least that we yet know of.

so i say, i am an agnostic as to whether or not A god exists,
but i am atheist as to whether the popular biblical god exists.
a being which created the world MAY exist, but i cannot reasonably acknowledge a decent possibility for the sacrifice-loving, contradictory god of christianity.

i think you call yourself atheist for the same reason i sometimes do; because you don't want to say you're agnostic about the popular, muddled, christian god - you flat out know he doesn't exist. but when it comes to a more basic concept of "god", you must be agnostic towards IT's possible existence.

 

No it wasn't aimed at you. Iusualy just say general things that pop in my head.

To respond to you know I say that's the kind of thing I believe in as well. I'm no religous person by any means but I'm trying to learn more about things having to do with it having never had it in my life I'm curious about it all now. And I have conclusions of my own based on my own experiences and I tell nobody to believe anything based on that but me.
My ultimate conclusion was: it was not satisfying for me. None of it worked within the realms of MY logic, and MY way of looking at the world. None of it coincided with the way my heart felt.
the same things that led me to question spirituality if any for myself...the same reason I also didn't whatsoever.
I tried to understand, tried to believe, and tried to find a place within God's existence
I'm not really trying to find myself with god ir in his existance. I'm trying to exsist in peace with my self. We all have our own reasons for thinking certain ways and we all have different roads to get to any destination. Mine could change at any moment and I'm open to it. Evenso There are things I feel when I learn them like nothing else connect with me and as I apply it to my life I know it's posative. I like my spirituality.
The whole gist of it, seemed hypocritical and bizaare to me. When I followed religious practices, instead of fufilling my life, as it does for some of you, it made me feel even EMPTIER inside.
Agree fully. I also don't agree with religion that makes one feel such a way. I believe that for me fulfilling my life should always come first and make me feel fuller ... religion of the self as the spirit so that with every posative thing that you do that fulfills that is fulfulling the spirit (soul food)

For me, to not go any deeper than what I see in front of me, is happiness. To take what I actually have, and work with it is what makes me happy and feel fufilled.
yes!

 

Libertine

Yes, occam agrees completely.
'god' as defined by religion is self-contradictory.
The description of god proposed by religion was made millenia back.
When we understood virtually nothing of how reality worked.
When, 'omnipotent' and 'infinite' were the biggest words they knew.
But they understood them [the philosophy of the concept] not at all.

Occam proposes on another thread that there is evidence for a 'god'
Called a 'god' only, because it can do what we cannot.
An individual being or a race of beings that can manipulate the laws of reality.
Is in occam book a god.
We, manipulate reality using those laws..but cannot manipulate the laws.

To occam, a species/being with sufficiently advanced technology.
That manipulated observed reality so it produces self aware beings.
is god.

One day we will be able o do the same.
For gods evolve.
They do not simply wish themselves into existance.
Or have always existed.

There is no easy path

Occam

 

Apples

My daughter has those conversations with this old man all the time.
But it would be slightly different to your position as neither of us is religious.
Sasha comes in and says 'dad, why do/are people XXXXXXXXXX'
[replace xxx with topic of choice]
And occam tries to hand over his understandding to her.
For that is what parents are for.
To pass on 'unbiased' understanding.
For them to use as they will.
Not to make your kids a copy of you.

And he says to you as he said to sasha when she asked about religion and god [many times]
Exactly what you have concluded. That if god appeared before occam, he would believe god existed just like he believes trees exist.
He could do no other thing..for his method to understanding rules, not his desire.

But how is one 'closer to god'. How is one more 'accepted' by god because they toe the religious line and perform the rituals the church demands?
They are not.
For they believe what PEOPLE say is the way to god.
And people are ignorant, especially those that do not question.
The religious.

There is only one way we will find a god if it exists.
Go out and find it in reality.
Ask questions.
Look for clues.
a
WHO DONE IT

Occam

 

I used to call myself "agnostic", but now I am "atheist". I "disbelieve" in any "god".

The definition of "god", to me, is "something transcendent or outside the realms of the natural and logical". There is no evidence for such a Being. Thus, I remain "A-theist".

Agnostic is saying "Well, there could be, but I don't know either way." It is essentially two scopes- You are either an "Atheistic Agnostic" or a "Theistic Agnostic". You either don't believe for lack of evidence and are an Atheist or you do believe, but remain confused and thus refer to yourself as "agnostic" when in reality the belief in deity qualifies you are as a believer.

You either believe or you don't. To say you are neutral is a fallacy. Because you either believe, you don't, or you have no idea of such a concept (thus you are like an infant and cannot believe--thus you are atheist). Agnostic means you have not the knowledge to determine whether or not you believe--thus (in reality) you don't believe yet = atheism.

All atheist means is "LACK OF BELIEF OR DISBELIEF IN THEISM".

If you LACK the belief, you are atheist.

If you disbelieve RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, you are atheist.

 

I'm sorry but my "gut" is nothing but an alimentary canal, oh wait! You must be speaking metaphorically of my innermost emotional or visceral response, right?

Which ironically comes from my brain...and therefore is basically a spontaneous reaction.

I do apologize but, I fail to see how such EXTREMELY IMPORTANT issues should be determined with a mere knee-jerk reaction.

 

We disagree.

 

no she already has it. She is her own god.

 

HAHAHAHAHA.....

 

yes i completely understand - i think we argue the same point. this is why i have atheist AND agnostic as a description. together they form the complete marriage of Knowing and Believing. i don't Know anything; i don't Believe in hebrew god or christian god or muslim god....
it's cool

 

Once an Atheist declares their NON-belief in God, they've created God's existence in their own minds.

Every God concept exists. Or it couldn't exist as a concept.

You conceptualize a story and put it on film, does that mean that your film is un-natural or il-logical, and doesn't exist because the story was made up?

NO! The film and God exists.

They exist naturally and logically, and they may both win an Oscar.

God is a symbolic-authority that we naturally and logically create to use as a psychological tool to compensate for our neurotic preccupations.

Yes, just like there has to be something there to "disbelieve".

I may find a particular God-Concept useless, and I may even chose to "disbelieve" in it's existence, but it still exists none the less, useless or not.

The fact that "no GOD can exist outside of all logic" is not a good argument for the non-existence of GOD period.

Because all kinds of GODs have been logically created and exist to serve logical ends.

At least every GOD I've ever encountered.

 

isn't this just an issue of the meaning of "to exist" ?
if i think of a pink monster lizard, that thought exists, but does it follow that the thing exists?
if you say that thought is enough, then the lizard does exist.
so if i think of a god, it would exist;

if you use another definition,
"something is said to exist if it passes this test (reason, science, maths?)"
you wouldn't apply the term existence to the thing.


i'm not arguing with anything you're saying,
if everything we experience passes through our senses first, isn't everything essentially only a thought?

i don't understand the meaning of "to exist".
(HA... i think that's the first time i've actually said "what's the meaning of existence?" with real intent. )

 

What kind of philosophical gymnastics are you trying to do here? If you say, "There is an Invisible Pink Elephant" on the lawn and I say, "I don't believe that", then it exists in my own mind? Ah ha!! So, that's PROVES objective existence!! That's more warped then the Ontological argument.

Apparently, you do realize that "God" is nothing but a mere idea, so I fail to see as to how you are attacking my premise. Sure, "god" is an idea. So, is "unkabugkaca" (I just invented it), but that doesn't make for objective existence, which is what this is all about.

 

Once I recognize that an idea or concept is shared by one other person, that idea or concept takes on an objective existence as it transcends the limits of my own personal subjectivity.

The ubiquitous "Pink Elephant" objectively exists throughout our cultureas an alcoholic vision.

Atheists like Fundamentalist are literalists.

Athiests are unable to grasp the collective objective existence of the GOD concept for what it really is,,, a collective concept.

This is because Atheists misunderstand the purpose of why we manufacture GODs to begin with.

Our manufactured GODs exist as very real and effective psychological tools.

A placebo that objectively exists as a placebo, and its deception objectively exists as a deception, and its healing effect objectively exists as a healing effect.

A vengefull old white man in the sky imposing karmic justice to all, objectively exists throughout our culture as a ubiquitous mass-delusion.

Mass-delusions only lose their objective existence as delusions when they are no longer believed.

Atheists, however, are trapped in the literal aspect of the delusions, and are incapable of recognizing the objective existence of the GOD concept for what it is, a very real and effective psychological tool.

 

Sure, I recognize the "God concept". It has been shoved down our throats for the past 10,000 years (one form or other). It has been legislated. It has been the basis behind conquest and slavery. It has been the basis of slaughter. I think I am well aware of the "God concept" and what effect it has had.

Wonder why I fight against it? I just don't like rigidity, forced authority and slavery too much.