Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?

pseudonymous said:
pain & suffering is a universal at least once in any sentient's life, and a deity responsible for the gazillions of past, present, and future experiencers should be ashamed of itself...especially if it were a judgmental deity on top of that. it remains the single greatest argument against a conscious creator.

what are other obvious arguments against the existence of a deity that you ascribe to?

dcv-
Click to expand...

I've never understood the argument that suffering is a strike against the possible existence of deity. A human may yield against suffering just as an insentient rock might yield against being broken in two, but this is a fundamental element of reality. The idea that deity, or some other abstraction of the 'absolute', should be judged by relative human anxiety doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think there is any valid logical argument against God, but the sheer frailty of human perception and comprehension is a sturdy argument against religion as human endeavor. By extension, any conception of God is subject to uncertainity.

The religious assumption is -- there is a God, and this God decreed our perception complete with rationale and humbling doubt.
 
There is no proof for a lack of Deity. You simply cannot prove that a lack exists...it is logically impossible.

But, there is no proof that a Deity does exist either. I have a friend who still tells me that she knows for a fact that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, because she feels it so strongly.

I suppose she discounts others who may "feel" a different savior, god, or deity, which to me, proves that just because you "feel" the presence of a deity, does not mean the deity exists.

And since a deity is neither provable nor disprovable, I can only conclude that if a deity does in fact exists He/She/It does not care either way if we choose to believe or ascribe to it certain qualities or names, due to the fact that we are logical beings with no proof of our creator's existence or lack thereof.

Problem solved.
 
Eclectic Mystic said:
Men like Stalin are exclusively found amongst atheists.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Examine the history of Europe. There have been hellish Christian monarchs. Even if you want to say that they aren't "true" Christians, they certainly weren't atheists.

If you want to talk about conviction, please talk about justifiable conviction. Atheists lack the conviction to assert that eternal truths exist.
Click to expand...

I have justifiable convictions!

You might not agree with my justifications, but I do have them. I believe in ethical truths that pertain to our nature as human beings.

I'm sorry if this upsets your black-and-white view of the world. It is very comforting to feel that one's tribe is all good, and other tribes are all evil.

On the other hand, please look at the royal aristocracies I pointed out. From these emerge lovers of wisdom who value the truth so much that they would allow themselves to be dragged down by it if it were necessary.
Click to expand...

Also ridiculous. Royal aristocracies have no better track record of producing virtuous people than atheists do. I'm not saying that there are no virtuous royals, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on virtue.

If the equation 2+2=4 was convenient for Stalin one day he would keep it. But if it became inconvenient on another day, he would simply have it changed to 2+2=5.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Stalin would. So would Machiavellian monarchs. There are atheists and theists who would not.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
abc-anarchy said:
There is no proof for a lack of Deity. You simply cannot prove that a lack exists...it is logically impossible.

But, there is no proof that a Deity does exist either. I have a friend who still tells me that she knows for a fact that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, because she feels it so strongly.

I suppose she discounts others who may "feel" a different savior, god, or deity, which to me, proves that just because you "feel" the presence of a deity, does not mean the deity exists.

And since a deity is neither provable nor disprovable, I can only conclude that if a deity does in fact exists He/She/It does not care either way if we choose to believe or ascribe to it certain qualities or names, due to the fact that we are logical beings with no proof of our creator's existence or lack thereof.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Science is also quite certain that 99% of the universe is made up of dark matter, yet they can't see it, feel it, or prove it (nor disprove it) exists. No one has ever seen a black hole, yet science is positive it is there. We still can not define gravity, yet there seems to be no doubt as to its existence and influence on our world.

Just some other logical thoughts to ponder. :)
 
Quahom1 said:
Science is also quite certain that 99% of the universe is made up of dark matter, yet they can't see it, feel it, or prove it (nor disprove it) exists. No one has ever seen a black hole, yet science is positive it is there. We still can not define gravity, yet there seems to be no doubt as to its existence and influence on our world.

Just some other logical thoughts to ponder. :)
Click to expand...

I know in the old Hollywood technicolor epics the enigmatic dude with the beard usually tries some effort at gravity...... other than that I am lost. What you on about? Some theoretical physicists that may or may not have as much clue about uber-reality as you or I currently try to explain what they dont know with dark stuff.... so what. They are not science and while they may possibly, but doubtfully, all be atheists they are not atheism.
 
abc-anarchy said:
There is no proof for a lack of Deity. You simply cannot prove that a lack exists...it is logically impossible.

And since a deity is neither provable nor disprovable, I can only conclude that if a deity does in fact exists He/She/It does not care either way if we choose to believe or ascribe to it certain qualities or names, due to the fact that we are logical beings with no proof of our creator's existence or lack thereof.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Cool, problem solved!

Except...it bugs me that atheist means something other than a-theist, in common parlance, and God is a free floating sort of uber superlative something or other that nobody can define. It doesn't help that religion is such a backwater of folkloric mumbo jumbo, or that Atheism, with a big A, functions as a support group for disgruntled former religionists.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
...or that Atheism, with a big A, functions as a support group for disgruntled former religionists.
Click to expand...

CCS, I think Richard Dawkins say it most succinctly...

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."​


Most atheists like myself, are not militant discontents. We're just like you. We feel the same way as you do about most every deity out there. Atheists just take it one step further.
 
I'm not an atheist. I'm not anything. Labels add layers. I want to shed layers, that's the point. Every trinket, every pious posture, every heroic identification, every precept, every affirmation, every self-perpetuating belief structure, every stinkin' platitude adds another layer to my fat, bloated, pompous, mirror inhabiting, status quo participating, clock punching, culture toadying, dishonest self.

Chris
 
citizenzen said:
CCS, I think Richard Dawkins say it most succinctly...

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."​
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but...when the last god died there weren't any more. That's the difference.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I'm not an atheist. I'm not anything. Labels add layers. I want to shed layers, that's the point. Every trinket, every pious posture, every heroic identification, every precept, every affirmation, every self-perpetuating belief structure, every stinkin' platitude adds another layer to my fat, bloated, pompous, mirror inhabiting, status quo participating, clock punching, culture toadying, dishonest self.
Click to expand...

I think that one can admit that certains labels are accurate without knitting them into one's sense of self. You are an atheist if you don't believe in divine beings, but you need not self-identify with the label. :)

Personally, I find that labels can be empowering as long as one isn't too attached to them (just as not all desires are harmful as long as one isn't too attached to them). Not all "layers" are harmful.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Now there are theists and Deists is there an adeist?

Atheists just believe in one less G!d then the rest....

hmmm....

Now I don't consider myself and atheist, not close, but a non-theist I'm headed for.

Can I believe in all the other gods?? I think I can, just as I believe in mine. I believe my religion is man's attempt to answer the unexplainable. To establish a comfortable way to encounter society and fellow man. I believe in the fables, those moral stories we know are not true, never happened, but there is benefit from reading and applying to your life. I believe in the religious stories for the same reason for the same benefit, and if the authors use a man made imagined god to fulfill a portion of that story I have no difficulty with that.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I'm not an atheist. I'm not anything. Labels add layers. I want to shed layers, that's the point. Every trinket, every pious posture, every heroic identification, every precept, every affirmation, every self-perpetuating belief structure, every stinkin' platitude adds another layer to my fat, bloated, pompous, mirror inhabiting, status quo participating, clock punching, culture toadying, dishonest self.

Chris
Click to expand...

WoW Chris you did it again... a quote worthy of carving on my tombstone.
 
Eudaimonist said:
I think that one can admit that certains labels are accurate without knitting them into one's sense of self. You are an atheist if you don't believe in divine beings, but you need not self-identify with the label. :)

Personally, I find that labels can be empowering as long as one isn't too attached to them (just as not all desires are harmful as long as one isn't too attached to them). Not all "layers" are harmful.


eudaimonia,

Mark
Click to expand...

I agree with this. You don't necessarily need some sort of emotional stake in a label to be one, if you know what I mean. That, and labels can at times quickly give you a stance without having to wade through tons of stuff and minor details. Maybe not detailed enough to work with all the intricacies(sp?) of your stance but simpler to quickly define something at a start, nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top