Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?


What other choice is there? How can you believe in something that does not appear to be real to you? Would you be better off if you imagined that you were rich or famous, if those things weren't true?

I am assuming (right now) there is no other choice. I'm granting your perspective is the true one. There is no life beyond the material life. Belief in an immaterial life is a wish without hope of fulfillment, a self-delusion.

Then nothing is ever fair or not fair. It just is. The genetic roll of the dice that is you is what it is. If you happen to enter time and space as an African in the 1600s who is kidnapped as a child and put on a slave ship and who watches his parents and siblings die slow agonizing deaths before dying himself and being tossed into the Atlantic, that is not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It just is.

Most of humanity has found reality to be physical and metaphysical. Materialists are a small slice of humanity who insists reality is only physical. Materialism does not account for a great deal of the human experience, except to say it is fantasy. Rationalists know better. They do not live under metaphysical illusions.

What is it like to live that way? Either materialism is true, or it is false. Do you ever doubt your position is true?

"The materialist philosophy…is certainly more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restriction than spiritualism...Materialists and madmen never have doubts." --Chesterton

[Anonymous]

“They forfeit the hope for perfect justice. They cannot state anything is objectively and universally wrong. If their evolutionary moment is thwarted, or limited, or oppressed, or hungry, or poor, or ignorant, or downtrodden, or ill, or handicapped, or isolated, or ignored, that is that. The only way they can know the truth is through the scientific method. The metaphysical aspects of the human experience are fantasy.

So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?”

To put it more bluntly, “Life sucks, then you die.” Yes OP, you’re finally getting it. Imagine this: a toddler falls asleep while being transported to daycare, and sleeps so silently that when the parent inadvertently goes to work rather than dropping her off, she is tragically left in a closed car on a hot and sunny day. The temperature rises inside the car, and the toddler wakes, crying, but nobody hears her. I’ll spare us both more details but the innocent child dies a horrific death, and the parent who cherished the child is left to deal with the horror of what he has done. Would it make up for such a horror if the child goes to paradise (or not, depending on your beliefs)? What perfect justice accounts for the hell that the parent must live for the rest of his life? Does the existence of a god who could intervene and save the child make it better or worse?

Bad things happen to good people. Animals kill and eat each other. The world contains brutal natural forces that kill and destroy homes and families without regard to their righteousness. Evil people sometimes get away with it.

Life sucks, then you die.

But the world also contains beauty without bound. You don’t need god to have hope, joy, love, and happiness. Nor do you need god to strive to make the world a better place and help those to whom life has dealt a bad hand. Maybe there is an accounting at the end. I don’t know. But whether there is or there isn’t I can try to enjoy my brief time on this earth to the fullest while doing my best to raise others up as well.

[Anonymous]

OP, the lack of god doesn't mean you can't place value on things. The slave child you describe had a crap life. It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair? Do you think life is fair? God doesn't make it fair. You may have a belief system in which there is an ultimate balance, but for most Christians, your slave child would not only have a crap life, he would also be damned to hell for eternity. After all, he never accepted Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is materialism just pure intellectual honesty for PPs? This is the hand we were dealt, we are just material and nothing more, death is the end, I am satisfied because I have to be?

[FYI, I'm not that PP.]

If your argument for belief is that one is happier with it, that's much better than your other arguments. There are several problems with it, though:
1) It's pretty hard to prove whether belief makes one happier.
2) Even if it does in general, it won't necessarily for me in particular.
3) Even if it were to make me happier, I'm skeptical that I could push myself into it.
4) Your argument doesn't suggest what particular belief one should hold. (Still waiting for your explanation of why you don't believe in faeries and you're not a Muslim, Mormon, etc..) I guess by your argument one should find the least demanding and restrictive religion that still maintains an element of divine power and justice (off the top of my head - reform Judaism?).
5) I believe that intellectual honesty does more net good for people than does religious belief. You dismiss it as "just...intellectual honesty." Intellectual honesty has been pretty important to humans. All branches of science, political philosophy, and every practical issue in life have depended upon its application.

You tell yourself that God will protect you from the bear, and I'll run away from it. You tell yourself that God will care for you and your family, and I'll get an education and a job. You tell yourself that your physical condition is God's will, and I'll watch my diet and consult with medical professionals. You tell yourself that God put the king in charge, and I'll contest that and fight for democracy. I acknowledge that at the end of the day it's possible that the devoutly religious person may remain happier as she maintains her faith even in the wreckage of her personal life and her society, but fortunately for her, many of us take the path of "just pure intellectual honesty," so she can ride our coattails.

Here's an easy (though sloppy) test of it. Below is a list of most and least religious countries and U.S. states. Where would you rather live?
http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-and-least-religious-countries-in.html

OP here. I was not making any argument at all. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to understand unbelievers. I had my own reasons for not believing, but that was just my story. I want to know where you are coming from.

You constructed a straw man argument, and I'm not sure if you were attributing it to me or not, but since it is not my "argument," I am not going to deconstruct it.

But you do raise an interesting distinction: the difference between seeking the God we want and the God that Is.

And does it really not trouble you that there is no such thing as perfect justice? That the "bad" guys win 99.99...% of the time? Please, I am NOT making any argument with this question!!! I am just trying to get a direct response. If you are right, and I am wrong, most human beings live a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short." What is it like to face that reality head on? Are humans really just mammals, then?

I'm just looking for a description of your perspective. I'm not asking you to practice "wishful thinking," I swear.

Feh. Except for the ever-shifting list of arguments you keep throwing out there, and that keep getting shredded.

Here's the bottom line:

1) Non-theists don't believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence whatsoever for gods. Therefore we don't believe in gods.

2) Theists, for whatever reason have a strong need to believe in gods, so the create reasons to do so. They do not require evidence; "faith" suffices. It's a kind of beneficial (theists argue) self-delusion that conveys all sorts of benefits.

3) To enumerate all the benefits of belief in gods for the benefit of non-theists is not productive.

4) Non-theists can never "refute" the existence of gods, because you cannot prove a negative. To non-theists, that's not evidence of gods' existence; it's evidence of the irrelevance of the god hypothesis.

Amusingly enough, the most relevant response so far has been the PP who asked "Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" You don't because, with one exception, you don't believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. God is that exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the lack of god doesn't mean you can't place value on things. The slave child you describe had a crap life. It's not fair. But who ever said life was fair? Do you think life is fair? God doesn't make it fair. You may have a belief system in which there is an ultimate balance, but for most Christians, your slave child would not only have a crap life, he would also be damned to hell for eternity. After all, he never accepted Christ.

Not only that, but we can actually work to change laws and attitudes to make things better. For instance to end child slavery. To elect officials who make that a foreign policy priority. To spend money such things. As opposed to spending public funds on abstinence education; or private funds on things like Museums of Creationism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

It's also been pointed out that unlike the English language, every three-letter DNA codon has meaning. If every possible three letter word in English had meaning, your odds of getting a good sentence would be pretty good.

I noticed the same thing about using English to compare with three-letter codons, and found that an unsatisfying comparison. The codes of English and DNA are completely different.

But we are circling back to the definition of a code. This seemed to make people really crazy, and I already experienced the code argument on the Infidels forum, so no need to resurrect it here. But if you have a personal critique of this definition of a code, I would appreciate if you want to share it:

“Coded information” is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium."

Otherwise, in regards to your other comment:

However, this overlapping gene pair is not unique. And scientists have asked a really good question, which is whether the frequency of such overlapping genes is random or not.

And the answer is that it is not.

Does this vindicate your creationist essay writer? No. You already read Dawkins' weasel program. So you know that selection pressure can result in non-random outcomes. In order for these overlapping genes to occur more frequently than random, all that is required is that it makes the organism more fit. Whether it makes the genome more compact and therefore less fragile, whether sometimes it results in the creation of related proteins, or whether there is some other cause, it does not matter. If it confers fitness, it will be over-represented.

I understand the theory that natural selection can result in non-random outcomes. (PPs previously went ballistic on me for not getting that, but they were referencing other PPs, not OP.) I am no expert, though, and am always looking for a deeper understanding.

Could you discuss the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations? Isn't the ratio tipped vastly in favor of harmful mutations? And what about the degree of harm or benefit? Even a highly beneficial mutation is unlikely to have a huge overall positive effect on the organism, whereas even a small harmful mutation could be fatal. Beneficial mutations would seem to need some sort of amplification to survive over the more frequent and more significant harmful mutations.

Since I am dreadful at math, I can't do my own probability calculations, but the odds seem stacked against progress, even with unfathomable amounts of time. In other words, a fundamental problem with random mutations is they are evenly distributed, and destruction of information always exceeds the gain.

[Anonymous]

“Coded information” is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium."

I don't know why no poster has pointed this out, but DNA fails this definition of code. There is a physical chemical relationship between the nucleotides in DNA and the amino acids they represent. The relationship is not symbolic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

[Anonymous]

"Could you discuss the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations? Isn't the ratio tipped vastly in favor of harmful mutations? And what about the degree of harm or benefit? Even a highly beneficial mutation is unlikely to have a huge overall positive effect on the organism, whereas even a small harmful mutation could be fatal."

I have had essentially this same question with regard to evolution, and am satisfied that the answer lies in my own failure of imagination about the long time periods required for macroevolution. Here's the example that convinced me: Sickle cell anemia is an inherited trait that changes the shape of red blood cells (this is from memory so people who know more feel free to correct if I miss the particulars). The condition resulted from a mutation and generally shortens life span, EXCEPT that sicle cells are less prone to malaria. So sickle cell anemia is actually an adaptive trait where you might otherwise die of malaria before you reach the age at which you can reproduce. So yes it's a mutation, yes it's a harmful mutation, but it's also adaptive.

[Anonymous]

"This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering 'Why?'"

I know this is just a rhetorical device, but your use of "objective" and "Why?" is just so illuminating. Because God is supposed to be all loving and all knowing and all powerful, so human objectives and questions are irrelevant.

This post proves that deists have a set of objectives, and one of them is not understanding the will of God.

See how easy that is? This is my last post becuase what I just did there made me sick to do. I't s not arguing in good faith. If it is, you'll just "aw shucks" your way on to the next circular and irrational thing. Goodbye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering 'Why?'"

I know this is just a rhetorical device, but your use of "objective" and "Why?" is just so illuminating. Because God is supposed to be all loving and all knowing and all powerful, so human objectives and questions are irrelevant.

This post proves that deists have a set of objectives, and one of them is not understanding the will of God.

See how easy that is? This is my last post becuase what I just did there made me sick to do. I't s not arguing in good faith. If it is, you'll just "aw shucks" your way on to the next circular and irrational thing. Goodbye.

Agree, OP does not argue in good faith. Your post is quite perceptive, though. You've identified one of the things I find quite grating about OP: that is, she starts from the premise that all "meaning" flows from God. If God doesn't exist, it's time to pull the plug. No meaning for anything, ever again!

This is, as you point out, ridiculous. We have social norms. One of those is a certain level of respect for one's interlocutor. That means you don't spit on them when you disagree. You also make an honest effort to answer your opponent's questions, and put forth an honest response of your own. I've found this kind of slippery intellectual dishonesty to be a kind of fundamental attribute of Christian apologetics. Maybe it's because "faith" requires a not insignificant amount of lying to oneself; maybe it's because of the longstanding practice of bible "interpretation", which is essentially picking an choosing whichever particular passage supports your personal position; and maybe it's the conceit shared by many religious folks that it's okay to treat non-believers in such shabby fashion because they're nothing but "materialists" anyway.

It's not very commendable either way.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting to me that the dynamic here has developed to set up religion v. science. I have no objection to science, I like the scientific method, but I am not a scientist and I don't think about science when I consider why I do not believe.

I have no reason to believe. I do not have faith. None of the arguments from logic are effective. Thus, I do not believe. But it isn't dependent on my having a scientific basis for the mysteries of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This DNA straw man is just kicking the can down the road.

Theists said the earth could not be 13.8 billion years old, until it was impossible to say otherwise. So now God is the uncaused cause behind the Big Bang.

Evolution was a heresy that the theists fought tooth and nail, until we discovered the mechanism, DNA, and it was impossible to deny. So now evolution is now just another example of the Divine Watchmaker at work.

If we show conclusively that RNA preceded DNA, they'll kick the can down that road. If we push it back to ribosomes, they'll kick it down there too. Still they will say that the system shows a quality that only an intelligent mind will create.

Then after another decade, we will prove that each of the steps can occur in real world settings without an intelligent hand guiding it. We will have not one but five different example pathways.

And they will then forget that they ever made this intelligent design argument and say "you can't prove that any of these is the way". And the fact that we will have done it five different ways will be used as proof against us, because there was most likely only one way and we won't know which one it really was.

Just more can kicking. And each generation of science deniers gets the luxury of shedding the previous generation's backwardness. Their grandparents mocked John Scopes but they are not responsible for that. However, scientists are responsible for their entire historical legacy. Scientists are held accountable for any change in theory. Scientists with differing views are used as proof of the limits of science. The very thing that gives science its integrity will be exploited as a weakness.

Face it, the theists always win because they do not have to play fair. Scientists are hamstrung by documenting their work, admitting its limitations, never being able to erase its mistakes, its requirement to use data and experimentation.

What an interesting post!

I know it was just a rhetorical device, but using the terms "win" and "lose," or "play fair," is so illuminating. Because science and materialism and empiricism and rationalism are all supposed to be about facts, not value judgments. There is no fair and unfair in matter and energy. They just exist.

(I'm channeling the video rationalist now.)

This post shows that science has its set of objectives, and one of those objectives is not answering "Why?"

Shorter OP: "Bah, atheist! Now suddenly you're interested in morality? Well, we've already established that without God, there isn't any. I'll be as big of a jerk as I want, and there's no divine retribution to serve me justice!"

Oh, slippery theists...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is troublesome that justice is not perfect. But it doesn't seem so satisfying even for theists. We all stuggle with injustice in this world, whatever happens in the afterlife.

But in one scenario, fighting for justice is hopeless and ultimately meaningless, and in the other, fighting for justice is hopeful and ultimately meaningful.

No, most atheists do not live a life that is nasty, brutish, or short. Is it impossible to imagine that atheists can be good, appreciative and optimistic about life?

You misunderstood my meaning: HUMANS live lives that are nasty, brutish, and short under materialism as truth, whether they are atheist or theist. The human experience is overwhelmingly awful for most humans, ever since there were humans.

And while we may be mammals, we have the same free will you do, even more perhaps because we do not have the threat of damnation. So when we choose, we really get to choose.

But mammals do not have free will the way humans do. Though actually, under materialism, free will does not actually exist, or if it does, it is pointless. A figment of our imagination.

And your understanding of freedom is telling. The freedom of no consequences--at least, no consequences that extend beyond this material universe. The freedom to define right and wrong. The freedom to make your own rules, because there are no objective ones.

The price of that freedom is that every other human being gets to exercise his or her freedom, too. And you may express your dismay at their choices, but your only recourse is emotional appeal or application of force. But the actions themselves have no inherent meaning, only the meaning you assign.

I thought the price of my personal freedom was worth it. For a time. But then, if it is what it is, it does not matter how I feel about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that the dynamic here has developed to set up religion v. science. I have no objection to science, I like the scientific method, but I am not a scientist and I don't think about science when I consider why I do not believe.

I have no reason to believe. I do not have faith. None of the arguments from logic are effective. Thus, I do not believe. But it isn't dependent on my having a scientific basis for the mysteries of life.

Good point. OP keeps kind of dragging us down to the level of "Oh, if Charles Darwin didn't know the full DNA sequence of the hawksbill sea turtle, then that's proof that the Judeo-Christian God exists!'