Argument against atheism

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

For those who believe that proving yourself is possible,

Try this....raise a hammer high over your head and bring it down as hard as you can on your other hand.

Let me know if it hurts or not.

There was a faith healer of Beale,
Who said "although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin,
and it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel". (anon)

[Perhaps]

One of my favorite videos. I saw it on TED awhile ago, but I'm glad you brought it up. By the way, the quote from 9:12 is the inspiration for my thread Rationally proving rationality (http://atheistforums.org/thread-9924.html). It also has one of my favorite quotes at the end about the intuitive mind and the rational mind.

Let's see if we can square away a few of the big pieces.

Would you agree that consciousness is not something we perceive. Rather, it is the way the objective world reacts with our fields of consciousness which gives rise to perception. Consciousness arises as awareness of the objective world. There is no separate substrate of the universe made up of consciousness which gives rise to the illusion of an objective world. Rather, it is organisms interacting with the physical world which gives rise to consciousness. Many creatures have this to some degree. But as far as we know, we are the only ones who use the abstract medium of language to describe and ponder the world and ourselves.

I agree that consciousness is not something we perceive - it is what causes us to perceive (although this is an interesting concept, similar to consciously trying to perceive non-existence of the self). Consciousness does arise as awareness of the objective world, but I'm not sure how much of the world I consider objective (you make it sound like you adhere to objectivism and we simply create subjective ideas based on everything that exists) - I'm of the opinion that very few things in the world are actually objective, and from these principle objective items we perceive the subjective world we live in. I agree with the final sentence.

The notion of god is not just a ponzi scheme invented by the shrewd to fleece the masses, though some organized religions seem to work that way. Religious experience in the form of gods seems to have arisen everywhere in similar motifs. These experiences may have served a number of purposes but one must be careful not to confuse causation with correlation. Appealing to gods to ensure a harvest or a hunt may have allayed anxiety but it makes no more sense to say that is why men invented gods than it does to say giraffes grew their necks longer in order to reach the higher leaves. In both cases, evolution operates to promote traits with survival value.

Mhm, I suppose this is true.

Now I personally don't think the god delusion operates purely in terms of mass hypnosis. I don't really think our species would have gone on believing in gods to the degree we have if there wasn't something in our nature that supports the notion. So god's ontology is linked to our own, and dependent on us rather than the other way around.

I think you should specify your meaning of God is this usage. The ontology of a personal God or even God as a creator may be dependent on the human species, as it mirrors many of our own traits - compassion, hate, anger, love, etc., however a God which simply exists has no need to be consciously perceived. It could be part of the objective world in which we live.

My own pet theory for what it is in our subjective lives which supports the god hypothesis is the fact that the division of the brain into two hemispheres has actually resulted in two seats of consciousness in us all. I know it sounds weird. More often we think of ourselves as a unity in which the conscious mind is seen as a kind of scoop of the total largely unconscious mind. But the structuring of the brain into two hemispheres serves the purpose of allowing us to attend to focused tasks with our left brain while a separate part of our mind carries on autonomously, scanning the environment for threats and opportunities. I also consider this account as highly provisional but before you dismiss it, watch this video on Ian McGilchrist:

Interesting, I'll have to think about it.

[Darwinning]

Exodus 3:14. Then the universe. Assholes can't even read their own script.

I don't like the script. I improvise; otherwise known as "making stupid shit up as I go along".

From my own observation, I have good reason to believe that this is what everybody else is doing.

---

I too have noticed that some atheists treat the existence of god as something science can help us decide. I agree that if god has any meaning at all it has to be subjective and ontological. It isn't 'out there'
where science can get at it.

God is the assumption about reality that atheists are not willing to make.

I personally believe that assuming God adds nothing. It does not help me explain the world I perceive in any way. Scientific models based on realism seem to be able to predict the world just fine without Him; and predictions do not become more accurate when we do asume He exists.

So I think you are right that science cannot disprove God. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality cannot be rejected based on proof. But we can apply Occam's razor and infer probability. I believe reality is a set of simple rules applied to matter. God seems way too complicated.

[Norfolk And Chance]

For those who believe that proving yourself is possible, or proving anything is possible, I would recommend reading some ontology. If you don't think that ontology has value then I would recommend reading some axiology. If you think philosophy has no value then I would recommend ignorance, for that seems to suit most who blindly accept science as absolute truth.

So, another fucker that thinks that one cannot prove ones own being? Is this what you are saying? Are you? I hope not, because that would make you stupid - despite all of the intelligent sounding stuff that you spout. I have no time for pseudo intellectual philosobollockers.

IF ontology, axiology and philosophy (I'm fucked if I'm going to read it on your advice) say I cannot prove myself or anything, then they are WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Starts with a "W", ends with a "G". Has a fucking "RON" in the middle.

Do you understand? WRONG.

WRONG.

That is the opposite of RIGHT. Just in case you or any other babblers still don't get it.

A philosophical discussion is merely that - a discussion. There is no argument, for the discussion is what is creating the premises, and without premises an argument isn't an argument. If there is no argument then there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm sorry if this frustrates some who believe that there are such things objectively.

Subjectivity is, perhaps, the point of this thread - or at least what has become of this thread. In a existence where two or more things are conscious there is subjectivity. This subjectivity does not negate the possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious beings. This subjectivity does however negate the possibility that all things are objective - which is the premise of objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)).

The recognition that there is a possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious being negates the premise of metaphysical solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Thus we are left in a position somewhere between these two. One that recognizes the conscious' effect on our perception of reality while also recognizes the possibility of objective existence outside of our own conscious self.

'Philosobollocks' is only meaningless if you determine it to be so. Like I said, ignorance is a tolerable position to hold, but not one that gives you the right to determine absolute truths or facts.

Are you just a random word generator?.

Meaningless waffle.

[KichigaiNeko]

I thought amonkyman left?? Due to not having an argument??

Damn these meds!

[The Grand Nudger]

So I think you are right that science cannot disprove God. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality cannot be rejected based on proof. But we can apply Occam's razor and infer probability. I believe reality is a set of simple rules applied to matter. God seems way too complicated.

Honestly depends on the "god" being invoked. If it's any god of any pantheon man has ever invented and then worshipped, then yes, science and evidence can definitely rule yay or nay. If it's a god designed specifically to suit an argument then maybe not. Course, people always want to hold onto something about the god they believe in as they work the god of their arguments. If you let them go on long enough you'll always find a claim to the material, the physical, the observable, and there you can then apply science and evidence. Those people at the core of these stories, all of the believers whose thoughts and opinions formed what would later be stratified into major religions felt that their god was very much in the material world. Interacting constantly, walking alongside them, present at a mountain etc. The current "god is beyond our world" shit is just a retreat from claims that even the most devout seem to wish had never been made.

To simplify

God did this, and this, and this, and this-
No, none of that happened, all evidence we have says nay, and there is no supporting evidence to be found anywhere.
Well, that doesn't disprove god!-
No, but it does provide demonstrable evidence that whatever nebulous god may be floating about undetected, it isn't the one that you just described, which is quite plainly a fantasy.

Now, how many gods do you imagine would be left after disqualifying those stories about gods which are in complete contradiction with evidence we do have, and have no evidence in support of their existence? Science isn't about "proving" anything, but it does give us answers to questions that we have every reason to leverage without tons of qualifiers just so that we can say that we're being "technically accurate with regards to philosophy". Evidence says the creation narrative in the bible is garbage. I'm not going to say....."The creator god described in the bible did not create us, as described, and therefor does not exist as described, though I cannot argue against the notion of a nebulous god with no quantifiable attributes or actions, and technically cannot prove anything at all about anything"....No, just fucking no. "Sorry buddy, your god is demonstrable bullshit." Any argument about god that relies solely on philosophy will always devolve into the tired ass "you cannot truly prove anything" line. Which is hilarious, because it always starts out as an attempt to prove god. When the believer finds that they cannot, they set fire to the fields as they retreat. Well, congratulations, an argument can tell us whether or not we are capable of inventing a god in our minds that would not seem to be illogical. Without any supporting evidence that god is stuck in our minds as a viable concept, but nowhere else. Who gives a fuck what we can imagine? Is what we've imagined real?

[Epimethean]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning!

[Darwinning]

So I think you are right that science cannot disprove God. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality cannot be rejected based on proof. But we can apply Occam's razor and infer probability. I believe reality is a set of simple rules applied to matter. God seems way too complicated.

Honestly depends on the "god" being invoked. If it's any god of any pantheon man has ever invented and then worshipped, then yes, science and evidence can definitely rule yay or nay. If it's a god designed specifically to suit an argument then maybe not. Course, people always want to hold onto something about the god they believe in as they work the god of their arguments. If you let them go on long enough you'll always find a claim to the material, the physical, the observable, and there you can then apply science and evidence. Those people at the core of these stories, all of the believers whose thoughts and opinions formed what would later be stratified into major religions felt that their god was very much in the material world. Interacting constantly, walking alongside them, present at a mountain etc. The current "god is beyond our world" shit is just a retreat from claims that even the most devout seem to wish had never been made.

To simplify

God did this, and this, and this, and this-
No, none of that happened, all evidence we have says nay, and there is no supporting evidence to be found anywhere.
Well, that doesn't disprove god!-
No, but it does provide demonstrable evidence that whatever nebulous god may be floating about undetected, it isn't the one that you just described, which is quite plainly a fantasy.

Now, how many gods do you imagine would be left after disqualifying those stories about gods which are in complete contradiction with evidence we do have, and have no evidence in support of their existence? Science isn't about "proving" anything, but it does give us answers to questions that we have every reason to leverage without tons of qualifiers just so that we can say that we're being "technically accurate with regards to philosophy". Evidence says the creation narrative in the bible is garbage. I'm not going to say....."The creator god described in the bible did not create us, as described, and therefor does not exist as described, though I cannot argue against the notion of a nebulous god with no quantifiable attributes or actions, and technically cannot prove anything at all about anything"....No, just fucking no. "Sorry buddy, your god is demonstrable bullshit." Any argument about god that relies solely on philosophy will always devolve into the tired ass "you cannot truly prove anything" line. Which is hilarious, because it always starts out as an attempt to prove god. When the believer finds that they cannot, they set fire to the fields as they retreat. Well, congratulations, an argument can tell us whether or not we are capable of inventing a god in our minds that would not seem to be illogical. Without any supporting evidence that god is stuck in our minds as a viable concept, but nowhere else. Who gives a fuck what we can imagine? Is what we've imagined real?

Existential philosophy as the last fallback position of the failing argument. The Helms Deep of the hopelessly devoted.

[Whateverist]

I too have noticed that some atheists treat the existence of god as something science can help us decide. I agree that if god has any meaning at all it has to be subjective and ontological. It isn't 'out there'
where science can get at it.

God is the assumption about reality that atheists are not willing to make.

I personally believe that assuming God adds nothing. It does not help me explain the world I perceive in any way. Scientific models based on realism seem to be able to predict the world just fine without Him; and predictions do not become more accurate when we do asume He exists.

So I think you are right that science cannot disprove God. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality cannot be rejected based on proof. But we can apply Occam's razor and infer probability. I believe reality is a set of simple rules applied to matter. God seems way too complicated.

That must make me an atheist then since I don't have any reason to think god has any objective reality whatsoever. I agree that god adds no flavor to the broth or accuracy to a trajectory. If one is afraid that the god contagion will cause a relapse into faith then by all means borrow Occam's razor and cut it off. But if you wish to understand where the notion of god came from and why it is so pervasive in human history then it would be better not to begin my labeling it as "stupid stuff we used to believe".

[The Grand Nudger]

Calling god "stupid stuff we used to believe" is a pretty accurate description of the situation. They had terrible reasons for believing it then, but those reasons where what was available to them. Doesn't make the idea "smarter" then than it is now. It's always been a worthless theory. In the absence of any evidence or explanation, the human mind will provide both.