Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Mister Agenda]

Hey Mr A. You're right I could have worded the poll better.

What do you think the options should have been?

What I was trying to discover by it was to counter what I thought two people in particular were giving me grief about, which was their assertion that most atheists believed that there was no god, rather than what I have experienced to be the vast majority experience, admittedly of vocal atheists, is that they vehemently opposed that view, and claim to: "lack belief in any god". I can quote that from memory as I've seen it so many times.

Over on Dad's old forum there was an atheist guy fighting for the right to state that his was a belief. You wouldn't believe the shit he received.

A very polite reply to a very insulting post, that's graceful of you.

How about 'if you are an atheist, do you have any beliefs?' Yes, No, or Other. My guess is that you would get mostly 'Yes's', but I would be surprised if you didn't get at least a small minority of other answers.

My apologies if you merely forgot exactly what the argument was over. I jumped to the conclusion that it was deliberate.

I agree that most Western atheists would say they lack a belief in God, it's the sort of cautious formulation one expects from rational empiricists.

[fr0d0]

I'm tempted to give that one a go Mr A

[Whateverist]

I assume you mean, "if you are an atheist do you have any beliefs regarding gods or a god?"

I think my response would be: nothing I've heard of gods has amounted to a reason for me to do or not do anything whatsoever. So I at least have no active belief in gods, for or against. If pressed to say if I think they literally exist apart from people's minds I would say no, I don't believe so. But I wouldn't volunteer the assertion "gods do not exist" because I think there is definitely something which has given rise to that popular belief. So there is a sense in which gods do exist. It just isn't the same sense in which molecules and horses and electricity and colors and gravity and emotions exist. If gods exist, their existence is contingent upon our own.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Too bad it's too late to change your stupid poll, eh?

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'd take it further and argue that there is no discernible difference between a transcendent incorporeal entity, and that entity which exists only in the minds of those who believe in said entity.

God could be simply a model by which adherents have interpreted the observable phenomena of the observable universe and that mechanism to which they attribute previously inexplicable phenomena.

The trouble arises when you rely entirely on what a bunch of primitive goat-herders came up with during a "hey, man, what if:" session, and attempt to overlay literal truths about the intent of said entity onto human history.

Really, the earth is only 6,000 years old? That's all your omnipotent deity has got?

[Duke Guilmon]

Well there I am sort of a combination of there is no god and a agnostic on the subject of god but I need to explain why.

When it comes to gods like Yaweh, Krishna, or Vishnu, that I can say those gods can never exist. Why? Because the claims made about those gods where wrong. Now it isn't being wrong that is the problem it is the fact that those gods are claimed to be 100% accurate and therefore real. However due to the fact there is incorrect claims in every religion, making it safe to say there gods are 100% false.

A god like the one a deist would believe in is something I am agnostic towards. Why? Because this god is not claimed with 100% accuracy. This means that this subject is not proven and can't be dis-proven. So I must remain agnostic on this version of a deity because nothing about its existence can't be said except I think this claim is right or that I don't believe this claim because there is no evidence for it.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Hey, never talked to you before but I like your opinions. Thought I'd go through them.

I'd take it further and argue that there is no discernible difference between a transcendent incorporeal entity, and that entity which exists only in the minds of those who believe in said entity.

I know this similar argument that I like to use when theists will claim their god is not detectable or can not be scientifically tested for, transcendent etc.

There are 3 gods in this example just for the sake of argument.

1) A god who manifests in reality.

2) A god who doesn't manifest in reality.

3) A god who doesn't exist.

Then I'd ask how to differentiate between #2 and #3 if god can not be detected somehow or transcends reality etc.

God could be simply a model by which adherents have interpreted the observable phenomena of the observable universe and that mechanism to which they attribute previously inexplicable phenomena.

That's sort of how it worked, and it started with the Sun.

The trouble arises when you rely entirely on what a bunch of primitive goat-herders came up with during a "hey, man, what if:" session, and attempt to overlay literal truths about the intent of said entity onto human history.

But you see...special revelation to uneducated people is how he had to do it. Stupid atheist xD

Really, the earth is only 6,000 years old? That's all your omnipotent deity has got?

Making a perfect universe and many perfect/intelligent species with a snap of his fingers would ruin your free will to do the evil he created. ;P

[Coffee Jesus]

I'd take it further and argue that there is no discernible difference between a transcendent incorporeal entity, and that entity which exists only in the minds of those who believe in said entity.

A god could be a law or instantiations of said law rather than any material thing. There isn't a huge difference. Observable objects are only regions of space and time that are relevant to the operation of physical and chemical laws. If you take away those laws, you take away observable objects.

Perhaps a bigger problem is how a god could have a mind.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The more complex a system, e.g. the more abstract the calculations a system can perform, the less distinct the concept of mind becomes from complexity.

In speculative AI constructs, there's an idea that employing more than the two variables in binary logic, and relying on fuzzy logic or the 4-base "language" we see in DNA could be used to build systems so complex as to be indistinguishable from a kind of mind. Even viewed long-form, the idea of evolution has characteristics that fool the uninformed into thinking "oh hey, there's an entity here. This system is making choices, and learning from its mistakes in a rudimentary way."

Which is why I don't see how any theist would reject an incredibly old universe, or earth.

We see enormously complex systems over vast spans of time giving at least the appearance of some kind of processing power, and the argument for some sort of hive-mind of God being emergent from extreme complexity would seem to have some merit, if we were to discard anthropomorphism.

But perhaps the idea itself is characteristic of our habit of projecting our own minds onto everything around us, the same as animism.

[Mr Greene]

Except that the theist would reject that idea because it implies that he/she isn't "special", and will then insist on dogmatic literalism, leaving us back at square 1.