How does an Atheist conclude that there is no higher order or "God!"?

Question

Having read and studied both sides of the issue, and taken more than a few classes on the different subjects; I am curious to recieve public input from the real world as to your (Atheist) conclusion to no higher order or "God." If I can't prove "God" and you can't prove "no God," then how do you explain the origin and substance of your belief or life? It is a belief is it not? It is faith in nothing and is no different than say another's faith in something.....correct?

Am I correct to understand that to believe in nothing is to therefore conclude that I am nothing? Or, if I believe in something (anything) than I am projecting myself to be a part of that belief?

Help me out here because I have a number of great friends who share different beliefs (including Atheism), and we are all trying to define, if not substantiate the origins of these particular beliefs.

More importantly, where does one begin without having to ride on the coat-tails of another person's theory?

Answer 1

Seems to me like you should go back and change the tense of the word "studied" and start reading and studying some more. I would also suggest a class or two in symbolic logic.

That said, it seems like you're rather intelligent and open minded so I'm going to take the time to give you a thoughtful and serious answer. I hope you appreciate my efforts.

First, the logic.

You not being able to prove "God" is not the same as us proving "no God" for a number of different reasons.

The primary reason is that it is logically impossible to disprove the existance of something. If you understand how logic works, you will see why. Bertrand Russel's "Celestial Teapot" and the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" are two illustrations of this principle. (See first two source links) This is why, in logic terms, the burden of proof is on proving something DOES exist. Claiming otherwise (there is a god because you can't disprove him) is a logical fallacy.

There is also something called Occam's Razor (third link) which is a maxim rather than a proof, that suggests that all other things being equal, the simplest theory is the best one. Some people erroneously conclude this means the simplest theory is the RIGHT one, which isn't necessarily the case. But it is certainly the simplest theory that we should work with. It is akin to the law of parsimony which states, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In other words, if you can explain something with what you have, you shouldn't create anything else.

Now that we have a bit of a logical basis, lets go to town.

The scientific method is an excellent process for figuring out questions of the physical world. The scientific method has given us a wonderful little thing called the theory of evolution. Do not let the word theory confuse you as it has a special meaning in science. You don't fly through the air if you don't believe in the theory of gravity. Evolution and natural selection can provide a quite convincing explanation of how we came to be here. Scientists in cosmology have begun using principles of natural selection to explain how the stars and planets are formed too because it is very effective. Here's the kicker, the real beauty of evolution, as all science, is that it is falsifiable. That means it is logically possible to be disproven. We know what evidence would have to come about that would cause us to abandon or modify evolution. If such evidence were to arise, scientists and atheists would immediately adopt a new explanation that the evidence better supports. This is going on today actually while scientists decide what level is the driving force behind evolution, is it the species, the individual, or the gene? Evolution is not a belief because science is a process. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. This means that, by extension, atheism is not a belief.

The Christian creation myth seems simple enough in comparison. God created everything. But this includes a fallacy as God cannot be disproven. Can you even imagine what the evidence could possibly be that would disprove God? The astonishing answer to this question is NOT a virtue. It only once again illustrates the logical fallacy. (As an illustration of this, check out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as my 4th link)

In order for creationism to be true, God must exist. (violating Occam's Razor as another entity is introduced where one is not needed) Ignoring most of the other questions that logic demands (like, what created God) all you have to do is examine the complexity of a type of being with the properties attributed to god and the improbability of such a creature existing. Suddenly we have something very complex (again violating Occam's Razor, see 5th link for the "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit") making the existance of God very, very improbable.

Now considering the vast number of gods that have ever existed, how religious dogma has changed over the years, how creation stories are being explained in non-religious ways (see my answer in the 6th link) and how Voltaire (1694-1778) said, "If God didn't exist, one would have to be invented" don't you think it's quite possible that that is exactly what has happened?

Which makes more sense, that we've had 5,000 false religions and one true one (despite the problems with that listed above) or that we've had 5,001 false religions.

Being a theist requires belief, while being an atheist does not.

To continue (my apologies to those still reading, he asked a lot of questions)...

"To believe in nothing is to therefore conclude that I am nothing?"

That is a question of philosophy. If you are a Stoic, you might well conclude that.

To conclude that all personal meaning comes from religion is illogical and egotistical. A question of personal meaning is often a question of values rather than beliefs. Humanism is a value system. Animism is a value system. They do not require god or beliefs.

Philosophers have been studying morality far before Jesus came along, and they continue to do so today. Morality does not come from religion. Experiments are being done today comparing the "moral compass" of Christians and Atheists and comparing them to each other and to those of indigenous tribes. Can you guess the outcome? All three groups were shown to have a very similar morality.

As for your last question, one begins where one begins with everything else. The evidence and the self.

Best of luck to you and your friends on your quest. Keep learning, keep reading, keep asking.

Answer 2

God did not create man, man created god. You can prove something but you cant prove nothing. Religion MAKES answers for questions that, at this time in our evolution, can not be answered. God is also used as an excuse by mankind to justify our actions. I killed those Indians because they don't believe in god. We destroy the South American civilizations in the name of god and church. Lets have an Inquisition in the name of god and torture people.
At one time religions believed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything else revolved around us. Look what the church did to those men of intelligence that showed the Sun was the center of our solar system.
Take the bible, good fiction there. Adam, Eve, Cain kills Able. Cain gets cast out and gods says if anybody kills him they will suffer. Cain takes a wife? Where did these others come from ? Was there another god on the other side of the hill creating humans too? Noah builds an Ark. Him, his wife, 3 sons and their wives. All from the same village. Were they Black, White, Oriental, Blond, Red Hair, Brown eyes, Blue eyes ? We are supposed to believe all the human diversity came from 3 men and 3 woman? By the way, did Noah object to having dinosaurs on his ark ? There's no mention of god having mass killings before the flood so they must have been there. There is fossil proof for the existence of dinosaurs. I can go on and on. To " believe in nothing ,,,, conclude I am nothing? " is absurd. You don't need a diety to believe in yourself. Also what makes the belief in one god the right one. How many religions have mutiple gods and think one god is wrong. If there is (was) a god it was the big bang that started everything.

Answer 3

Sorry Avant, but atheism is the belief that there is no god, so it is itself a religion. Since the existence of god cannot be disproved altogether, atheism relies on a form of faith. In this case, the faith is that there is no god. A lack of faith is best described as agnosticism.

As for your question, I arrived at the conclusion that there is no god at a relatively young age. Most "supernatural" beings were proved to be false to my satisfaction, including Santa, the boogeyman, ghosts, trolls, etc. So it was a logical jump to conclude that there is nothing supernatural, only things yet unexplained by science. I figured that just like the superstition of the edge of the world, given enough time, we will be able to explain everything that occurs. So logic and science are the origins of my beliefs.

As for the origin of my life, I learned about that through a book that explained sex and pregnancy.

And for the record, I don't believe in "nothing". I believe in plenty of things, just not any god.

Answer 4

first of all i think there is sufficient evidence that "God" does not exist. But leaving that aside, your argument doesn't hold much water.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that a disbelief in god is no more warranted than a belief in god if there is no evidence either way. So if one side cannot prove god and the other cannot disprove god, then belief is just as valid as disbelief.

Since you have taken more than few classes on this subject you have doubtless come acroos Bertrand Russell's argument against this. He says (roughly, I don't remember the details) to imagine that there is a debate over whether there is a tea-cup orbiting around the sun somewhere between the orbits of earth and mars. The pro-tea-cup side claims that there is no eivdence that this tea-cup does not exist. It is far too small for the telescopes to see. The anti-tea-cup side claims that there is no evidence that this tea-cup exists. It cannot be detected in anyway. No which side holds the more valid argument? Or would you say that since neither side can produce evidence it is just as great an act of faith to believe that that tea-cup is not there as to believe that it is?

This is obviously absurd, and a Christian (or any person of faith who actually blieved this) would then be in the position of admitting that other religions which cannot be proved or disproved are just as valid of their own (which cannot be proved or disproved.)

So I think the first part of your question is obviously wrong. You and your friends need to reexamine that.

The second part tries to draw a connection between beliefs about an entity outside of oneself to beliefs about oneself. I think you need to clarify what you mean by an atheist believing in "nothing." Atheists believe in a lot of things outside of themselves - law, ethics, truth, science, etc. So would only be accurate to say that an atheist does not believe in anything supernatural, but how does this entail that the atheist believes they are nothing themselves? This needs a lot of explaining. it seems obvious to me (an atheist) that I am something. If you want to say that disbelief makes the individual in to a nothing, you should look at your own disbelief regarding, for example, hinduism. Your disbelief in hinduism doesn't create any vacuum in you. Why does my disbelief in christianity create a vacuum in me? If you answer that your religion fills that hole for you, I can respond that my worldview (philosophy) fills it for me.

As for the final part I don't think you can help but ride on other people's coat-tails, at least for a long time. Our views about the world are created by our culture to a much greater extent than we recognize. Any "original" idea you come up with without having a conscious understanding of the cultural roots of your beliefs will almost certainly be just a reiteration of common cultural values. It is like the phenomenon in our society of all the people who claim to be creative, unique, or original individuals, and by doing so buy in to the cultural norms of their time. By insisting on their individuality they are exposing their lack of individuality. Sorry , i guess that was off on a tangent. i was just trying to show that it is expecting quite a lot to think that you will come up with a theory independent of the accepted ideas you have been surrounded with all your life.

Answer 5

Based on lack of evidence and logical thought process I personally have come to NOT believe in god, that sums it up. It isn't a belief, but a lack thereof. Its not that we believe in nothing, we believe we exist, and don't know why. We just don't jump automatically to the easiest answer. But as there is no proof of a god... and multitudes of proof against gods such as the christian one... we make the decision ourselves. Truthfully, the burdon of proof is on the idea. Not the lack of the idea.

Also, there is no beginning without expanding on others thoughts... if you're the beginning, you can only get so far. Progress is dependant on continuing thought.

Answer 6

Your statement "to believe in nothing is to therefore conclude that I am nothing" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is quite possibly the most illogical thing I have ever read. You've taken a false assumption about atheists (that we believe in nothing), and drawn a completely random conclusion. Atheists do not believe in nothing, we just don't believe in gods. There are things other than gods. And then you've made this bizarre assumption that someone who doesn't believe in gods must not believe in people either. Seriously, what are you on?

Answer 7

From the lack of evidence, plus understanding the burden of evidence.

I can't answer your "Am I correct to understand...?" stuff because it doesn't remotely resemble anything I've ever heard, or thought, or considered, and it doesn't make any sense at all as far as I can see.

Frankly, you're making this far too complicated. Atheists don't believe in god for exactly the same reason that you don't believe that there's a polka-dotted chimpanzee dancing on your head at this moment.

Answer 8

The paradox of a all powerful God creating such irrelevant beings. A all powerful God would be everything including us so he can not possible exist. If your are talking about some kinda life force that is not self aware that's different.

Answer 9

I don't think they can reach that conclusion. They can only admit, just like Christians, that there is no scientific method of proving God. Atheists have no mental assent to believe in God. Christians on the other hand have the assent of their hearts, witnessing with the Holy Spirit that God is real. This immaterial heart knowledge is called faith. This heart knowledge is then strenghtened and even converted into mind knowlege (maybe probabilistic) as the Christian experientially finds God to be true.

Answer 10

Give me an idea how to prove something is not there ......

The way hypothesis works is to ASSUME something is there, then prove it. Humans had tried that for centuries, but there is still not prove of god, so in theory there is no god. Unless proven otherwise.

The originality of life is still in search ..... there are a few hypothesis. Please proceed to the library to search it out, no way it is going to fit in this small column.