Why I am an atheist (can anyone present me with counter arguments?):?

Question

In the comments below, I have the basic reason for my atheism outlined, and I am curious if anyone can present serious challenges to it.

I should note that I am respectful of faith and find it valuable, but also note that it can be fragile, so I would caution those who are not used to critical evaluation of their faith or who would prefer not to look at arguments for atheism to leave this question alone; I am not here to shatter faiths, but rather to look at others' perspectives.

I don't argue here that it's impossible that a deity exists, but I argue that it's pointless to modify our behavior in any way without definitive evidence that a certain religion has it correct.

Suppose we take the idea that a deity exists, and is omnipotent, and has an afterlife that changes based on one's behavior in life. I think that most will agree that we can't (at least yet) prove that this is true, nor can we prove that it is false.

Suppose I choose to follow a religion that says that this deity likes it (and will reward me in the afterlife) if I do behavior X, but does not like it (and will punish me in the afterlife) if I do behavior Y. Pascal's Wager would argue that I should do behavior X and keep from doing behavior Y, just in case such a deity exists.

But, since we don't have proof one way or the other, it's equally likely that a deity exists who has exactly the opposite regulations (that is, this deity likes it (and will reward me in the afterlife) if I do behavior Y, but does not like it (and will punish me in the afterlife) if I do behavior X.).

So, if I abstain from a certain behavior because a deity might want me to refrain from it, I could be angering a deity who actually prefers me to engage in it as much as possible. Conversely, if I engage in a particular behavior that I think a deity might encourage, I could actually be angering a deity who does not like that behavior.

So, ultimately, while we might maintain the purely academic idea that a deity might exist (and have expectations for us, and an afterlife based on our adherence to those expectations), it's pointless for us to try to follow any set of rules for the sake of a deity, since we're as likely to have it exactly backwards as we are to have it right.

-

Now, this argument is based on the idea of Pascal's Wager, and is effectively a refutation of it (Pascal gave us the option of following the correct religion or being atheistic, but he did not mention the possibility that the religion we were following could be specifically angering an unknown deity).

But some might argue that we don't even need to get to Pascal's Wager at all; that the simple fact that our local religion is presented to us to follow means that a deity is already trying to guide us to it. Now, if there was only one religion anywhere and the world consisted only of adherents and atheists, I might agree. But if a deity is trying to guide us to one particular religion, he's doing an awful disservice to those who grow up in regions of the world where they never hear of it, and they think a deity is guiding them to another conflicting religion that happens to be locally prevalent there; the fact that many people live their entire lives without hearing of any given religion means that I cannot buy the argument that we're all being presented with the choice to either believe in a certain set of rules and interpretations, or to abstain from it.

-

So, this is effectively why I'm atheist. To simplify it into a conversation:

Person: "What if the God of my religion exists?"

Me: "Okay. Can you provide evidence of that?"

Person: "Well, not very convincing evidence. But you just have to have faith in the things you can't prove."

Me: "Why's that?:

Person: "Because if he doesn't exist, the worst that happens is I'm wrong, and we both rot in the ground together. But if he does, then those who don't believe in him and follow his rules will burn forever!"

Me: "Well, that's not entirely true. Suppose some other god exists, and he values knowledge, curiosity, but likes his privacy. What if there's one out there who punishes people who hold faiths and superstitions and rewards skepticism and inquiry?"

Person: "Well, you can't prove a deity like that exists."

Me: "True, which is why I don't believe in him. But, given a lack of distinguishing evidence, both deities are exactly as likely to exist, so we can't use one model to guide our actions unless we can gather evidence that points directly to the accuracy of one religion versus all possible others."

-

So - as far as answers go, I'm genuinely interested in flaws of my argument. However, I'm NOT interested in flaws in hypothetical other peoples' arguments, so if you respond, please read it completely and thoroughly before responding, to ensure that you're not simply throwing an opinion out there that I've already acknowledged and refuted.

Thank you in advance.

Answer 1

I) The relevant consideration for this question is one of domain - would any being worthy of the term "deity" fall within an empirical domain? The requirements for this are; 1) evidence that suggests a deity, and 2) only a deity suffices to explain said evidence. (1) No evidence seem to require such explanations, so the question is left open. Of course, this means that said deity (if it does exist) produces no known measurable effect within space/time, and is therefore irrelevant. So, you run into no trouble with just what you've argued. That said, here is one trivial problem with your reasoning:

If said being does exist, but does not (as it would seem) fall within an empirical domain, asking for evidence is not a rational position.

Answer 2

I won't insult you, but I'm to lazy to write something new, so I'll copy something i just wrote. How evolution works,simplified. You are actually right, an animal doesn't change into another animal. It really just changes within itself and humans arbitrarily give that animal a different name once it's went through enough small changes that it looks different. If we had a fossil of every animal that ever lived (the vast majority aren't fossilized) all lined up in a row, no one could pick any 2 side by side and say,"that is where it changed into another animal", because that never happens. However, if you were to jump ahead or back several of those small changes, you would see a dramatic change. Another way to look at it would be if you laid out the transformation of an embryo to a 90 year old. Say you had a picture from every day of development, you couldn't pick a spot between 2 side by side pictures and say, "that is were the person changed into an old person". Each picture would look virtually identical to the one beside it (although small changes are happening). If you took the first and last and compared them they wouldn't even look like the same being. Now, obviously you know what the different stages of human development look like so you wouldn't assume they were something different, but what if you had no knowledge of that and only had 3 pictures (fetus, hot 20 year old, old and wrinkly). You would probably call them by a different name. That is pretty much how evolution works (many small changes that add up to dramatic change over time). The first one cell animal (fetus) is still evolving and not really changing into anything new, it's just that we give the different stages (hot 20 year old, old and wrinkly) a different name, because they look so much different. Edit: The truth is, evolution is a proven fact. It is corroborated by every field of science involved. It has withstood over 150 years of scrutiny and only gotten stronger. So many ways evolution could be proven wrong, but so far nada. It's a pretty bold statement to claim you are smarter then the collective scientific community, so if you are going to claim such things, you had better be able to back it up. Edit: " I guess idiocy hides in numbers' Seriously Art, do you really think you don't bring this on yourself? You can't say sh!t like that and expect respect in return.

Answer 3

First of all, I need to congratulate for framing the question in a novel way.You don't agree to something yet want to listen to it-I appreciate and wish to request all my friends here to take a note of this new and healthy way to discuss.

Now returning to the ever-existing question or a doubt-whether God exists?

If u see something and u believe it, it is humane.
If u see something and can't explain, it is magic.
If u see nothing but acknowledge, it is feeling.
If u see something but don't accept, it is ignorance.
and
and
and
If u see nothing but doubt, it is God.

My dear friend, faith can't be fragile, it has to be firm-whether right or wrong. If faith is questioned , it is no longer a faith.

To find an intermediate way, let us accept non-existance of a super power. Then many things like birth, death, injustice, social imbalance etc.. would go unanswered.

Animals are generally seen to live in harmony with nature. This is their faith in super power, if you look at it with that perspective.

Spirituality is a science we are yet to understand.
In science,
we start with why and why and whys and then believe.
In spirituality,
we start with believing and then how, how and hows.
NEITHER OF THE APPROACH IS WRONG.

Yet another arguement.......
Even before Newton discovered gravity it was working. Before he discovered gravity, apples were not flying up, they were falling down only.
Similarly, god/supreme soul/supreme power or anything else u name , it is acting and will act. It is upto an individual to believe it to-day or later.

I have enjoyed writing this b coz, as I wrote in the beginning, it is a novel style of asking and hence I had to have a novel way of talking back. I do hope u too enjoyed it.

Answer 4

As a logic question, I'm sure your arguments are quite as valid as any other arguments, but you have missed a couple of points--probably becuse you have been led to miss those points due to the attempts of religious thinkers to push their dogma on you. If you are genuinely seeking only argument for the sake of argument, I have no help for you. But if you are in fact seeking answers to questions about life, I would hope to steer you away from religion and toward spirituality. Religion has nothing for you except argument and refutation, whereas spirituality can let you find answers without offending your own sensibilities. Outside the religious context, you can discover whether or not morality means anything to you, whether you feel that it is important to be a member of a society and what--if any--personal qualities you feel are worthy of your time to develop them in yourself. Perhaps there is a God, perhaps not. Perhaps there is a god who is evil, perhaps not. Will this really be your deciding factor about how to live your life? Follow goodness for the sake of goodness and IF there happens to be a god who is good, you will receive the reward that is due to you because a good god would not be so petty as to cheat you out of what is rightfully yours. And if there is no such god, a life lived for the sake of goodness will be a reward unto itself.
I know this wasn't what you were looking for, but it's my honest answer.
Please pardon typos if any. Spell check is on hiatus.

Answer 5

Mathematical probability is in favour of the existence of the Ultimate Eternal and Infinite Creator

There is also William James' Wager.

In this one a person does not believe in God and live ethically out of fear that one would go to hell for honestly not believing or doubting but one opts to believe because the benefits are better than any benefits from rejection of living as though God exists

Ethical living might as well have the emotional reward that one will be consoled in an afterlife for living uprightlt that to believe that there is no justice beyond death since if one is wrong and there is nothing one has not lost anything but has gained the consolations and motivations of a relation ship with god in this life.

Answer 6

I am an Atheist as well, but understand and theorize the reasoning behind other's faith in God, although they may never explain it in such terms as I here outline:

Whether or not one accepts the idea of a deity, there is, all can agree, the best expression of oneself; that is, the best application of oneself and one's abilities in dealing with this life, respecting this life, and improving this life, not just for the self, but for all. This best expressed self, this ideal, is not something that all come upon naturally. Most have this ideal presented within the framework of their society and culture.

Within Western society, the impact of the religious ideal is the only framework accessible to some people, either through lack of exposure, or one's own comfort level of pertinent exposure. The idea of God allows one to strive for their best expressed self within a familiar and comfortable framework, with the approval by and large of society and peer, and with the idea in mind that such efforts will be rewarded, both by societal approval in this life, and the afterlife theorizing that religion maintains.

Basically, this is the only touchstone that many persons can conceive of in their effort to best express the best in themself. It is a difficult pondering to consider, when one removes the catalyst of faith, yet this is, I believe, the best unbiased assessment of the function of religion and its positive purpose, at least for the majority of its adherents.

Answer 7

By your argument, everything you do could anger a God. There is no safe route, being an atheist could also be angering God, as well as being anything. You should not believe in religion because of fear of punishment in the afterlife. You believe in religion because you believe such a God with those morals exist. You seem to be more of a man that cannot believe with faith so ill try arguing with logic. Lets start with the belief that God does not exist. 1, A watch is an intelligent and complex design. 2, we can conclude that the watch has an intelligent maker. 3, In nature, many things are complex and intelligent as well. 4, Everything I have ever witness that is an intelligent design (computers, television, radios) except for nature is a product of an intelligent being. 5, the odds of something as complex as life (atoms, molecules, oxygen, and ect.) coming together and allowing me to exist is very slight odds without an intelligent designer based on the logic of what i have seen with my own eyes that all intelligent design and all life have come from another intelligent being. I cannot conclude God exists in this argument but I can conclude based on personal observation of all complex designs having an designer, there is a high chance that nature being an complex design also has an intelligent designer.
That makes it more likely God exists. Now lets prove his absoulte existance.
First we have to set the standard of things that cannot exist (things I cannot percieve of existing) such as a round square, or a married bachelor, Santa claus is not in this category because I can imagine/percieve the existance of him (although he does not exist he is not an impossible existance). 2nd comes existances that exist but do not have to exist. Such things would be me, you, computers, television, my desk and ect. They do exist but they do not have to exist. What has to exist? Math, because math is a concept that can exist without any physical existance. The concept of shapes must exist, some people argue colors must exist too although I do not think so. God I will try to argue fits into this category of absoulte existance. We can agree that God does not fit into the category of things that cannot exist because I can percieve of his existance. We also must agree existing in reality is greater than non existance. If i exist (with the same attributes) I am greater than an imaginary me (with the same attributes). God is all knowing, and all powerful. If there is a being greater than that greater being would be God. God is all things to the max the perfect. God must exist because I can concieve of God, if God did not exist then God is not the greatest being possible because an existing God would be greater. Hence God Must Exist.
For whether God is good or evil, i suggest you read into Socrates, he clearly suggests Good triumphs evil and it would take nearly 200 pages for me to describe it.

Answer 8

You will never find God in the mind.
God is not a deity.
God is all existence.
God can never be proved or disproved as God is existence, you are existence.
Hence you would have to pull your head in literally to know God. I doubt that many people are willing to do that.

To know God is to know who you are, not think, to know who you are and live as that truth.
It is in the living that "truth" that existence is understood.
It is not understood by the mind.
Hence either you are living truly in existence, as existence, as heart response only, or you are living in altered ego, outside of existence.
Mind is an activity, a doing.
Humans are a being.

I am not going to argue with you, you will not get it until you do. When you live this, you would not question, you will know, and you will know you know.

Bright blessings

Answer 9

*sigh*.... good start.

now you have effectively destroyed the concept that humans can know what God is. to the critical thinking, this was never a question.

i would never argue on the side of adhering to a specific religion. however, by saying you wont modify your behavior in anyway, you effectively modifying your behavior to be NOT like those things which religion tells you you "should" do.

even a "non modification" is in fact a modification. by this token, you can make the same argument that by not modifying in any way, you are guaranteed divine punishment assuming this deity exists and he wants you to do a certain thing, cause you're doing nothing!

there are only two resolutions to this paradox i have ever come up with. The first (and mind you this is speculation, but still fits as a theory): there can be no God which desires specific action. here desires is the key word. God cannot have desires. more correctly, God cannot have *unfulfilled* desires. if He is all powerful, when God desires something, it happens. if he wants you to act in a certain way, you do. but this negates the idea of free will. hence, if we take free will as a postulate (and yes i realize this in not a given, but if its not, everything is determined and theres no point in having this conversation to begin with ;) this means God cannot have desires. His only desire was that this universe exist, and even that im not so sure about.

The alternative to this is as such: in the previous argument you assume that this God had set up a system of divine rewards and punishments. What if there is no such system? when we die we either return to the Source or are recycled back into the system. effectively the belief of reincarnation. this brings with it all sorts of other questions of course like "how does it get decided what i come back as?" and "why dont i remember my other lives?" which i cant really address... but this is the other alternative i can see to get out of this conundrum.

this is all assuming of course there is a God who is the Source of existence. i tend to side with Aquinas on this one that there cannot be motion without a first mover, but im still up in the air about that....

i do know what God is NOT though: He is not desirous (no anger, no will, no pleasure, no pain, no wishes for certain actions etc) because such an existence would negate our own free will. Also, God does not directly act in this world.

Either that, or our whole existence is determined.... which i refuse to believe for reasons of personal sanity :)

Or God just simply doesn't exist... but were left with an even more daunting question, "then how are we here?"

hope this makes some sense to you... it makes a little to me ;)


EDIT: i love my answers which get tons of thumbs downs! it means im either pissing people off or making them think too hard lol. bring it on thumbers!!!!!

Answer 10

Your entire line of "reasoning" is based on purely fallible human supposition, and is not (or should not) seriously engage anyone's attention than long enough to grab two points and move on. Don't be offended by this, but your entire post is based on what you obviously think SHOULD be the case. That was addressed and settled long ago by the writers of the bible. The reason why your question is entirely moot is because any smart Christian will remember Paul's words about NOT entertaining other perspectives(err, doctrines as here intended) not according to sound biblical doctrine. That is why your entire post fails from A to Z.