Why is it considered trendy to deny God?

Question

Why is it considered trendy to deny God? Why do some like to be atheists or pagans or believe that they are intellectually beyond God? Why do those who assert that there is no proof of God's existence fail to point out that nor is there proof that God does not exist?

Disappointing so far. Some answers have avoided the question or gone off on an unholy tangent. Perhaps I should have explained that I am not a so-called 'bible thumper' nor am I a believer in organized religion or in the "official" churches. Jesus himself said that his church was whenever two or more believers were gathered together in His name.

"Science and logic have all the answers" runs the conventional wisdom. Yet "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

Answer 1

I don't think it's considered trendy to deny God. I think that we, in today's society, respect other people's belief and that that is trendy.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but you have a lot of presumptions about atheists. Who said that they feel intellectually beyond God? Who said it's trendy to deny God? And I'm not sure how you can compare atheists and pagans, since they clearly have very different belief systems. Pagans believe in gods, and are religous. Atheists do not believe in any religous figure.

I think you should respect other people's beliefs, and they will in turn respect yours. You can not force your beliefs on others. And you can not justify their beliefs either because you don't know what they believe!

I have seen no proof that God exists, but no proof that he doesn't exist either. But to someone of faith, this is exactly what it means to have faith, right? That you believe that God exists despite not having proof? That's really the difference. That a religous person believes in God even though there is no proof, and that an atheist doesn't believe in God whether there is proof or not.

If someone chooses not to believe in God (or any other religous figure for that matter), then that's their business and you should respect that. I think it is healthy that you are trying to understand where other people are coming from, but you place a negative connotation in your question, and you should be careful about.

Answer 2

People have been denying god for centuries, at the very least. I'm not convinced it is more of a "trend" now than it ever was.

You ask, "Why do some like to be atheists or pagans or believe that they are intellectually beyond God?" Does it make sense to you to ask the other question, "Why do some people like to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?" Just as most religious people would answer, most atheists would tell you it is a question of belief, not of "liking" to be an atheist, agnostic, what have you.

As for your last point, let me give it a shot.

1. There is no proof that God exists.
2. There is no proof that God does not exist.

Hmmm...that wasn't too hard, was it? But where do we go from there? Everybody gets to come up with their own answer, and for some that answer is atheism.

Answer 3

Its not considered trendy. Its the truth.

[add] Your statements thus far are a far cry from intellectual. You have made observations that are vague at best and border on unfounded opinion.

"Why is it considered trendy to deny God"?
By whose estimation do you make this assumption? I know of very few Atheists who are so simply because of a trend.

"Why do some like to be atheists or pagans or believe that they are intellectually beyond God"?
Again, a baseless assumption. I can't speak for every Atheist, pagan, and ex-believer, but I can say that it is simply a matter of logic as far as I am concerned. I have NEVER believed that a 'God Figure' as such, existed. And I don't see any need to believe in some higher conscious spirit when simply study and observation can provide answers.

"Why do those who assert that there is no proof of God's existence fail to point out that nor is there proof that God does not exist"?
In the absence of a definitive answer either way, one can only proceed to form a belief based on the empirical evidence, and given the evidence at hand, I can only say that there is NO reason to believe that God does, in fact, exist.

[2nd add] Horatio lived in a time steeped in religion. It is only natural that his philosophical ideas would be bound to the subject. His assumption presumes the existence of 'Heaven' when it is part of the debate itself.

Answer 4

To answer your many questions: I had no idea it was considered trendy to deny God. I think atheists and pagans have no need for God, so it's not so much of an intellectual thing - just the conversations about existence delve into intellectualism. What is the point of pointing out that there is no proof of something that doesn't exist? That seems nonsensical.

Answer 5

what do you mean trendy? i dont believe that its trendy and i am an athiest. your point about neither having proof is true but its never-ending. i say where is the proof he exists and u say where is the proof he doesn't? i don't believe because he wouldn't let famines happen or wars or babies like my sister die before they even lived, would he? and if he did then do i need say more? i am not intellectuly beyond god coz i don't think there is. i am just apart from any spiritual gods or anything. how do u no which religion has it right? they are all different. please answer. i am genuinly curious. y would he let babies like my sister die when they are only a few weeks old?

Answer 6

Athiesm is not "a trend." It may seem that in recent years more and more people have become athiests. But that isn't because they want to seem cool. It's because it has become more socially acceptable to not believe in a God. And besides, there have been athiests around for years. Before there were Christians, there were athiests.
As for proof of God not existing: you can't prove a negative. That's where faith comes in. You either have faith that God exists, or you do not have faith that God exists. Both viewpoints can not be proven, and both are equally valid and up to personal desicion.

Answer 7

The "trendiness" of atheism seems to go in cycles. Usually atheists sort of stay in the closet because believers have such an aversion to their point of view. The typical atheist just doesn't think it makes sense to buy into any belief system on blind faith, with no basis in logic or fact, simply because one's parents or others accept it.

To a thinking person, there is simply no reason to believe that there is anything supernatural in the universe. If there were a god, It would know this and if It wanted us to have a different opinion, It could easily provide us with evidence.

Answer 8

It's not just one god or another, mind you (and depending on the culture, it's been any number of them). Those who wish to be avant garde often will throw their refusal to cooperate with any prevailing social prejudice in your face.

The Marquis de Sade went on an on about sodomy in a time where you could be killed for it. Anton La Vey went on about how good selfishness was and how foolish altruists were. Hippies advocated drugs and free love, and ninjas advocated dishonor and secrecy. Whatever yanks the chain of authority is what it's really about. Counterculture. (link 1 is a good case-in-point; 2 is a curious counter-point)

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth. Power to the people!

Answer 9

While it's certainly common among the young in particular to reject mainstream religion, I think it's hardy accurate to call it "trendy."

BTW, it's not coherent to ask people to prove that something does not exist (excluding cases where the thing itself is a contradiction, like something that is X and is not X (in the same way, at the same time)). It's fallacious to argue for something's existence by noting that no one can prove that it does not exist.

Answer 10

"Trendy" is "popular," "exciting," etc.

In Western society, since about 350 A.D., a certain preacher's Commandments have been de rigeur.

To be told you can't lust after a woman, and about 300 other no-nos, is suppressing.

As Western science has gained the upper hand over nature, the need for God to be "in charge" or "cosmic bell hop" has decreased. (See "Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose.)

In a post-Christian West, we find it exciting, popular, "trendy," to "do our own thing," "go our own way," etc.

When people, formerly often-superstitious peasants, now work 9-5 and have iPods, it becomes trendy to be free of such old-time constraints as "no lust," etc. The "Big Guy" doesn't seem to penalize the "thriving green bay tree" of sin.

We in the West are more like busy Saint Marthas in the high-tech kitchen..."What still, small voice?"

Ironically, technology such as eeg confirms that meditation brings high gamma wave state-specificity, a category error of materialists to deny same while in outer waking reductionist beta wave. Such state-specificity also reports far-seeing accurately, much as Swedenborg confounded Kant, and also telepathic contacts with Beings (e.g., Dakini Bodhisattvas in Tibetan insight meditation protocol).

Some recent work in this arena: http://www.tiller.org http://www.integralscience.org http://www.divinecosmos.com http://www.quantumbrain.org http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 http://www.sheldrake.org http://www.noetic.org
as well as authors: "Extraordinary Knowing," Dr. Elizabeth Mayer; "Entangled Minds," Dr. Dean Radin; "The Masters and Their Retreats," Mark Prophet; "Men in White Apparel" and "Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton; "The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi; "Life before Life," Jim Tucker, M.D.

cordially,

j.

p.s. It is illogical to "deny" God; one cannot prove such a universal negative (one would have to be Omniscient, Omnipresent, etc.); the most one can do is affirm one's own lack of belief in various data pointing to Higher Being. E.g., a miracle such as the Host of Light at Garabandal, Spain, 1962-63, is dismissed, even though filmed by many sceptics, as non-replicable in a laboratory. The same standard would apply to scientists observing Jesus walking on the water--not scientific, as not replicable in a controlled laboratory situtation, etc.