(I had typed this all up and the thread closed before I posted)
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1177309

I'm not particularly into references and such on this topic, but here is my thinking:

I believe Man created God in his image.

It seems rather clear looking at history that the definition and nature of god(s) has always followed the current culture and beliefs. A fairly cursory study of mythology leads me to believe that Jesus, Allah, or whoever is just more mythology.

If you want some serious discussions that I found very insightful:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/ken_daniels/why.html

http://www.slideshare.net/dancasia/religion-explainedbypascalboyer

And less serious but still insightful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc
http://www.youtube.com/user/misterdeity/videos?view=0



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 03:35PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

You are asking for credible sources from atheists? Athiest love nothing more than to talk with facts and references. This is why that amuses me . . .

Fromn 6 iron on a previous thread:

"Athiests seem to want proof. The bible, the world, the human body, the galaxy. the universe isn't enough proof for them.

So what is?" (end quote)

These things are not by any stretch of the imagination proof of god.

The world is proof that the world exists. It does not by its existence in and of itself prove that god exists.

The universe? The galaxy? Same thing.

A sunset proves that a sunset exists. It does not prove that a god exists

A flower proves that a flower exists--nothing more.

Don't even get me started on babies and the marvel that is the human body because evolution has a ton of evidence and theists have flowers and sunsets.

I take all credible evidence seriously. So far, religion has nothing but hearsay to add to the conversation. The Bible offered as evidence is technically hearsay. Nothing more. It is a jumbled mess of conflicting, often ugly writings that if there were a god he would need to be ashamed of being associated with it.

I live, love, and respect many deists and theists in my life. I do not respect their belief in something that has no credible basis other than wishin' and hopin'.

blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are asking for credible sources from atheists?
> Athiest love nothing more than to talk with facts
> and references. This is why that amuses me . . .
>
> Fromn 6 iron on a previous thread:
>
> "Athiests seem to want proof. The bible, the
> world, the human body, the galaxy. the universe
> isn't enough proof for them.
>
> So what is?" (end quote)
>
> These things are not by any stretch of the
> imagination proof of god.
>
> The world is proof that the world exists. It does
> not by its existence in and of itself prove that
> god exists.
>
> The universe? The galaxy? Same thing.
>
> A sunset proves that a sunset exists. It does not
> prove that a god exists
>
> A flower proves that a flower exists--nothing
> more.
>
> Don't even get me started on babies and the marvel
> that is the human body because evolution has a ton
> of evidence and theists have flowers and sunsets.
>
> I take all credible evidence seriously. So far,
> religion has nothing but hearsay to add to the
> conversation. The Bible offered as evidence is
> technically hearsay. Nothing more. It is a jumbled
> mess of conflicting, often ugly writings that if
> there were a god he would need to be ashamed of
> being associated with it.
>
> I live, love, and respect many deists and theists
> in my life. I do not respect their belief in
> something that has no credible basis other than
> wishin' and hopin'.

So true , so well said.

I had written this out but could not post in other thread.

There are too many ideas of what God is to try and disprove them all in one succinct argument. I think I can disprove some (if not most) conceptions of god when they are fully articulated, but detailed articulation of which god concept is being discussed rarely happens. I find Yahweh to be contradictory and self refuting, which takes down the three monotheistic religions. I won't go into detail about that here because no god concept was articulated in the op.

However, there is always the deistic or pantheistic views of God that cannot be disproved. The biggest fallacy I tend to see theists make is that of equivocation. They say, "see, you can't prove that God was not the first cause, and that means Jesus and prayer and bible and hell and heaven." Even if I were to grant you that a deistic god (ie a "first cause") may exist, you still have all your work ahead of you defining your god and proving it with evidence.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 01:12PM by soju.

Honestly I like the Jesus spats better.

Always make me hungry for nachos for some reason. Lots of fun.

Well, given that many people throughout the ages have believed in gods, it's a fair question.

However, before attempting to answer it, we need to know how to assess posssible answers. How can we know if something is true?

There are many methods for determining whether something is true. The trick is to find the most reliable method, meaning the method that consistently yields the same results, regardless of who employs it.

Prayer is one method but is is not very reliable because sometimes you find your keys and sometimes you don't. Also, people from different religions tend to get different answers to the same questions.

Another thing to keep in mind is that answers to complex questions - and gods tend to be complex phenomena to whom all kinds of magnificent powers are attributed - are seldom 100% true or false. To answer complex questions, you need to understand the nature of probability and chance.

So, what method should we employ? The most reliable one to date is science. Does science address the existence of god? It does! It puts the probability of the existence of a god very, very close to zero because the likelihood of the existence of a complex god-like phenomenon that defies most of the known laws of nature is just that small.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 01:28PM by rt.

The term only matters or means anything in the context of religion. Otherwise, calling someone without-religion is like mormons calling non-mormons non-mormons. Most non-mormons dont think of themselves as lacking this particular thing.
So, to say an atheist should go around calling himself an atheist but not criticize religion...even if thats as minimal as explaining why he doesnt believe in religion...is to say he shouldnt bother calling himself an atheist, or that doing so is "bashing" in itself.

Thats ridiculous. I am not bashing anybody by calling myself an atheist. I am therefore not bashing to articulate why. I am therefore not bashing to consider any particular religious claim or argument.

In a court of law, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. You do not set out to prove that they did not do the crime. You set out to prove that they did.

You don't set out to prove the absence of a thing. You set out to prove the existence of that thing.

If I made the statement that a teapot was sitting on Jupiter, then it would be up to me to prove that it was there. Otherwise, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to assume that until I could prove my claim, the teapot is not actually there.

The default position would be that until credible evidence has been brought forth showing otherwise, that God does not exist.

If you put forth the hypothesis that God does exist, then what method will you use to support your claim?

Otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that God does not exist.

That is atheism. Until credible evidence comes forth, showing that he does exist, then the default position is that he does not.

So, who has the burden of proof? I love the way you put that together.

I put as much stock in God as I put in the Nephites. Because the evidence for both of them is exactly the same.

Actually, the evidence for Nephites is perhaps STRONGER than the evidence for God. At least the Nephites have the NHM stone. Laughably weak as it may be, at least its SOMETHING!

and reason.

I'm going to be blunt here, and I'm not doing so to mock anyone, but to share some of random thoughts that led me to agnosticism, and ultimately to become atheist. I respect anyone's right to believe, as long as they respect my right NOT to believe. I do recognize that other people have had experiences that lead THEM to believe in God. But I also assert that their experiences are only valid for THEM. They are not my experiences, and I'm not obligated to take their words or feelings as evidence, because many have been misled by their feelings.

***********

I have never seen nor heard God. I spent about 27 years actively trying to form a relationship with God through obedience, prayer and faith. That failed. And I no longer feel obligated to believe, much less OBEY a being who cannot be seen or communicated with.

If there was all-powerful God, he would be perfectly capable of communicating with every human being on the planet at any time. Heck, anyone with a twitter account can do that today. The idea that he would require "prophets" to communicate is just part of a con, perpetuated by the guys who claim to be in communication with Him. When you have prophets, you get guys like JS, who tell people that God told him to marry another guy's wife, or to build him a house, or give him money. If God could talk to JS, why not just tell Heber C Kimball, directly? Because it was a con. That's why.

Over the ages, how many religious leaders have abused their supposed relationship with God to get power, money, sex and anything else they wanted? What all-powerful God would stand by and let that happen in His name, while helpless believers were afraid to question? If personal prayers actually were answered, nobody would ever follow false religious leaders.

And this bit about testing our faith by being invisible? That's just silly. Any controlling individual who wants to be obeyed down to the last detail and even worshiped does not remain invisible and silent. They would want to be seen, heard, and adored directly.

Believing in God is basically believing in a magical unseen being, who knows everything, has all power, has lived forever, can read your thoughts, can eliminate death, can grant wishes, can change who you are and remove the bad from your heart. And he's loving and kind, but if you don't obey him, or believe in him, He'll take away your loved ones for all eternity and perhaps even burn you for all eternity. Oh yeah, and he's super insecure, and he'll get jealous if you like another God, or your possessions more than him.

I always come back to this: If God exists, then where the heck is He?. If you can't even see him or talk with him, or even see a picture of him, why would you even believe he's there? I'd venture to guess that most people who believe in God were taught at some point that they were SUPPOSED to believe, and that if they don't, something bad will happen to them or that they themselves are a bad person.

When I think of God nowadays, I think of a higher intelligence or the foundation of consciousness. I don't believe that I can ever know much about God any more than an ant can really comprehend a human being.

Does God need to be worshipped or placated? I don't think so. If there is a god, then I think that the force/power/intelligence that we think of as being god is far beyond such petty concerns.

Whether there is or is not a god is in the end not a huge concern to me. The Earth still spins through space regardless.

I just cannot believe in a god that could feed hungry children. Prevent them from being abused. Eliminate suffering and chooses not to. It makes no sense to me.

This is not complicated:

People who believe in a god (despite the lack of evidence) see evidence of their god in their minds.

To them, a god or gods exist because in their minds a god or gods exist. Therefore, they see evidence of their god or gods because their minds fabricate evidence for them.

God(s) exist to them because god(s) exist in their minds.

OUTSIDE of their minds, however, it's a completely different story. A lot of us on the board prefer to inventory evidence that can be externally verified.

A schizophrenic might actually be in vietnam INSIDE their minds, but to the rest of us they're just crazy people hiding under tables holding broomsticks making gun noises.

But in their minds they're really on hamburger hill. It's no different for theists...

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is not complicated:


Yes, perhaps. As long as you prejudice our perceptions for giving us things as they really are we most certainly won't be finding a bearded god on a cloud declaring his existence.

But what if God is more like Pi? Our five senses will never show us Pi, which can only be perceived in the mind. What if God exists along these lines?


And a word of caution about making conclusions about what exists outside our minds. Not to be a radical skeptic, but it does become a little more complicated. Your broom-holding schizophrenic is just as much a mental representation in the minds of "the rest of us" as his Vietnam is in his own. Strictly speaking, none of us perceive what you'd like to call reality exactly. We're all once removed, as it were.

Don't get me wrong, though. A once-removed hamburger on a hill tastes just as well to me.

Human

Great thread - thanks
bc, really appreciate the great links



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 03:04PM by dogeatdog.

Imaworkinonit, that was excellent. That is my experience exactly.

No one could accuse me of not trying to find Him. I searched for decades, but where the heck is He? That's exactly it.

I think the one thing mormons said that was interesting is that we can become gods because we are the closest thing to a personal god I've seen. We can feed hungry children.

Personal gods aside, God is a simple word I might occasionally use to represent the mystery and beauty of life if I'm talking to someone who needs to use the word God to talk about their own life.

Something I've noticed in these threads is a reverse attitude from typical deist/atheist exchanges. IRL atheists simply don't believe in supernal or supernatural power or powers. They're not passionate in their nonbelifs. They aren't implacably antitheists. Here though atheists sound as if they're proseletyzing, at least promoting, nonbelief. It's kind of weird. Frequently they adamantly try to disprove Jesus, almost as if they're intent on converts. ;) Kind of like missionaries or RMs.

Actually I generally see a lot of respect for beliefs in here, in spite of your likening them to RMs which around here could be interpreted as a personal attack.

That said, this particular thread was literally asking for it.

What I read here is antitheism (if such a word exists) more than atheism. Over & over I've read Christianity & mormonism are essentially the same, which I think only proves how little mormons & exmormons understand mainstream Christianity. But really atheists don't believe in any higher power, & there's no debate. Exmo atheists seem to be different though. The argument is their reasoning abilities are more highly evolved, ie they're smart & believers are, not so smart. But what I hear is much anger, like a kid who finds out his apple is rotten inside & jealously tells other kids their fruit is rotten too.

More like the kid who finds out the emperor has no clothes and won't take anyone's word for whether or not other leaders are clothed.

challenges someone to hit them, "There, right there, hit me right on the chin, come on, give it your best shot!" and then reacting in pained surprise that they were hit, crying "Boo hoo hoo, you hit me! Why'd you do that?!"

You wanted atheist responses, you kept sking for them. Wht did you expect?

Some atheists get really tired of the imaginary invisible monster being shoved in our faces like naturally we should play the game too, and if we don't, we're bad and maybe should be stripped of US citizenship. No, im not being snarky - remember George Bush Sr.? The twits on Fox news? Glenn Beck? Bobby Jindal? Rick Santorum? Ted Cruz? And the countless knuckledraggers who try to force school prayer and creationism on public school kids? Have you really listened to them? And theyre allowed to vote, which they do.

SSC has been great, just persistent. Everyone is learning, respect the process.

We can disprove the qualities that god is often associated with. These are all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent, immaterial, to name a few.

To disprove all powerful simply ask "can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it"

To disprove all knowing ask "can God think up a puzzle he cannot solve?"

If God is all benevolent there would be no evil.

Existence= the presence of matter energy or measurable effects. immaterial= the absence of matter energy or measurable effects. Therefore immaterial things don't exist.

They don't necessarily disprove a deity itself just the qualities associated with it. However, can it really be called a God without at least some of these?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 05:11PM by neopornadvocate.

Does dark matter (i.e. the "God particle" that holds the planets in orbit and for which scientists know is real, yet cannot explain it)...is this evidence of an unknown all-compassing higher force?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112825715/dark-matter-god-topics-caltech-stephen-hawking-041813/

Dark matter is evidence of dark matter.