Why I Don't Believe In God

[stuntpickle]

One needn't search out a debate in an internet forum between atheists and theists to witness a group of persons ganging up another one. It is perhaps a fundamental aspect of human nature exhibited on every school blacktop. Of course, secular philosophy tells us that the term "human nature" is unhelpful and prefers "the human condition"--all while presenting a fairly convincing demonstration of the former.

I have a question for all the atheists.

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I ask you this not to persuade you to theism, but to demonstrate the stakes of the question. You see, this is precisely the question I asked myself a few years ago when I was, myself, an atheist. My answer was that I would lie; moreover, I would want the lie to be true. My theism is now no lie, but defeating my innate hostility to the idea was a necessary precursor.

The reason I mention this is because I also began to realize, in more than an academic sense, how we are all members in a community of the dying and how to disabuse any theist of his theism is to place him in that bed and tell him the truth, and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young. The reason belief in God has been so historically persistent has nothing to do with the intellectual failings of people.

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

[PoeticPassions]

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

[stuntpickle]

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

[YesNo]

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved one that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

[Varenne Rodin]

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

This is what I told my young son when he asked me what I think happens after we die: "I don't know, and we can't know for sure, but energy doesn't die, it moves. When we're born there is pain, and we're taken out of the world we know, but we have no memory of that pain and we will have no memory of the pain of death. Our selves might be gone, but if for some unknown reason we go on, I promise I'll find you." He seems very content with that. He imagines worlds and dimensions much more interesting and complex than the bible's heaven. He's open to all possibilities. He thinks it would be neat to be reincarnated as a chipmunk, or for the energy powering his movements to go toward powering a tree or ocean waves. Our physical particles after we die go back into the earth. They become other things. There isn't anything scary about that, other than knowing we should be aware of it and try not to screw things up for future generations.

If you're not raised with dogmas, you won't be so effected by dogmas. You can just enjoy life and understand that making the best of it is important.

[stuntpickle]

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

[stuntpickle]

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

[Varenne Rodin]

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

[stuntpickle]

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

[Varenne Rodin]

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

[Varenne Rodin]

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

I'm not saying they can't believe it, but I am saying that they can't assert that it's my reality and everyone else's without something to support that. I'm not depriving them by saying "Hey, we both see the sun. We don't both see an angry, blue, giant goblin dancing on the sun". Religious belief has to happen without support from the physical world and, therefore, has no need for support from atheists.

It also can't be benefited by support from atheists. It still wouldn't make sense to the atheist earth we live on.

[PoeticPassions]

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

The truth I speak of is not just based on sole facts (the sky is blue, there are people hiding in my attic, etc)... so of course I would lie to protect a life (in your hypothetical scenario). But that would be true to myself and my character. True to the way I feel about humanity and true to my integrity. That type of truth is very important to me.

I would tell the dying person the truth-- which is that I do not know-- because that would remain true to my existence and to theirs.

[stuntpickle]

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

[WyattGwyon]

I have a question for all the atheists.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.