Does God Exist? Does God Matter?
Thursday July 3, 2008
The question of whether or not some sort of god exists is not one which should necessarily occupy the minds of atheists all of the time. Theists - especially Christians - regularly challenge us with arguments and ideas which supposedly demonstrate that their god definitely exists. But prior to that, there is an even more important issue to address: is a god really important in our lives?
Read Article: Does God Matter?
Comments
God should not matter-this supernatural non-entity fails to exist. Indeed, there is no material or empirical evidence to support gods existence. His existence is only supported by con-men and cowards.
Hey Austin: With respect to the existence of God…if he does exist, then he is part of nature, he is real. Thus, if he is real then he is open to science to be studied and discovered like any other existent in nature.
But the theists claim he is supernatural and that he is unknowable. Making this claim, without proof, then the theists simply make an emotionalist, arbitrary assumption that God exists. There is no argument to the arbitrary other to state that it is the arbitary because no real evidence exists.
Thanks,
Andy
God doesn’t matter. People matter, since they are the ones who do exist. And, they can do serious harm or be helpful with or without a belief in god or gods.
My lamented tenet on Christianity alone…
Directed to any perticular atheist
If you want proof or some evidence in the belief that God exists, and you say there is none, you are being completey ignorant of the Bible. How can you say there are no answers unless you have appraised it? There are still meanings and prophesies being pulled up through that book and the limitless knowledge of its nature is still not completely mastered. There is evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed, and if you choose to believe He is not connected with God, maybe you should get the historical facts before you make another judgement. There is no evidence that God doesn’t exist. You think your answer is obvious; God’s is also.
Meaning in life, what do you live for? To be a good person? What you said about current religion is very true. People are confused and do negotiate their god to their own terms and tergiversate- when they are being beligerently ignorant of the Bible which exposes them to any fallacy and matter of confusion available.
We are spiritual beings that need to be connected to spiritual things. God is that Being that gives us meaning and peace in our lives. Without, people can search for any answer they desire, but will never feel content in their spirit.
To say that we are not spiritual, is cutting down the division that seperates us from animals and undermines the unique creation of mankind. Wonder why Apes haven’t take over the planet? They may be smart/instinctive, but there is something peculiar that divides us…I wonder. By saying we are not spiritual, that person can name himself coward or stupid. Since thousands of years ago, people have always chosen to follow someone. Kings, emporers… from the earliest times. Without your parents, would you know anything? Without the rest of society handing down the rules and showing you the way humans survive, would you last long? Everyone needs someone to teach them and God was at the start.
Why does my God not force us to be obedient? Even if you haven’t had children, it is obvious that you can only do your best to raise them properly and orderly, but it is their own will to do as they wish when they begin as naive. He gave us free will and hoped we would love Him enough to not fall away.
As I read about you speaking that my God is not real, that there is no evidence and that He is not reality, it shows outwardly in your words that you wish to be unaccountable for any deed in life. I’ll tell you this and then rest my opposition: If you are right about my religion, then I just die and nothing happens. If I am right, then you go to hell. If I am wrong, then I just wasted a lot of breath and time on nothing of matter. If you are wrong, you’ll face the consequences.
Praying for your wellfare,
One nation under God,
God bless,
Christian
I have read the Bible several times, in several translations, and in more than one language. It offers no more evidence of the Christian god than the Upanishads do of Ganesh or the Odyssey does of Zeus.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, which is you.
Life itself. A person would really have to hate their live in order to need something after it to make it worth living.
Speak for yourself, please. You have no authority to say that atheists need what you label “spiritual” things. All reliable evidence points to life being natural and material, nothing more.
Again, you should limit your statement to yourself. I need non gods for peace or meaning in my life.
Since there is no evidence that we are a unique creation, the “division” you describe is artificial.
Prove it.
There doesn’t appear to be anything there to love.
That’s a popular myth about atheists, used because it allows religious theists to ignore the actual arguments atheists offer. I deny your god for the same reason that I deny elves, fairies, and Zeus. It has nothing to do with wanting to be “unaccountable” because I am accountable for deeds in my life — I’m just accountable to real people rather than imaginary beings.
Pascal’s Wager — and an especially superficial version of it, too. The next time you decide to post somewhere about atheism to atheists, please take a little time first to do some research in order to avoid committing egregious fallacies, errors, and repeating things heard a million times before.
Once again our demented christians have only the bible to support their senile witterings. The bible is a book of fairy tales. Aesops fables is about as useful as a source of evidence. By the way-has anyone ever received a letter, telegram, phone call, or email from this supernatural non-entity?
the universe is so unfathomable, so utterly immense and incredible that if it were created by some being or beings, what are the chances that we might be able to, in any way, image what those beings might be like or have a relationship with them or understand them? from a probability standpoint, since the universe is inexplicable, using another inexplicable thing (a god or gods) to explain it is just muddying the water. strange how most humans are willing to lend eternal properties to beings that are not probable, but refuse to give those qualities to something that actually exists and has all of the potential to be eternal, the universe. then, when there are so many mutually exclusive ideas of what that improbable god or gods might be and our total ignorance of any possible evidence for believing in a god or gods, each individual must do what one can. humans being social and a herd animal, it’s not surprising that we split up into differing warring, self-righteous groups on the subject. for me…i believe the universe is infinite and eternal and does not require the addition confusion of a god or gods.
How do these tards find this site??
Xian… when you understand why you disbelieve in all the other gods, you’ll understand why i disbelieve yours. i believe in one less god than you.
(with apologies to whoever said those lines first)
People do need the supernatural and ongoing myths of religion, so they keep the lie going. Jesus is really Santa Claus or is it the other way around. Imagine all the good that could come if religion failed to exist. Jesus–well perhaps and perhaps not–he was certainly ignore to believe the figs grow out of season and he “whithered” the tree?
The problem is that Atheists are BORING and Deists are not. Deists have ART and MUSIC and ARCHITECTURE and SYMBOLISM and RITUAL and Atheists do not. Deists also have WAR and POGROMS and CRUSADES and JIHADS and INTOLERANCE and ELITISM and HATRED and (except for Madeline who was a bitch, after all) Atheists do not. I like it my way - i pray to whatever god strikes me as useful, bribe the others and treat large groups of religious people like the plague they are.
GOD IS NOT IN EXISTANCE IS DEFINATE AS MAN HAS PROOVED THAT AS INDIVIDUAL
RELESION INDICATES THAT MAN HAD CREATED THIS TO SHOW THE EVIDANCE OF GOD. HUMAN TO HUMAN LOVE IS LESS THAN
WHAT GREAT GOD SAY SO.
NOW THE HUMAN BEING IS HATES EACH OTHER TO GREAT POWER AND FAMOUS BY CREDIT TO HIMSELF.
BIBLE. KURAN. UPNISHAD ALL ARE WRITEN
ON WHICH PAPER WHEN THERE WAS NO PAPER BEFORE 150YEARS BACK.
THERE IS NO QUESTION HOW IS COMING TO
FINAL WRITEN BOOKS PREPARED IN THIS WOLRD???????
what?? I recognize some of the words, but this is just gibberish.
GOD IS NOT IN EXISTANCE IS DEFINATE AS MAN HAS PROOVED THAT AS INDIVIDUAL
RELESION INDICATES THAT MAN HAD CREATED THIS TO SHOW THE EVIDANCE OF GOD. HUMAN TO HUMAN LOVE IS LESS THAN
WHAT GREAT GOD SAY SO.
NOW THE HUMAN BEING IS HATES EACH OTHER TO GREAT POWER AND FAMOUS BY CREDIT TO HIMSELF.
BIBLE. KURAN. UPNISHAD ALL ARE WRITEN
ON WHICH PAPER WHEN THERE WAS NO PAPER BEFORE 150YEARS BACK.
THERE IS NO QUESTION HOW IS COMING TO
FINAL WRITEN BOOKS PREPARED IN THIS WOLRD???????
Steve–but it’s damn funny, no? Come on–admit it. You laughed when you read it. I was like WTF??? What I find most humorous is that I so expect this weirdness from theists that I can’t tell if it’s some stoned teen trying to get a rise or if it’s really a theist.
And Tuffy: Well said! A friend of mine is arguing cosmology with a theist, he sent me some of the dialogue. This theist is bending over backwards to try and disprove “singularity” by using the physics applied in this universe. Although he’s been told repeatedly that the rules of this universe cannot be applied to whatever came before. So, nobody can offer anything about the “prior physics.”
So what is this theists ultimate point? That his god exists outside this universe, immune to the physical laws of this universe.
D’oh!
Hmmmm. Could his god be…I dunno…the SINGULARITY–and he just hasn’t figured it out yet?
Just a hunch.
I told my friend to let him argue that. The moment his god is immune from all our laws of nature, he becomes a singularity of sorts–a black hole from which knowledge can’t escape. Once god exists outside physical law, no one can speak about that god. He is a nonitem. Any guess is unsupported. Upon what would we base our guesses? Upon what we know? But what we know would not apply. So, nothing “sensible” from our perspective could apply to this “god.”
It’s a “have the cake and eat it too” scenario, where we have X that isn’t bound by anything we know or can relate to; then we start making a load of assumptions about X based on “what we know and can observe.”
D’oh (again)!
Didn’t we just agree none of that applies to god? So WTF are you basing all your assumptions on???
You so nailed it, T.
God only exists if you believe he does. If you don’t believe he does, then he does not. Personally I think there is way too much going on with us to think it all happened by some chance, or unintended series of events. I think people who choose not to believe in God have a fear of accountability. If you did not believe in his existence, why would you ask if he exists. Deep down, you must know there is proof out there somewhere.
Thanks for the chance to hear a bit of real dialogue between atheists and Christians. I recommend Rubenstein’s “When Jesus became God”, which contends that the “Do it Yourselfers” (the Arian heresy) lost to the Neopagans when Emperor Constantine was allowed to manipulate the bishops, notably at the Council of Nicea. Call me a Jesus Freak, I’m suspicious of the tradename Christian. But it comes down to God’s being behind Nature and being the ultimate source of Common Sense, and J. C. Pearce is his prophet. Read “Magical Child” for the sinister role the hospitals played in our birthing, at least in the postwar era.
Mary says:
“God only exists if you believe he does. If you don’t believe he does, then he does not.”
So your god is about as real as Tinkerbell.
But then you go on to say:
“I think people who choose not to believe in God have a fear of accountability.”
So this non-entity you believe in somehow gives you, out of thin air, the ability to
make sweeping judgements about people you don’t even bother to try to understand. Magic!
…and I can’t pass up:
“Deep down, you must know there is proof out there somewhere.”
What, no hints as to the location of this proof? That’s about as helpful as believers get when it comes to explaining their beliefs, I’ve noticed. But that’s okay, I already know where the proof is. In Mary’s head.
On the whole, I think that is just about the best example of average, everyday theism that I’ve ever seen. Scary.
Mary says:
(“God only exists if you believe he does. If you don’t believe he does, then he does not.”)
A parallel. All the gold in California is locked in a vault in Beverly hills in my name. It only exists if I believe it does. If I don’t believe it does, then it does not.
‘God only exists if you believe he does. If you don’t believe he does, then he does not.’
Mary,
Have you ever heard of OBJECTIVE REALITY (i.e. the truth of a proposition having no bearing whatsoever on anyone’s beliefs regarding it)? I advise you to read Austin’s article on the subject that he recently wrote (or possibly reposted, I don’t know which).
‘Personally I think there is way too much going on with us to think it all happened by some chance, or unintended series of events.’
WTF? What, precisely, do you mean by ‘way too much going on with us’? It sounds awfully vague to me. Can you specify that? Do you mean that the events in humankind’s lives, some of which are the result of HUMANS’ OWN DOING, are somehow being overseen by some god? If so, how do you reconcile this with the notion of a god who accords to humans free will (assuming that you believe in such a god, which, given that you’re probably a Christian, seems likely, unless you’re one of those Calvinists who believe that their god literally controls everything in the universe and that humans do not possess any free will).
‘I think people who choose not to believe in God have a fear of accountability.’
These two myths have been refuted oft enough by Mr Cline and others. Nonetheless, I myself shall counter them as well:
1) The assumption that people choose their beliefs is questionable at best and something that is disputed by many atheists.
2) The suggestion that atheists ‘have a fear of accountability’ implicitly hints that atheists actually KNOW THAT SOME GOD EXISTS but have chosen to ignore that god and neglect responsibility to it. In other words, atheists are not really atheists at all but theists who are wilfully ignorant of some god and its whims and wishes. This is downright puerile and smacks of arrogance.
Also, as Tracieh noted in another commentary board, the idea that mere obedience could qualify as responsibility or accountability is higly questionable and in fact can be used as a basis for shirking off responsibility and accountability. For example, would you mass murder children if your god demanded it? If so, would you then insist in court that you were merely carrying out your divinely ordained duty? If so, what do you think the reaction of the prosecution would be?
In both of the former cases, you would be overlooking or evading responsibility and accountability. In the first case, you’d be overlooking responsibility and accountability for the welfare of your fellow humans for the sake of merely obeying an order. In the second, you’d be trying to shift the blame and insisting that if anyone is to blame then it’s your god for giving you the command (but wait, you can’t do that, since, according to you, your god is not accountable to any human or anyone else for that matter). The response from the prosecution would rightly be that because some god allegedly gave you the order does not absolve you of responsibility or accountability for the crime.
If you mean to suggest that atheists are afraid of being judged for their ’sin’, then this is utter hogwash! How is this even applicable to atheists (or secular atheists, to be specific), given that ’sin’ is a religious concept and secular atheists are unlikely to believe in it, except, perhaps, as a synonym for wrongdoing?
‘If you did not believe in his existence, why would you ask if he exists.’
The reason is twofold:
1) Atheists so often have either talk about a particular god, with the assumption that that god exists, or the proposition that this or that god exists, pushed in their faces by religious theists. It is natural for them to question if this or that god even exists or if there are even any valid reasons to believe and to give it consideration.
2) Relatedly, skeptics, atheist or theist, should ideally have an interest in generally questioning claims made by others (and themselves, lol!) and this should extend to claims regarding the supernatural and paranormal, which of course includes the existence of gods (if you accept the standard definition of ‘god’).
‘Deep down, you must know there is proof out there somewhere.’
How can we ‘know’ of ‘proof’ unless and until we have it? The fact that you are describing proof as being ‘out there somewhere’ arguably hints that you don’t really have it either. Thanks for the admission!
Well done, Mary. That post of yours wins the prize for the most unmitigated garbage in the least space!
Sorry for the fisking, everyone!
Mary @ 14: that would mean that I am more powerful than your God. I’m fine with that.
Accountability, Responsibility, etc. are all quasi religious nonsense ideas. They stand for the old Christian term, “judgment”. Somehow, people are supposed to do things so they won’t have to confess their faults to some sort of authoritarian blockhead.
It is, of course, the theist who is avoiding personal responsibility.
Atheists internalise their values, and do not require the divine carrot and stick of religion.
This is why prisons are filled with theists.
What is the term for the fallacious debating tactic of accusing your opponents of a criticism that actually applies to you, like a theist saying the atheists are avoiding responsibility, or a theist claiming that atheists are illogical? This tactic is used constantly in political debate, in an attempt to cause confusion, or to “neutralise” the meaning of a negative accusation. We see theists doing this by claiming that atheism requires “faith”, etc.
I call this tactic “mirroring”. Is there another term for it?