The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
I agree with your key points, but it's interesting to note that historically, pretty much everyone believed in Gods plural, so when monotheist religions like Judaism and then its main offshoots, Christianity and Islam, emerged, the question wasn't about proving God existed but about claiming that *only one* God existed. That's why both of the two main holy scriptures bang on endlessly about only being the One God, etc, etc.

A lot of religious people are kind of still stuck in that mindset, because they were brought up under the influence of those scriptures, so they imagine that the struggle is still between their One God model and multi-deity (eg, wrong) models. Even within them though, they are confusing, because Satan exists in both main religions - and appears to be Godlike - and both religions also contain minor deities, eg, angels and djinns and the like.

A zero-deity model is relatively new in human affairs and not many people have been brought up in the context of it. (More in the ex-Communist world than in the non-Communist world.) So it's harder to contextualise because people don't have the mindset.

In addition, many non-believers also believe in the actions of minor deities, such as sources of divination (astrology for example), cult leaders (Scientology, Mormonism, etc), Godlike political figures (Mao, Hitler, Stalin) and low-level associate spirits such as ghosts or troublesome 'bad luck' spirits, which are widely believed in.

You may have presented a good argument for, "faith", being an integral part of man's makeup. Scripture says that every man is given a, "measure", of faith and is free to put it in anything he wishes. This may explain in what would seem tp be man's,"need", to believe in something.
Original post by oldercon1953
You may have presented a good argument for, "faith", being an integral part of man's makeup. Scripture says that every man is given a, "measure", of faith and is free to put it in anything he wishes. This may explain in what would seem tp be man's,"need", to believe in something.


You can call it 'faith' if you want to. We non-believers call it 'childlike belief', 'pursuit of simplistic but muddle headed explanations' or 'false belief syndrome', to name but a few. :smile:
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You can call it 'faith' if you want to. We non-believers call it 'childlike belief', 'pursuit of simplistic but muddle headed explanations' or 'false belief syndrome', to name but a few. :smile:


You have no faith in science? You'll say that science is logical. That it makes sense.
If you look to science to explain the world and your place in it then you've put your faith in science.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, the former is a descriptor or qualifier. Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists.

You just reiterated what has already been said. Why should I change my mind when definitions do not illustrate what you are saying?
Because they've been brainwashed
Original post by da_nolo
You just reiterated what has already been said. Why should I change my mind when definitions do not illustrate what you are saying?


They do illustrate that, atheism is primarily a lack of belief and it is the way most atheists think. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Guys, as a general thing, I'm just surprised that it hasn't rung out as odd - the title of the thread is "There is no evidence for God", just as ppl having been repeating for the past 50 years at least. Why are you actually still bothering? Come to think of it, why is everyone so intrigued by the idea of God; isn't He just some old myth which we still cling to for no particular reason, or because over half the World's population is delusional? There's no evidence for; neither is there any against. So why can't you just get rid of this terrible thing once and for all? And what's actually the driving force behind all those people throughout history, who attribute their success to God? Why would a rational human actually give their life by free will to a make-believe Being? And why does it so often result in a positive change? What about all the "miraculous" healings recorded throughout history? There are an awful lot of things we need to attribute to chance, here...
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 527
Original post by davidguettafan
So why do people still believe in God?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Why is there something instead of nothing? Where did the "something" come from?

BTW: Don't make the mistake of confusing [flawed] expression of religion with the existence of God. Two separate issues!
Original post by Treblebee
Come to think of it, why is everyone so intrigued by the idea of God; isn't He just some old myth which we still cling to for no particular reason, or because over half the World's population is delusional?


Yup. The vast majority of religious people are brought up by their parents in their parents' religion from birth. The power of indoctrination on the young mind is, especially among the uneducated, is incredible. This is why educated people have a better chance of escaping the tyranny of superstition.

Original post by Treblebee
There's no evidence for; neither is there any against.


Well, yes, there is plenty of evidence against the existence of gods. The knowledge that people have invented religions, that much of what is found in religious tracts is provably wrong (which calls into immediate question the rest) is just the starting point for a genuine unbiased examination of whether the existence of gods is likely.

Original post by Treblebee
And what's actually the driving force behind all those people throughout history, who attribute their success to God? Why would a rational human actually give their life by free will to a make-believe Being?


Human psychology and emotion primarily: the need to think there is an afterlife, a need for explanation for our existence, being misled or fooled, you name it, there are many reasons.

Original post by Treblebee
And why does it so often result in a positive change?


Strong motivation and drive to succeed, from whatever original motivation, even a false or mistaken one, makes a huge difference - obviously.

Original post by Treblebee
What about all the "miraculous" healings recorded throughout history?


What about them? There have been charlatans and magicians throughout history. You can pay to see them mystify and amaze you in the name of entertainment anywhere. You can also pay to have a subset of them mislead you into thinking they have connections with deities and the afterlife; they are using the same tricks, just with different claims.

Original post by Treblebee
There are an awful lot of things we need to attribute to chance, here...


Not as may as you seem to think and, anyway, add an enormously long period of time or a huge number of potential occurrences to the mix and a low probability event can become a near certainty.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Yup. The vast majority of religious people are brought up by their parents in their parents' religion from birth. The power of indoctrination on the young mind is, especially among the uneducated, is incredible. This is why educated people have a better chance of escaping the tyranny of superstition.


You are probably aware that everybody, whatever their circumstance, whether they grew up in a religion or not, reaches a stage wherein they can make their own choice. Sometimes, they choose to leave it - and they didn't necessarily come from educated families. Sometimes the mere feel of indoctrination (if their parents go to extremes) may put them off. But very often, people who have grown up in atheist families will convert to a religion. It doesn't depend on whether their mind is closed, it depends on whether it is open.

Well, yes, there is plenty of evidence against the existence of gods. The knowledge that people have invented religions, that much of what is found in religious tracts is provably wrong (which calls into immediate question the rest) is just the starting point for a genuine unbiased examination of whether the existence of gods is likely.

The "knowledge"? You claim that you have this knowledge, yet there is no actual proof. How do you know it was "invented"? That's only from the human perspective. Plus, I cannot speak for other religions, but I do know that the Bible is found to be so accurate that historians often use it as a source of evidence. You will undoubtedly discover, should you take the time and effort to do so, that every single one of the prophesies in the Bible about a time that has already passed have come true. As a few examples, the rise of the Roman Empire was prophesied hundreds of years before it came about (you can check the dates), and, as one of Jesus' many prophesies, the Temple in Jerusalem collapsed. Is it the word "prophesy" which puts you off?

Human psychology and emotion primarily: the need to think there is an afterlife, a need for explanation for our existence, being misled or fooled, you name it, there are many reasons.

Why do we need to think there is an afterlife? Why do we need an explanation for our existence?

Strong motivation and drive to succeed, from whatever original motivation, even a false or mistaken one, makes a huge difference - obviously.

That's got to be one whopping big false drive there, to suddenly make school drop-outs sound incredibly educated (the fishermen), to persuade rich, affluent people to suddenly give all their wealth away, to convince random people to travel all across the world on what turn out to be very successful missions (and not just down to themselves), to fill previously self-centred people with the unexplainably strong desire to help the poor... sounds like something I might want to check out!

What about them? There have been charlatans and magicians throughout history. You can pay to see them mystify and amaze you in the name of entertainment anywhere. You can also pay to have a subset of them mislead you into thinking they have connections with deities and the afterlife; they are using the same tricks, just with different claims.

I'm sure people from three centuries ago would have been convinced that the technology today is magic. Why? Because, the way they see the world (and that must be right, mustn't it?), such things are simply, plainly, flatly impossible. Magic. Definitely.

Not as may as you seem to think and, anyway, add an enormously long period of time or a huge number of potential occurrences to the mix and a low probability event can become a near certainty.


To sum up, we're both standing on even ground, here. We are, each of us, so utterly convinced that we are right and that the other is wrong, that we will not listen to what the other is saying, but just hope that the other will see how wrong they are, and change their belief. A tricky situation, then!


NB check the "see more" bit...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Treblebee
We are, each of us, so utterly convinced that we are right and that the other is wrong, that we will not listen to what the other is saying


Well, no. You may be (and since you say you are I expect that is the case) but I have listened to your argument, considered it and then rebutted it with a sensible, reasonable response.
Original post by Good bloke
Well, no. You may be (and since you say you are I expect that is the case) but I have listened to your argument, considered it and then rebutted it with a sensible, reasonable response.


I do appreciate that; can you reply to my comments?

It's just that it is very difficult, sometimes, to get people to respond without the "You're stupid and brainwashed" hate-attitude... Maybe there should be a bit more of an understanding between theists and atheists.
God exists.

The End.
Reply 533
Original post by Light Venom
God exists.

The End.


Sure convinced me.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Treblebee
I do appreciate that; can you reply to my comments?


I'll reply to one:

Original post by Treblebee
I do know that the Bible is found to be so accurate that historians often use it as a source of evidence.


This is simply not true. Much of the so-called history in the Bible is either not true, or true of a time or region different from that which is Bible says it is happening in. You should read The Greatest Lie Ever Told by W.H Uffington, in which the Biblical pretence to history is blown wide open. The latter part of the book in which much nonsense is written of other religions is to be ignored.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
They do illustrate that, atheism is primarily a lack of belief and it is the way most atheists think. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.


Then you could have provided an example long ago. Instead I looked it up in dictionary which what I posted earlier.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Now lets get off what the definition of an obvious word is [since plenty of people who have claimed being atheist have said they do not believe in a god(s)] and get back to what your evidence for your belief is.
Original post by da_nolo
Then you could have provided an example long ago. Instead I looked it up in dictionary which what I posted earlier.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now lets get off what the definition of an obvious word is [since plenty of people who have claimed being atheist have said they do not believe in a god(s)] and get back to what your evidence for your belief is.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief, not the active disbelief in deities. And once again, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I find various aspects of that wiki troublesome. I prefer not to get into a lengthy debate over it.

For simplistic reasons:
a person believes in God
does not believe in God/He does not exist
or a person does not decide what to believe in.

the only person who is not making a claim is the person who is not making decision. does not know what to believe in. we can ask this person why they do not pertain to one side or another, but absurd that they need to proove themselves.

otherwise the statement that God does not exist adheres to the same standard as a person who does believe God exist. that's what makes it a debate, a conversation.

if anyone is unwilling to provide such. so be it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
I find various aspects of that wiki troublesome. I prefer not to get into a lengthy debate over it.

For simplistic reasons:
a person believes in God
does not believe in God/He does not exist
or a person does not decide what to believe in.

the only person who is not making a claim is the person who is not making decision. does not know what to believe in. we can ask this person why they do not pertain to one side or another, but absurd that they need to proove themselves.

otherwise the statement that God does not exist adheres to the same standard as a person who does believe God exist. that's what makes it a debate, a conversation.

if anyone is unwilling to provide such. so be it.


Nobody is born into this world believing gods exist. They are, at the time of their birth, atheists. They have never even heard of gods. They cannot be theists as they don't understand the concept. Likewise, they are not agnostic fence-sitters. They are atheists.

They then either think of the concept for themselves and come to a conclusion, or (far, far more likely) they are indoctrinated into their parents' religion.

As they are educated properly and grow up they have a chance of abandoning all that superstitious stuff and becoming atheists once again, which is what is happening in the liberal western democracies outside the USA.

In the USA there is pressure to conform for reasons of patriotism, bizarrely, and fewer apostate themselves. In the Moslem world the pressures are rather more physical, while much of Asia and Africa don't educate the children adequately to give them a chance to learn to think with an open mind.
No. an infant is at best unaware to the condition. this means they would be agnostic not an atheist.

Again, for simplicity either one believes in, does not believe in, or holds no position. an infant holds no position. an infant, by your own description can not hold a position.

Introduce a child to an equation and they may then possess an answer no matter how correct or incorrect. However, it is possible for a child to come to an equation on their own.

True. a child is introduced and indoctrinated into their parents' beliefs, whether religious or atheist. though some leave their childhood religion, it is due to a lack of education...not understanding their own religion, themselves, or the philosophical equation for God.

Worse, they listen those who think education or intelligence relies on an opinion.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest