Agnostic.com

15 11

I recently watched Alex O'Connor's debate with two Muslims and as expected they used the usual philosophical arguments like the cosmological and ontological.

As I was watching, I finally realised something. If god exists and wants us to go to heaven, and if we don't accept god we will end up in hell, and god loves us, then why God doesn't reveal himself in most profound ways? Why is he hiding, jeopardising so many souls that might end up in hell?

So to me, the arguments have no space here. You have arguments because you have no evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need arguments.

Atheists say we suspend judgement on the existence of gods until evidence is provided, proving us otherwise. Which bit theists don't understand?

Also, all these arguments, to me, prove nothing. We might as well be in a crazy simulation, we might be an intergalactic asylum etc. Theist arguments start with the assumption-need for a god to exist, thus they are extremely limited.

tsallinia 6 Aug 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

This is exactly why I simply stopped "listening" to the arguments for or against the existence of any god. It became a waste of time for me simply because there's just NO EVIDENCE for either side. Of the two, the atheist position is the most logical and reflective of reality itself. One doesn't worry about the existence of a unicorn or bigfoot if no evidence for the actual existence these creatures can be had; and god(s) are the same type of made-up creature. I personally don't worry about it anymore, nor do I waste my time arguing with believers about it. People are going to believe what they want, especially a god, against evidence no matter what anyone tells them because they have an infantile view of the world and themselves; and this belief of the "sky daddy" is like a cherished child's blanket. That's a hard thing to fight, especially in an adult that stopped believing in Santa, but can't stop believing in jeebuz. Again, it's infantile and I don't have time for it.

Great points. I completely agree with you. Did you, by Amy chance, have to abandon religion later in in life, or was brought up in a secular way?

@tsallinia My personal story is a bit complicated, I was introduced to religion when my grandmother came to live with us after my mom's divorce when I was 3 y/o. I was about 7 - 9 years old when she came. Before that my mom never spoke to me about anything supernatural so I was not really aware of 'god.' My grandmother was a Pentecostal Evangelical Fundamentalist of the fire & brimstone kind. Since my mother needed the free childcare while she worked to support us... My mom grew up in this way, but she secularized long before I was born, and just never spoke to me about it. I was forced into it by my grandmother, and forced to go to church and all of that. The indoctrination was so brutal and violently forced that I forgot I wasn't really a believer. When you're a kid in this situation, you just do whatever it takes to get the crazy grown ups off your back, sometimes to the point where you yourself forget who you are. Have to, just to survive the situation.

Fast forward to my late teens, I stopped going to church (grandma no longer lived with us) and by my early twenties, I remembered that I didn't believe in any of it in the first place, so I renounced it and regained my true self. It was painful, traumatic, and sad. Grandma has been dead for many years now, but I don't remember her fondly at all. If I think about her I get angry, for the fact that she couldn't just be my grandma, that she was this cultish church lady hell-bent on "saving" my soul whether I needed it or not. I don't remember her ever smiling or having a moment of happiness. She was always angry. All her church friends were angry people inside. Many of my that relatives still roped into the church are like that. When they smile it always comes off fake and condescending. The have no real joy inside. I wanted real peace and happiness, and that's not found in "church." I feel sad for my relatives, but since they've pretty much "shunned" me... shrugs I am much, much happier these days, and I have peace, which is what really matters.

1

Exactly. While science starts with observations, then hypothesis, and working its way towards a conclusion, religion has the conclusion in mind and gathers the evidence that supports it. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

1

It's called the "Argument From Hiddenness" or from "Non-Belief", and is one of the strongest arguments against personal gods. Such arguments come at the issue from a variety of angles, and theists have a variety of counter arguments. Of course none of the justifications are convincing to me, but if you're interested in exploring it further, there are dozens of youtube videos on the topic, both pro and con.

4

Such Muslims are no different to Christians who use the same arguments: they demonstrate cognitive failure. More specifically, they do not engage in thinking which is critical, analytical, rational and dispassionate.

3

It is kind of like saying, "I really love you with all of my heart, you just have to look beyond all the cruel actions I happen to undertake!" That is the Geeeezzzzuuuusssss shit for you.

Flying Spaghetti Monster 2:02:
Religion is the oldest money-making scam, probably even older than prostitution . . . . prostitution is seedy, but it isn't a scam like religion, it's about as honest as it gets.

1

Yeah, those kinds of debates always felt pointless because they don't even start off agreeing on which text should be the common source of truth before interpreting reality or discussing policy on common grounds. If we can't even agree on the source of truth then the debate will always end with a version of "well your book of truth is full of crap".

6

Quite right, if an omnipotent god wanted me to believe in him, then I would. That's what omnipotent means. There'd be no need for evidence or argument, God could just will me to believe. And I don't. So clearly if God exists in that sense, he happy for me not to believe, and so am I. Don't see why anybody else should be upset with what I believe or don't believe if even God's evidently cool with it.

Good point 🙂

The counter argument (at least the Christian one as I was taught to believe) would be this god wanted creatures with free will who would choose to believe in it fear it, worship it, and, eventually, love it.

Other than the problem that a perfect being would want for nothing, there is the issue that when this god started revealing itself, it only did so to a small tribe of people who occupied a tiny speck of land in the middle of nowhere (so to speak). When I was a believer, I felt it unfair that this god did not reveal itself equally to everyone, yet it would punish those who did not believe in him--very severely (using its chosen people, of course).

Regardless, no matter how many times this god did things for its chosen people, no matter how many miracles they personally witnessed, they would still turn to other gods; or later, with Jesus, have doubts or not accept him as the messiah. And, now, without all these first hand miracles to witness we are supposed to believe? Really?

Maybe this god thought:

"Me damn it, no matter what I do to reveal myself to these people (manna from heaven, parting seas, walking on water, raising the dead etc.) they still turn to other gods, or don't believe in me or my son-self. I'm just gonna keep myself completely hidden from them and let them just make up a bunch of bat shit crazy stuff about me that will lead all kinds of violence and wars--that'll show 'em."

@Joanne yes I'm aware of the counter argument about free will and also the passage in the bible set on the road to Damascus that seems to falsify it. If he didn't care about Saul's free will, why mine?

@MattHardy Oh, I agree. The counter argument has no weight to it. The bible itself is very contradictory on the matter. And, it is true. If this omnipotent god really wanted everyone to believe in it, everyone would.

2

Correct. Believers arguments for a god to exist start with a need for a god to exist. I've always thought that if a god existed he would cure all those poor kids at St. Jude who have cancer. Then I realized that it is all the sins of the fathers doing this. Besides, the founder of St. Jude was a Catholic. That just about does it for Baptists and Evangelicals.

The good old logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

1

As an atheist I believe in zero gods, yes I require evidence to believe one is real. Even if someone proved a god was real, doesn't mean I would worship it.

I guess that means you are not fond of genocidal maniacs with catastrophic anger management issues.

5

It boils down to two choices

God's is an Evil Fucking Wanker, who enjoys making people suffer and loves to point and laugh,
Or
There is no god and religious people are victims of long term theological scam.

6

God loves ya. But he will burn you in hell. lol

That tenet alone should set alarm bells ringing

3

"Atheists say we suspend judgement on the existence of gods until evidence is provided,"

Wrong, atheists do not believe in god nor that any evidence can or will be provided. You are thinking of agnostics, we don't believe without proof.

I am not sure what you are saying is true. How then do you know that evidence cannot and will not be provided? If you claim so, the burden of proof falls unto you.

@tsallinia No one has to or can prove a negative. The people who declare there is a god are the ones who need proof of god because faith isn't an answer. Well it's the answer given and it's bullsh*t.

@tsallinia If I claim to have a giraffe in my backyard it's up to me to prove it to you, it's not up to you to prove I don't have a giraffe in my backyard. The burden of proof always falls on the claimant.

@tsallinia The burden of proof always rests with the one making the existence claim. As an aside, it is trivial to show that the God of the Bible cannot exist. The same goes for the God of the Torah.

@anglophone I am not sure if I completely agree with you. Up to a point yes, but if then I make a positive claim- I know, and can prove that god does not exist, then you make a positive claim and the burden falls on you.

@tsallinia Try phlogiston.

2

It’s a good point. If gods existed, they wouldn’t have left anything up to interpretation. A big reveal followed by the list of crap they wanted us to do. Cut and dry.

Instead we get human insinuating divine.

0

Asking "why don't XXX do this or that?" when XXX isn't there to respond for themselves is at best an exercise in our imagination and at worst a fool's errand. Either way, there is no truth to be found in this question or this answer except whatever personal truth we wish to adopt

With that disclaimer in place, my imagination seeds the fool's errand thusly:

I'd say for the same reason a teacher doesn't give the answers to their students. By giving the answers to the students instead of them figuring them out for themselves, the students haven't learned anything and taking a test to test that knowledge becomes an exercise in memory, not knowledge.

Likewise, by revealing themselves to us, Gods make the decision to go to heaven a foregone conclusion instead of a decision we make ourselves based on our experiences on Earth. As such, we really haven't learned anything, as individuals or a society, and when the test comes it becomes an exercise in memory (remembering God(s) revealed themselves) and not a true test of our morality.

That argument only works if there were only one god and not the thousands that have and still are worshipped. Otherwise, whether you get to heaven becomes as much about where you were born as whether you were moral. And, morality can be drastically different according to which religion one follows. It doesn't matter anyway because every xtian I know wears mixed fabrics and/or eats shellfish. They won't even follow their own holy book.🤣

@OldMetalHead
For one, that can be viewed as part of the lesson: Is the god you are worshipping because of where you were born the "right" god or might you need to search for another because they are the "wrong" god? The very nature of there being multiple gods is based on the idea that people aren't satisfied with extant gods and thus have to look for others

Further, if what you are doing for one god (say, not killing) applies to many gods, then it really doesn't matter what you call that god or what other rituals are or aren't done... you are fulfilling what the god in charge of heaven or hell needs and thus act accordingly.

Finally, there is no reason to believe in monotheism and, by extension, mono-heaven or mono-hell. It is quite conceivable that if there are multiple god(s), each might have their own heaven and hell for it's worshippers.

5

You just say. "No, god prefers atheists/agnostic, and sends them to heaven while religious people go to hell. Because atheist/agnostics show good critical judgment not insulting him by thinking he will value blind faith, don't tell him what to do, and don't set up fake gods in his place. Now prove me wrong !"

I like it. 😁

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:528330
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.