Nihilistic atheism

I'm guessing by the end of this thread 90sAce will have inadvertently convinced at least two of you to start believing in God.

Wasn't trying to convince or prove to anyone there's a "god", no. Since I'm a diest it's not as though I believe a person must 'consciously believe in god to avoid damnation' or some nonsense like that. I also obviously don't believe you can "prove" god since god exists totally independent from nature.

I made a request to hear atheist arguments that "no god exists" - but which aren't based on the 'problem of evil' (aka evil and suffering disproves god), because I think this is false (if you don't take on an omnipotent god), and has nihilistic undertones. Even on other websites, this is the only atheist argument I see against the existence of a god, along with arguments which specifically target theism and Christianity (but not the "god concept" altogether).

Considering you made a thread attempting to convince non-religious people to embrace religion it's pretty ironic that you argue here.

So I guess we can add "irony" to the list of things you don't understand.

No it's totally ironic - you have a 100 page thread challenging non-religious people, but show up in a thread to (falsely) criticize for 'trying to make people believe in God"? That's ironic in every sense of the term, as well as a lie.

I made the thread pretty clear - I'm tired of the "problem of evil argument" I see atheist use because I think it's a fallacy, and I wanted to hear better atheist arguments for the idea that "there cannot be a god" than that, since they're very scarce to find on the internet.

Somebody explain to me the point of believing in a creator that has no power or control over that which it has created?
What comfort or meaning is to be found in an absentee god?

__________________

Good grief. Read the post again.

But the 'control' was in the creation itself.

The difference IMO is that this means there is an 'order' in the universe itself.

I used the car analogy again - Enzo Ferrari may not be able to 'snap his fingers' and correct mechanical flaws in a Ferrari, but he nevertheless designed it with an order to how it functions.

Versus the alternative that 'everything happens completely by random/accident' then.

Point is again I'd like to hear arguments against the possibility of 'a god' other than the 'problem of evil argument' which I think is very overused.

I'm with Vicky on this one...

Or there is a god, or there isn't.

If there isn't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If there is, he can control the universe or he can't.

If he can't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If he can, he's a sadistic ****, why pray to Him?

I try to do the right thing for the right reason, and not for any rewards. I think the reward is having the ability to do good for others and yourself.

And for the concepts of "good and bad" I guess I believe the better parts of people, instead of absolutists which are usually conditioned responses.

As for death, I think it's the ending of existence. Probably similar to the period before I was born.. I think when you're dead you don't even know. So try to enjoy today as much as you can.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Good things however do have a chemical reward, so there is a scientific explanation for the benefit. It's a different type of chemical reward however than say, using a drug.

This isn't exclusive to humans either - animals don't have human reason or 'morality' but they have instinctive drive towards behavior which is 'good' for themselves or their species.

As far as that goes, absolute costs/benefits can be verified in nature - which is what I'd say morality is based on.

Well no one really 'knows' what happened before death, since they have no physical memory of it.

There's still no explanation however for 'individual consciousness' - consciousness as a concept is caused by brain activity, but what causes a person to be 'born in their specific body' (as opposed to millions of other people they 'could be born as') can't just be explained away by 'brain activity'.

Never mind if the person hasn't seen The Godfather, right? Go ahead and take a stand anyway. Better yet defend this stance until the bitter end, even if it takes dozens of posts and thousands of words and an inexhaustible willingness to attack everyone else's position, and then finally when everyone else has moved on to better things, you can declare yourself the victor. Right? Sounds good.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

"Free will? What's that?" -- everyone in this thread, apparently.

Spiritual Nonconformist! I like it!

Recently, I met up with one of my favorite college professors and we were discussing the titles people have in a company- Editor, CEO, CFO, sales associate, customer service representative...etc and how sometimes the terms we commonly use do not accurately describe or encompass everything a person does, especially when we are running our own business. She said she is going to call herself the CDM- Creative Decision Maker. I loved it so much, I told her I'm going to borrow that term and use it myself, in business and life!

No one has to have seen the Godfather. People can read reviews from critics they trust, watch clips, consider the quality of previous films by the actor and director, etc

People decide whether or not they think a movie will be good/bad based on trailers - it's called taking a risk and making a judgment call. And people have to do this in every area of life, since they can't 'know everything' for certainty.

There's always the 'possibility' for example of dying in a car wreck, but people take a risk and make a judgment call every time they get in their car - desipite not being able to predict psychically what will happen.

Nope, plenty of people have an opinion but are open to changing their opinion if proven wrong. Just like if a person reluctantly goes to see a movie thinking it will suck, but they turn out to love it.

If someone decides up front that they will never change their opinion no matter what other facts come into play - then that's just their own stubbornness.

Why all the strawman? Again it sounds like you've just got 'theism' on the brain, as in the loonies thinking they can provide 'scientific proof of Noah's flood" and crap like that.

If a belief's based on deism, as in something which pre-dates the known universe or can't by definition have 'physical proof' - it'd be pretty dumb to claim you can 'prove it' to someone - but the idea that one can't have a belief without concrete proof is completely false.

The only argument I've made here is that "problem of evil" is a bad argument against the existence of "a god", and I listed reasons why. Funny thing is that people immediately jump in with reactionary claims like 'him wanting worship' or 'him being omnipotent' because they immediately associate god with theistic versions of god like Allah and Jesus.

So we can also add "straw man" as another concept you don't understand, and possibly "analogy" and "humor" and probably a few others.

Strictly speaking that isn't even close to the only argument or assertion you've made. For instance, you've made far more of an argument that everyone needs to form an opinion on everything, no matter what their familiarity, or interest, is with the subject. And you've rejected the stance, "I don't know" and there you're wrong. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate stance, whether you like it or not.

As for your frustration with people "jumping in with reactionary claims," let me point you back to your original post:

So you ask for feedback, and then when you get it, you reject it as "reactionary." I'm not an unbeliever because of the problem with evil, but that doesn't mean the problem of evil can just be dismissed because your version of god is so far away it has zero effect on anyone's daily life. If what you're looking for is an argument against this distant god of yours, you're probably not going to get it. If you're making an argument for design, then you can research the counter-argument by people who understand physics, but I seriously doubt anyone here can articulate the argument sufficiently. And the argument against design is speculative anyway, so it's not going to convince you in all probability...which is not an argument for design, or for this god of yours, because again saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate.

As for better things to do.. my two-year-old is clamoring for a bath, so off I go.

Oops, an accidental double post.

I think "I Don't Know" is not only legitimate, but it's a very honest position when everyone tries to have an answer for everything.

Who's 'we'? It annoys me when people claim to speak for 'everyone'.

It's definitely a strawman yes, since you mentioned 'arguing to try to convince people of a belief' when I was never trying to convince people that "there is a god".

Only thing I was trying to convince is that the 'problem of evil' is a bad argument against the general idea of a god (which is not limited to the omnipotent, ruler style of god in modern religions), because it is.

The argument is that "there's no hard proof" doesn't mean a person can't have an opinion. One of the popular opinions against believing in a god I hear is that "it's stupid to believe something without proof", but I disagree, if the belief isn't something reliant on proof to begin with.

It was reactionary because I went out of my way to explain I wasn't talking about a theistic or omnipotent god, but people immediately showed up with the same claims about god (ex. 'demanding worship', just sitting by and 'letting bad things happen', etc).

So I take it some people just skimmed over the post, and immediately started talking in terms of 'gods' like the Christian god.

It would be dismissable if god's power doesn't extend to 'being able to correct problems with the world'.

Again, 'design' refers to things which pre-date the physical universe (before the big bang), which brought the universe into being. It sounds like you're talking about "intelligent design", which is totally different and theistic (it argues that things in the known world were created in their present state rather than evolved, which is pretty much the same as "creationism"). Apples to oranges.

Beliefs can't be 'honest or dishonest' since they're beliefs. Saying a person believes there is a god is not saying "I can provide evidence that there is a god".

"I don't know" is only relevant if someone asked "where's your proof?".

IMO giving a personal opinion is actually more honest, since it's expressing one's own feeling about something (which they do have) - refusing to express an opinion and instead just substituting it with a factual statement is basically hiding one's feelings or opinions in order to 'avoid the possibility of having to admit they're wrong later".

I never understand why people care so much about whether someone else believes in a god or not. I am an atheist, I'm happy in my own self contained unbelief. I know when I die that's that. I'm equally as happy that someone else thinks they will go to heaven or that others believe in reincarnation or whatever else. It doesn't bother me what beliefs other people have and it baffles me as to why it's such an area of contention.

The thread was arguing against the 'problem of evil' argument - not 'caring' whether or not people are atheist.

You don't though, since that's presuming that you know why individual consciousness occurs in first place. How you explain why "you" were born in your body, as opposed to someone else's? Saying that consciousnesses 'in general' is caused by brain activity doesn't explain this - so it's a faith based belief, not 'knowledge'.

And the idea of 'afterlife' being dependent on 'atheism/theism' isn't true - there's no reason why natural and scientific explanations for 'existence' after physical death aren't possible.

In order to 'know' you'd have to have evidence of it, by your own definition it's physically impossible to 'know' this since it occurs outside of nature - so saying 'you know that's that' isn't really any different than saying you 'know you'll go to heaven'.

If you believe 'that's that', that's a different story. Though I'd be interested in knowing why - as opposed to believing in existence after death from a scientific POV