Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
This argument is a very significant and thought-provoking argument, and when combined with others, creates a strong cumulative case in favor of theism.
From the point of view of evolutionary biology, consciousness looks redundant. If we consider people just as mechanisms for survival and reproduction, consciousness is not strictly necessary to ensure reproductive success and adaptation. Perform actions aimed at survival, detection of the impulses of the environment, the production of reverse response, is possible without conscious experience.
The idea that the complexity of neural connections or computing power can automatically generate consciousness deserves skeptical attitude. Drawing an analogy between Leibniz and gears, the question arises: where exactly in a set of algorithms or switches does subjective experience arise?
3. At the same time, the concept of emergence (the emergence of a new quality out of complexity) is often used as a "mystery word" that hides the lack of a real understanding of the mechanisms of transition from matter to consciousness.
The argument from consciousness becomes stronger if it is combined with other arguments in favor of God. It is in the concept of theism that consciousness is extremely necessary, since only objects with feelings can bear the burden of moral responsibility, experience the pain of punishment and the pleasure of enjoyment.
At the current stage, neuroscience has reached a dead end in attempts to give a purely materialistic explanation of consciousness.
Based on the fact that the world is the way it is, I cannot believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good being exists.
However, I cannot rule out the possibility that it is possible to create such a being.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better for me to believe in such a possibility.
For even if the creation of God is not possible, were I to set the creation of God as my ultimate goal, I could still do a great deal of good on the journey toward it.
And should I succeed, an eternal, perfect paradise awaits me.
What would one call such a belief?
And are there any disadvantages to following such a belief that aren't occurring to me right now?
Questions like I understand it says God is all-powerful and He wants us to follow in trust, not fear. But if it were truly all-powerful, could He not simply set a path in front of us and make us follow it? Second, on atheism, I am not an atheist, but I question his existence. I have seen no proof, though I believe there is at least something that created us. But how can we be certain there is God? Humans are naturally cautious of foreign things they can't understand or fathom. So, what's your take? And on another note, if the bible is true and He won't destroy inhabitants on earth, why is the always floods and earthquakes, things humans can't prevent? I don't say fire cause some humans are a little slow and try setting things on fire.
This is a pragmatic argument for atheism.
God, as generally conceived, is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. We don't see God, but we see the universe. When we look at the universe, we see it is immense and complex with all sorts of phenomena, so much that it is hard to accept its existence. According to the definition of God, he is much greater and so much harder to accept than the universe. Why double our explanatory burden by positing God exists? So God is less believable than the universe. And the more we find out about the universe, the harder it is to believe in it, though we do accept it because of the evidence. So the more we find out about the universe, the less we can believe in God.
Edited to add this clarification: My argument says "if God is more unbelievable than the universe, then the more unbelievable is the universe, the more unbelievable is God." I'm arguing from the common theist definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".
1. The Necessity of a First Cause (The Argument from Contingency) The universe is a contingent entity—its existence is not logically necessary. According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, every contingent fact requires a sufficient explanation for why it exists rather than not existing. Since the universe's explanation cannot be found within its own physical constituents, it must be grounded in an ontological foundation that is necessary.
2. The Nature of the Foundation (Timelessness and Eternity) This foundation is the ontological ground of space and time. Because it is the source of the space-time manifold, it must exist independently of it. It is, therefore, ontologically prior to time. A being that is ontologically prior to time is not subject to change (as change requires a temporal framework) and is thus timeless and eternal.
3. The Problem of Causation: Event vs. Agent To explain the existence of a temporal effect (the universe) arising from an eternal foundation, we must distinguish between two modes of causation:
Event-Causation (Mechanical): A cause that acts by necessity based on prior conditions. If the First Cause were purely mechanical and eternal, the effect would be necessitated to be eternal as well. Agent-Causation: A cause that acts via the exercise of will or intent, capable of initiating a state of affairs without being necessitated by external, prior conditions.
Because the universe is temporal, the First Cause cannot be a purely mechanical event-cause. It must operate through Agent-Causation.
4. Defining Agency as Personhood "Personhood" in this metaphysical sense is defined by the possession of Subjectivity (self-awareness) and Agency (the capacity for intentional action).
If the First Cause possesses the capacity for Agent-Causation (the ability to initiate an effect through will rather than blind necessity), it meets the criteria for being a personal, conscious Agent. A mindless, impersonal force is limited to mechanical event-causation. Therefore, the First Cause is necessarily an Agent-Cause, not a mechanical one.
It is nothing like religion, is it the most likely explanation for our reality, the math favours it heaviliy, we will one day create conscious simulations (possible because laws of physics allows them) there for they would of likely already happened billions or quadrillions of times already by a more advanced civilisation, and there is a chance those sims could create there own sims (not guaranteed) but anyways it is always statistically certain we are in a simulation, so why dont you believe it as an atheist? (Statisticallt might not be the right word but probable is)
Yesterday, I was captivated by a debate between a believer and an atheist. The believer invoked the argument from causality, marred by a special pleading fallacy, asserting that all things have a cause, save for God. The atheist, granting the premise of a first cause for the sake of argument, inquired: Why must this deity be the God of your particular faith, and not that of any other, such as a secluded tribal religion? This is what piqued my interest. Given the four to ten thousand religions on the planet, how can one claim this deity, without having investigated each religion individually an impossible undertaking, as one's lifespan is insufficient for such a task? Furthermore, what precludes the possibility that this hypothetical deity has never communicated with the inhabitants of our planet through any religion whatsoever?
Well of course, there was also a lot of horrible person but I feel like most of innovation has been brought by religion.
The numbers we use are Arabs and famous Muslims scientists developed them.
Pascal, Descartes, Einstein, Lemaitre, etc were so smart and gave the world so many understandings and invocation (calculator for pascal, “Cartesian” space for Descartes, general relativity for Einstein, etc)
Some of them believed maybe in a God different from all religions but still believed…
I am mysel a believer and seing these genius and so much more make me think like : if these people believe, well it must be for some reason…
I really want to hear your points on that and I’m pretty sure this topics has already been discussed but I didn’t see it.
Thanks !
I totally understand hating on Abrahamism and the Abrahamic god because he’s so manipulative and evil and the entire religious family is built upon having blind faith that a set of texts is literally true with 0 evidence (the conviction bias). But why do so many of you decide to hate on Abrahamic religious practices and just call it ‘religion’? The Abrahamic religious family is only about 3500 years old meanwhile human religion is much older and in the modern day there’s tons of religions out there that don’t even require a belief in the supernatural much less do all that emotional manipulation stuff (Buddhism, Asatru, Hinduism, Shinto, Druidry, Taoism, Helpols, Native American and Siberian Animists, Slavic Paganism, etc).
Hey everyone,
I asked a question in the comments in one of the post but was not answered so I want to ask here.
I see two completely different definitions of atheism being used interchangeably in debates here, and I want to establish the formal consensus of this subreddit before engaging further.
Definition A: Atheism is strictly a passive "lack of belief." It makes no active assertions about reality and simply describes a person's internal psychological state.
Definition B: Atheism is the active proposition/claim that "God does not exist." It makes a definitive statement about objective reality.
Logically, these are mutually exclusive categories. One carries zero burden of proof but cannot make factual claims about the universe; the other makes a factual claim but carries a burden of proof.
Which of these two is the definitive, formal definition of atheism?
Thanks in advance.
I heard a term called "New Atheism" recently, do most Atheists agree with the principles of it? It seems to explain the universe through natural and scientific means, rather than saying it was created. This would included the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and I assume life on other Planets. Furthermore, New Atheism isnt just a view of the world, but a plan for how Atheists want the world to be, a world where no one beliefs in Creation or a higher power.
Accomplished something major this week? Discovered a cool fact that demands to be shared? Just want a friendly conversation on how amazing/awful/thoroughly meh your favorite team is doing? This thread is for the water cooler talk of the subreddit, for any atheists, theists, deists, etc. who want to join in.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
this is a conversation I began with somebody on another adjacently related thread that got locked, and I received multiple replies and downvotes so surely there are a lot of people here that have a strong opinion on the matter.
now to be clear, I'm not claiming I know for sure that the goal is ultimately unachievable in a realistic, feasible way that is not more detrimental than the existence of religion today, but I am very skeptical that this can actually be achieved in this way.
people had big problems with the notion that religion requires an adequate secular replacement in order for religious people to fall in line, not become martyrs and just generally accept the harsh reality of religions being erased forever and forbidden.
I realize that an option is that we just say screw 'em, let them complain, revolt and however society comes out on the other side of this all will be better, the ends justify the means. but can we say it's feasible that this outcome would be less harmful than religions are today? people can be extremists and act in extreme ways exclusive of religions.
my view is certainly not that I like religions, but I see their utility and see in my personal life how they help people, creates community and support systems and the like. I know these things can be created secularly. but will that happen in a way that religious people can accept? what makes you sure that this shift will happen in any way that can resemble a smooth enough transition?
if we could Thanos snap the world into a state where religion and supernatural woo beliefs never existed because of a rigorous standard of evidence adopted by our species 100 million years ago, then absolutely I think that would probably be fine. but that's just not the world of possibility that we live in...
is the ultimate antitheist goal, then, not to abolish religions but just to support secular societies and hope and wish that religion goes away? can we realistically expect religion to go away on its own, by supporting secular societies?
and finally, if such an ultimate antitheistic goal is not actually feasible, is it really sensible to awkwardly hold this position in an activist way? like protesting the existence of viruses, even though they will not ever be realistically going away without extreme measures like living in hyper sanitized domes? somebody might say, become a virologist... become an epidemiologist... that's fine, but the analog already exists for religion... support inoculation to religions, support rational thought, become a teacher of these values. these are clearly quite different positions and yet seem to have similar, more achievable goals.
ultimately, tell me your beliefs, expectations and what, personally, your ultimate antitheist goal is, as I imagine it will differ from person to person at least a little. is "I would prefer religions never existed but I guess they can exist" an antitheist position? I want to hear your own opinions.
I've decided to stop referring to myself as a "secular humanist."
I have come to believe that Secular Humanism - at least how the term is now used by atheists/satanists/secular groups - is incompatible with many of my views, including my understanding of the universe, as well as my belief in religious freedom, secularism, and humanism.
The problems with secular humanism:
- It assumes humans can understand 100% of reality without any divine guidance
- It accepts reductionism, aka the idea that we can reduce meaning, morality, beauty, love, spirituality, etc. to biology and psychology, stripping us of our God-given significance.
- Because of these issues, it inevitably leads to the loss of religious freedom and human rights. (Examples of this being Leninism and the USSR). Of course, many secular humanists don't support trampling religious freedom, my only point is that because of the aforementioned problems, secular humanism leads to it. I used to call myself a secular humanist, so this isn't an insult in any way.
The solution:
- Understanding that the inherent human rights that (most of us) feel within us are from God
- Humans have both objective morality subjective morality. We must use subjective methods to interpret the objective.
- Accepting that secularism is incompatible with secular humanism, since secular humanism inevitably leads to ideologies such as Leninism.
- Working with secular humanists who have good intentions, and understanding there is value within the ideology itself despite the drawbacks. Again, I take a lot of inspiration from secular humanism.
The seed that was planted that made me start questioning my views on secular humanism was a post I made a little while ago on Satanism (related to the church of satan).
After more inquiry and discussions with secular humanists, including on this sub, I've realized that I was wrong for using the term. I apologize that I used the term for so long and have now distanced myself from secular humanists/secular humanism.
Hello my dear Atheists, I'm a muslim and i liked to ask you what is your opinion on Anti-Theism? Anti-Theism is known to be a bunch of bad people who liked to attack religions like Islam and Christianity Via internet or smth like that, my opinion on anti-theism is very bad because they are attacking religions.
Sorry for my English if its not good btw.
I want to argue these
Can you please cite any scientific paper or research stating that matter is physical in nature just as a chair is physical i.e., general sense. I will give you @0,000 dollars on the the moment, please I need it very much , please help me finding it so that i can be defeated and be educated on that topic. (That dollar remark is just for firmity of my argument that their is not physicality but only consciousness that it manifesting itself.)
A lot of theists I've debated seem to have difficulty understanding what I mean when I say 'credible evidence.'
Credible evidence is:
Evidence that is independently verifiable, falsifiable, and derived from reliable, unbiased sources, meeting the same standard of proof that you would accept if it disproved your own god and supported a competing one.
This means:
Your credible evidence must be objective, testable, and persuasive even to someone who does not already share the underlying belief, and it must be strong enough that you would accept it even if it worked against your own position.
And before you say, "No amount of evidence would convince you, you're just being stubborn!" take your argument and replace your god with Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin, and ask yourself if YOU would believe it. Now, honestly ask yourself, "Are YOU being stubborn because you want credible evidence?"
This is a common defense given to Adam and Eve, God knew from the beginning that they would disobey but they still freely made the choice to go against his order.” Or justifying excessive evil in the world, God knew this mass un-al1ver was going to successfully perform his goals, but he is still giving him free will to do it or not.
To me it just sounds like a grand assertion that can’t be debunked (unfalsifiable), but wondering if there’s a better way to defeat this?