Why disbelieve in the others?

[Wertbag]

A question came up in one debate which got me thinking (usually the causes of my brain dumps on here!)...  Sure, we have plenty of reasons to think Christianity is bunk, but having not investigated every single other religion, how can we be sure there isn't one amongst them that is true?

The quick, off the cuff, atheist response would be that they are all equally devoid of evidence.  If no one can prove any God, then we are fair in holding the position to not believe until someone does.  While this is valid, I did think there are a number of other issues that have a more global reach:

 

The problem of divine hiddenness applies to any God who it is claimed wants us to know it, wants us to know its will or wants a personal relationship with us.  This would equally apply to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc.  And the other version of divine hiddenness, being why would Satan hide (if God has a good reason to not want people to know of Him, then His enemy should want the opposite and hence would want us to know) would apply to every religion with an evil God or opponent to God, which again is most.

 

The problem of evil would apply equally to any religion that claims their God is good with the power to make things better.  Doesn't even have to be perfectly good or powerful, just empathetic and supernaturally powerful, then they could directly interact with the world to make it better...  but don't.  And, as before, the opposite thought, that Satan could make the world much worse than it is if he has the power claimed of him, and that idea would apply to any version of an evil God.

 

You also have the classic thought experiment of the number of claimed Gods through history.  Some estimates say there have been 3000 different God's claimed.  This tells us several things; God isn't making it clear or stopping false religions, that the religious must agree that 2999 God's are false, that millions of people must have followed a false religion and it is clear people are constantly convinced of such falsehoods and any claims of personal experience, personal miracles or feelings of connection to God occur across religions with equal frequency, meaning those who are following false religions have those exact same feelings and experiences.  People following "false" religions are equally devout, equally willing to die for their cause and equally absolutely convinced that they are right.

 

The other version of a God would be a deist one.  Sometimes described as little more than a force that started the universe, giving it no characteristics and claiming no interactions with our world.  This leads to the obvious problem, that if it doesn't communicate and doesn't interact, then it is impossible to know anything about it and it is indistinguishable from merely being a force of nature.  A vague enough force could equally be something like gravity, because there is no requirement for intelligence or to be a being at all.  You can't even come to know that it exists because such a thing specifically avoids us.  At best it's irrelevant.

 

Another consideration is that Christianity is the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful religion ever.  If there was an organisation that could claim to be divinely led, then the biggest would be the obvious choice.  To say God is real but His church and the right choice has been surpassed by a gigantic false religion, seems to say that God is useless at convincing His followers of the right path.  God's such as Zeus, Ra, Odin and the like, have all disappeared to history.  If they had been as powerful as claimed, then this fate should not have been possible.

 

There is also the problem of instruction, that is that God's choice for spreading His message appears to be to tell a small group of ancient tribesmen and then waiting generations for it to be written down, and a couple of thousand years before the printing press was made.  Is that really the best He could do?  Whether it is the bible, Koran, Dianetics or any other holy book, they all were written by men and there is no agreement on which are holy and which are not.  Divinely inspired is indistinguishable from works which are not.  If you remove such holy books they will never be recreated, as no one is ever divinely inspired to create the same works in seclusion.

 

Final point, miracles.  If we read a story about Caesar and it says he attacked Gaul, we would consider that mundane and hence plausible.  If the story says he did it riding on the back of a red dragon then we would instantly discount the story as legendary.  Any work that includes elements that are unbelievable automatically falls into the myth category, and of course this includes all of the religious texts.  Whether it is Jesus rising from the dead, Mo splitting the moon with his sword, Moses parting the red sea or Hubbard explaining alien spirits being attached to your soul, these claims are all equally unbelievable.  Any religious person must believe that the stories in their own holy text are true, while dismissing similar supernatural stories from all other sources (or at best labelling them as magic or demonic in order to accept magic happens but is not as great as power from their guy).  Of course, some of the claims go full whackadoodle, with things like young earth creationism having to deny almost every field of science in order to make their claims work.  Without being able to prove miracles of any kind exist, all such stories will make me think the claims are rubbish.

 

So, with all of these points (and probably a bunch more I'm not thinking of off the top of my head) I feel quite justified in a lack of belief in any of the existing religions.  None stand out as more plausible, all just rely on childhood indoctrination, which isn't a path to finding truth.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

Another consideration is that Christianity is the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful religion ever.  If there was an organisation that could claim to be divinely led, then the biggest would be the obvious choice. 

 

You made some very good points.  

 

Christians were lucky enough to be joined by the most powerful government in that period in history, and had power over enough centuries to stamp out almost everyone who oppossed their doctrine in the western world.  I see that as pure luck with sly church leaders---not divinity.  And after centuries of brain washing the masses of people, you have christianity.  

 

I haven't studied other religions in depth, but enough to decide that Hinduism and Buddhaism (actually more of a philosophy) are more humane.  The numerous Abrahamic based religions are more authoritarian power, fear and quilt based.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

20 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

The other version of a God would be a deist one.  Sometimes described as little more than a force that started the universe, giving it no characteristics and claiming no interactions with our world.  This leads to the obvious problem, that if it doesn't communicate and doesn't interact, then it is impossible to know anything about it and it is indistinguishable from merely being a force of nature.  A vague enough force could equally be something like gravity, because there is no requirement for intelligence or to be a being at all.  You can't even come to know that it exists because such a thing specifically avoids us.  At best it's irrelevant

I guess this is where most here would say that I land. But not quite. While a deist God would be completely hands off. What I see us that if there is a God that does intervene at times it is a very selective God. Even Bart Ehrman admitted that there are those things that happen in the human body that are unexplainable. Like cancer going into spontaneous remission. It happens, no one knows why, it happens to people of all faiths or no faith at all. But things like this do happen. 

 

Another thing is the question of how did it all start? If it was a massive star explosion how did the star form? At the end of the day there are things that science and research will probably not be able to answer. And it is in those things that I speculate may be a deities doing. Maybe it mostly just enjoys analyzing life. Watching what happens. Like an ant farm. But for whatever reason sometimes it gets the urge to make a difference in its favorites. I don't know. That God probably doesn't give a shit if I worship it or not. But hopefully my life is interesting enough to keep it happy. There sure is enough drama in my life to keep any couch potato happy.   

 

DB

[TABA]

12 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

If it was a massive star explosion how did the star form?

I think the formation of stars is pretty well understood.  In the early universe, uneven distribution or clumping of particles caused the first Hydrogen atoms to develop.  Once enough of these coalesced into a big enough mass, the extreme gravity produced caused nuclear fusion to begin, converting  hydrogen into helium, releasing huge amounts of energy.  The basic process inside a star is the constant conversion of hydrogen into helium.  If s star is big enough and old enough, heavier elements including iron are produced in the late stages of a star’s life.  When the star eventually explodes, these heavier elements are spread far and wide.  
 

I’m an engineer, not a scientist, so anybody please correct any errors I’ve made here.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, TABA said:

I’m an engineer, not a scientist, so anybody please correct any errors I’ve made here.

You said "If s star is big enough..." when it should be "If a star is big enough..."

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, TABA said:

I think the formation of stars is pretty well understood.  

 

But, where did the "stuff" that make up the stars come from??  To me, that is the BIG question.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Don't y'all know that everything came from nothing?  Honestly, what kind of atheists are you? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Don't y'all know that everything came from nothing?  Honestly, what kind of atheists are you? 

lol you know we aren't all atheists!! As my mom would say, "Silly Goose". Lmao  

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

But, where did the "stuff" that make up the stars come from??  To me, that is the BIG question.

That is the lingering question that will probably never be answered. For any of this to have happened. There had to be atleast particles of something. Where did it come from? 

 

So in that sense. Even atheists have to have faith. Faith that somehow it is all explainable by science eventually. And that it all happened naturally somehow in an unexplainable way. 

 

DB 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

lol you know we aren't all atheists!! As my mom would say, "Silly Goose". Lmao  

 

DB

My mom would say, "Stupid duck."  I only realized years later that it was because of autocorrect.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

The infinite regress problem is unsolvable. @DarkBishop

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Even atheists have to have faith. Faith that somehow it is all explainable by science eventually.

I'm not sure I agree.  I don't think saying, "I don't know" really requires a great deal of faith.

[TABA]

24 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Even atheists have to have faith. Faith that somehow it is all explainable by science eventually.

 

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure I agree.  I don't think saying, "I don't know" really requires a great deal of faith.

 

This is because you are using different definitions of atheist.  I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in any god.  I don't KNOW for sure there are none, but I doubt there are.  I sometimes clarify my position by calling myself an agnostic atheist.  Agnostic = not knowing.  Atheist = not believing.  I think DB is using the word atheist to refer to somebody who knows or is certain there is no deity.  People use all kinds of labels differently, which leads to confusion.  Such is life.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

 

This is because you are using different definitions of atheist.  I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in any god.  I don't KNOW for sure there are none, but I doubt there are.  I sometimes clarify my position by calling myself an agnostic atheist.  Agnostic = not knowing.  Atheist = not believing.  I think DB is using the word atheist to refer to somebody who knows or is certain there is no deity.  People use all kinds of labels differently, which leads to confusion.  Such is life.

I might should clarify.  My "I don't know" was referring to how it all began and if science would ever figure it out.  Not to the existence of god question.  Apologies for any confusion.

 

To make amends, please enjoy this lovely photo of my sister-in-law's noodle shop.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, Krowb said:

The infinite regress problem is unsolvable. @DarkBishop

Yep, and unless it can be solved i have to remain where I am and I'm fine with that. I like my world view and I know that there probably aren't any Gods or an afterlife. But.... I do hope for more. More than even the religions were able to dream up. 

 

7 hours ago, TABA said:

I think DB is using the word atheist to refer to somebody who knows or is certain there is no deity. 

 

You would be correct. But there are people that are completely convinced. And claim they know. 

 

DB

[Wertbag]

8 hours ago, Krowb said:

The infinite regress problem is unsolvable. @DarkBishop

If the universe is infinite, then there is no explanation and no first cause, which feels implausible.  If it has a beginning, then it points to space/time coming from nothing as there would have been a point with no space/time, which seem implausible.  If there is a God inserted, a being that is purely theoretical and cannot be shown to exist, then the only way that works is by saying it is outside of space/time, which is in itself an incoherent thought, and potentially still has an infinite regress of its own, so seems implausible.

So, the problem as I see it is that all hypotheses on the origins are implausible, with none that make sense from our limited knowledge.  Sadly, it's the extreme fringe of our knowledge and will probably never be answered, it's just too long ago, too far away and too hard to test in any way.

[RankStranger]

On 7/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, TABA said:

 

 

This is because you are using different definitions of atheist.  I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in any god.  I don't KNOW for sure there are none, but I doubt there are.  I sometimes clarify my position by calling myself an agnostic atheist.  Agnostic = not knowing.  Atheist = not believing.  I think DB is using the word atheist to refer to somebody who knows or is certain there is no deity.  People use all kinds of labels differently, which leads to confusion.  Such is life.

 

Per ancient X-C theology, this would be a 'weak atheist' stance.  As opposed to a 'strong atheist' stance where one claims to know that there is no God.

 

Just terminology for the sake of discussion.  I'm not trying to box in what you do or don't believe.

[TABA]

6 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Per ancient X-C theology, this would be a 'weak atheist' stance.  As opposed to a 'strong atheist' stance where one claims to know that there is no God.

 

Just terminology for the sake of discussion.  I'm not trying to box in what you do or don't believe.

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with those terms. But really, who wants to be a Weak anything?  Whether it's "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist", I'd say most of us heathens here are in that state, whether we use the terms or not.  I don't know of any currently active members who would claim to KNOW there is no god.

[RankStranger]

21 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with those terms. But really, who wants to be a Weak anything?  Whether it's "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist", I'd say most of us heathens here are in that state, whether we use the terms or not.  I don't know of any currently active members who would claim to KNOW there is no god.

 

Yeah, just because terminology is clear, that doesn't mean people want to use it.  I had the same problem as a 'weak atheist' of 30+ years.  It described my theology accurately, but 'weak atheist' just didn't meet my edge-lord needs 

 

We've had people here in the past who would argue from a 'strong atheist' position, but I think they were outliers.  Most atheists I've known have simply concluded that there is no God, due to lack of evidence.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

@RankStranger,

 

I was not here in the ancient days, but a while back I put together what hopefully serves as a primer on the various positions one can take:  

 

 

Failure to accept a proposition is not the same thing as accepting its opposite. 

 

"God Exists: NOT TRUE" =/= "God does NOT exist: TRUE"

 

God will first need to be defined, then within the limits of that definition we can make a determination about how to proceed with respect to the proposition: we can adopt it, we can reject it, or we can go a step further and adopt a position opposite the proposition.

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, Krowb said:

@RankStranger,

 

I was not here in the ancient days, but a while back I put together what hopefully serves as a primer on the various positions one can take:  

 

 

Failure to accept a proposition is not the same thing as accepting its opposite. 

 

"God Exists: NOT TRUE" =/= "God does NOT exist: TRUE"

 

God will first need to be defined, then within the limits of that definition we can make a determination about how to proceed with respect to the proposition: we can adopt it, we can reject it, or we can go a step further and adopt a position opposite the proposition.

 

I like this post.

[Wertbag]

8 hours ago, TABA said:

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with those terms. But really, who wants to be a Weak anything?  Whether it's "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist", I'd say most of us heathens here are in that state, whether we use the terms or not.  I don't know of any currently active members who would claim to KNOW there is no god.

This leads down the rabbit hole of figuring out how you know anything.  What does it mean to know?  Are you making any knowledge claim as 100%?  Science certainly doesn't, but does that mean we know nothing?

I usually find there is a higher standard being applied to religion than to almost any other subject.  We would happily use the standard of "knowing beyond reasonable doubt" for pretty much everything else, but when it comes to God the standard gets raised to 100% knowledge as the only acceptable answer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is why I generally steer away from the terms atheist and agnostic.  I don't even know what either of those terms mean anymore.  I'm content to call myself and apatheist; because, at the end of the day, I really don't care if a god exists or not.  It's not like knowing for sure is going to shorten my daily commute or change my dietary habits or make any other practical difference in my life. 

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is why I generally steer away from the terms atheist and agnostic.  I don't even know what either of those terms mean anymore.  I'm content to call myself and apatheist; because, at the end of the day, I really don't care if a god exists or not.  It's not like knowing for sure is going to shorten my daily commute or change my dietary habits or make any other practical difference in my life. 

 

You might be surprised.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, RankStranger said:

 

You might be surprised.

It's possible I could be; but after spending more than half my life certain that a god existed, it's highly improbable.  Improbable enough that I have no interest in even bothering with it.