God Debate Is Worthless

[Twentythree]

As far as I can tell the actual god debate is a worthless endeavor. Although probability suggests that the atheist outlook is correct, no one can say with 100% certainty whether god exists or not. In this regard, as atheists should we not stop trying to prove or disprove god and instead prove or disprove the credibility of religions? The god concept that relegates god to the outer reaches of our perception as some sort of enigmatic energy somewhere out in the cosmos I think is an ok concept to have. It is in those areas that gods existence is debatable. But current perceptions of an interventionist god, and the institutions of mind and population control that come with it should be more of a target for the rational mind. It is in these arenas that doubt can be raised with fact and example. It is in these arenas that the crutch of religion will be lost and the burden/gift of personal accountability will be found. A population without excuses will be a population of the mind, a population of consciousness where the absurdity of certainty will give way to a deeper compassion, a greater sense of acceptance and a society free of the fear and despair that is the foundation of religion.

[Asmodean]

no one can say with 100% certainty whether god exists or not

Oh, you can say that. However, you can not prove it for every god out there.

[Whitney]

I find it hard to have a discussion about the credibility of religion without touching on if the god that religion is based on is real...the religious person all too often will appeal to the existence of that god as proof of the religion's validity.

So, I take the stance that until the person can  prove their god is real I won't give much thought to the religion surrounding that god belief.

Now, if a person that is Buddhist or some other religion that doesn't hinge on a god then it would make sense to discuss the merits of the religion and what makes them think it is the truth.

[Twentythree]

I find it hard to have a discussion about the credibility of religion without touching on if the god that religion is based on is real...the religious person all too often will appeal to the existence of that god as proof of the religion's validity.

So, I take the stance that until the person can  prove their god is real I won't give much thought to the religion surrounding that god belief.

Now, if a person that is Buddhist or some other religion that doesn't hinge on a god then it would make sense to discuss the merits of the religion and what makes them think it is the truth.

By the same token though by disproving the validity of a religion do we not prove the fallacy of the god in that religion. By continuing to break down the lies and myths of a religion this forces the religious person to constantly redefine the idea of god. The less concrete the religion the less concrete the god concept becomes. The more abstract, distant and unattainable the idea of god becomes the more likely a person will be to see even the possibility of a universe without the interventionist god. We can't prove that the universe was not created by god (god could be dark energy or in a different dimension or in a different reality or some other abstract concept of god), however we can prove that natural disasters, the seasons, tides, and nearly all other natural phenomena can now be explained scientifically. We can show the vast improbability of  current interventionist god concepts. If we can push the modern mind into the realm that god and science could essentially be the same thing then I think that as rational thinkers we've accomplished a tremendous goal of defending mindfulness and abolishing lies and ignorance. If god created religion and we can prove that religion is smoke and mirrors, what then is to be made of the god from which it issued forth?

[Recusant]

...By continuing to break down the lies and myths of a religion this forces the religious person to constantly redefine the idea of god.

I wonder how well you understand the religious mind.  It's an extremely rare occasion when the statements of even well respected scientists are seen by a religious person as "breaking down the lies and myths" of their religion. Even less does the religious person "redefine the idea of god" in the face of some person or group of people calling their beliefs lies and myths.  I like some of the ideas in your OP, but I have severe doubts that what you propose above is a realistic path to a less god-bothering society.

...We can show the vast improbability of  current interventionist god concepts.

What may be convincing to you for this purpose is often easily disregarded by a person of faith.

If we can push the modern mind into the realm that god and science could essentially be the same thing then I think that as rational thinkers we've accomplished a tremendous goal of defending mindfulness and abolishing lies and ignorance.

It's really this sentence which prompted me to reply to your post.  I wonder if you realize that the idea of "god and science could essentially be the same thing" is one of the things which certain religious apologists mention when critiquing atheists.  Science is a process of discovery, and can only take the place of a god in the mind of somebody who actually doesn't understand science very well if at all, and is merely substituting one form of faith for another.

Religion isn't all about "lies and ignorance."  There's more to it than that, and when you characterize it in such a way, you say more about yourself than you do about religion, in my opinion. You seem to think that there's some sort of dichotomy between "religion" and "mindfulness."  In some people that may be the case, but that's as far as it goes.  There are plenty of people who are religious and mindful at the same time.

Mindfulness is a worthy goal, but I think your approach to helping more people achieve it is faulty.  

[Whitney]

I don't care if people believe in god or not...my point is that the religious person hinges all their beliefs on this god they think is real; it's rare to find a religious person who can talk about their religion without falling onto the subject of their god's existence.

[Twentythree]

That may be true but does it not stand to reason that the further god is pushed into the recesses of the cosmos that it would lead to a more open debate about the true underlying nature of the universe. God or not, there is a point in which we all become confounded. Would it not seem that religion and science can converge on this great unknown and bridge the gap between theists and atheists. Would it be impossible to find that common ground or do you think that genes and the physical nature of consciousness has built in the need for faith so implicitly that any endeavor to find a common truth will be fruitless.

Michael Persinger has a lecture posted on big ideas

http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/tvobigideas/~3/ChH2kPhwYV4/012057_48k.mp3

The research he discusses is essentially manufactured telepathy. Do you think that even on the verge of shared consciousness that the god debate is futile. Also if we are unable as a species to converge on truth, especially as it pertains to the origins of the cosmos and the nature of reality itself do we have much hope for a prolonged existence? I mean that is my hope, that is why I'm here learning, discussing and discovering all with the hope that the closer to the truth I get each day the closer humanity comes to the truth. I feel like at a certain point the need for deception, deception detection and subversion was necessary for survival. Do we have the capacity to move past that evolutionary hurdle?

Sorry for all the tangents, maybe I should have started all new posts for this stuff. Either way this has all got my brain working double time which feels great...defiantly can't have these kinds of conversations around the office. 

[xSilverPhinx]

I think it's easier to take it on claim by claim, and not hinge the entire thing on whether god(s) exist. Firstly because the god concept is versatile. You may think you're disproving 'god' only to have the believer shift the goal post and associate what they call god to something self evident and real, such as the fact that the universe exists and therefore god must exist without giving the loaded word 'god' much thought. They may also remember experiences that they had which they attribute to their version of god also without giving it much thought.

So, my point being, they associate 'god' to very real things and so trying to disprove them goes nowhere. 'God' to them is more than what Santa is to us, it's an explanation for their existence, for their religious experiences and also a god of the gaps. Science itself only addresses the god of the gaps, the rest is up to epistemology, questioning, cognitive bugs and psychological attributions (beliefs).

You'll never be able to disprove 'god'. What you can do is make them think about their own beliefs, but there's a good chance that their beliefs will just change and not disappear altogether, unless you deprive the roots of their beliefs from its sustenance.  

[Crow]

I would have to agree to a degree. From my own experiences and reading debates about god(s) you quickly begin to see a pattern that emerges between the opposing sides, whilst both sides debate each others words there is the major problem and always results with the debate going round in circles; for instance a theist will bring up tradition or scripture and treat it as fact, whereas an atheist is going to dispute this as nothing more than a myth that has no evidence behind it. Neither party is on the same wavelength and essentially are talking to themselves which in turn is strengthening each sides own views, for an example of this I was having a conversation (about 4 years ago) with a theist friend of mine and I decided to raise the plagiarism issue of the bible, but to my shock he took the opinion that this was more proof that the bible was correct and got very excited about it. People that believe in a theist god do not on average think in a systematic fashion and jump to a conclusion before actually delving deeper into the origins of what they believing and very very rarely question it.

However I think debates with deists can be very interesting.

Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.

[original_gender]

There is only a finite amount that can be gained from it, due to religious debaters being deluded and stubbornly failing to acknowledge the integrity of information, but if it weren't for the God debate, I would probably still be blindly subscribing to a hateful and historically violent cult right now (I was raised in a Baptist family).

Edit: Grammar

[The Black Jester]

Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.

Absolutely.  My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity.  Not the fault of my parents.  The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.' 

My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view.  Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely.  But I take your point to be that no one does this after just one argument.  No one goes away thinking, 'Huh.  I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"

[Twentythree]

Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.

Absolutely.  My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity.  Not the fault of my parents.  The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.' 

My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view.  Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely.  But I take your point to be that no one does this after just one argument.  No one goes away thinking, 'Huh.  I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"

what was it about what your father said that drove you away from the your faith? Do you still struggle with it at all? Do you feel in any way that your atheism is a form of rebellion?

[The Black Jester]

Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.

Absolutely.  My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity.  Not the fault of my parents.  The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.' 

My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view.  Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely.  But I take your point to be that no one does this after just one argument.  No one goes away thinking, 'Huh.  I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"

what was it about what your father said that drove you away from the your faith? Do you still struggle with it at all? Do you feel in any way that your atheism is a form of rebellion?

I don't know that I would describe what my father did as 'driving me away from my faith.'  And, if I'm honest, it wasn't entirely his doing.  He would argue various points with me, the tenability of the god concept, the practical upshot of the morality condoned in various holy texts, the scientific accounts of our origins and the origin of the universe - but he mostly encouraged me to read outside my comfort range...to pick up a book on evolution before I rejected its claims, for example.  To explore alternative morality schemes by reading what philosophers had written.  In the end, it was the thinking he encouraged that convinced me my 'faith' was misguided. 

I remember very clearly the moment I finally decided to leave Christianity - I read a hypothetical account of how abiogenesis could have occurred, found it convincing, and my last vestige of belief simply left me. A coherent account of how life could have originated and evolved answered my last questions about how life could be possible without intervention.  And that was it.

In a sense, I feel more myself now that I have come to terms with my atheism...it feels natural.  I tried very hard to revisit "spirituality" when I joined Alcoholics Anonymous over 8 years ago, as 12 step recovery programs rely heavily on theism, but it by that point theism felt forced, like a suit that didn't fit.  They told me that was how it would feel, since "healthy" beliefs and actions are not natural for the addict, but that seemed merely prejudiced superstition to me. 

In a very real way, with my continued participation in A.A., my atheism is a form of rebellion, but I do not feel it is rebellion for rebellion's sake.  It is, rather, an expression of who I am in spite of pressures and threats to conform.  A.A. has its own threat of hellfire in the warnings regarding relapse - its supposed to be impossible to recover without god, but I've not found it so.

[Whitney]

I went from I think god probably exists to I think god probably doesn't exist just from reading a book that compared why an atheist (freud) didn't believe and a christian (c.s lewis) did believe.  I thought both people had issues they didn't work through properly but it made it very clear that there was no actual reason to believe in a god.  It was the slide from Christianity to deism that took a while.  I didn't even bother doing much research till after I developed serious doubts about god; I didn't want to have no belief without first making sure I was definitely right about there not being a reason aside from stories to think a god exists.  And since my research involved reading over argumentative papers and participating in debate; debate was the very thing that solidified my nonbelief (the alternative is that it could have lead me down some spiritual path to seek out promising claims/evidence)

[fester30]

I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in.  I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it.  Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus.  Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus.  Made me realize how ridiculous it all was.  If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing.  I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well.  Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.