Happy Atheist Forum

That's what I'm convinced of: God is a human invention.

I actually at one time was a believer, not in Christianity but in some cobbled-together spiritual flapdoodle. But it started smelling bad to me. Why? I guess I've just never really trusted anyone who was selling something.

So I read and read some more. And I came to the conclusion that all this God/spiritual/soul/afterlife stuff is just made up. And so, I was then an athiest. I've never bothered with the ontological argument or any of that, although I know what it is.

I think I'm on one side of atheism. The other side argues about the philosophical aspects as thought God is actually some essential idea that is more worth thinking about than Charlie the Tuna. Sorry.

In other words I think I'm seeing that there are two different atheist camps: the camp that disregards God as being a human fabrication and therefore is nothing to take the least bit seriously, and the camp that embraces logic and the work done by the great philosophers to disprove the existence of God.

Too simplistic?

Maybe just a smidge. Not that it would matter to me; I'm in the dismissive camp, too.

Yet, I do have a high regard for philosophical exercises for their own sake. And there are stakes involved, in terms of social progress vs. opression, when it comes to "god" as opposed to some other non-existent non-entity.

I think it's too simplistic and that you are creating a false dichotomy.  I personally think I'd belong to both of your camps.  I dismiss the god concepts as human fabrications that are silly and superstitious, but won't hesitate to use logic and reason to disprove a god or two from time to time.  Just because I will dismiss someones god doesn't mean that when they try to make legislation to appease it I won't try to utterly destroy the concept.  I don't see why you can't belong to both camps or that others don't exist that I'm just not thinking of.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I think it's too simplistic and that you are creating a false dichotomy.  I personally think I'd belong to both of your camps.  I dismiss the god concepts as human fabrications that are silly and superstitious, but won't hesitate to use logic and reason to disprove a god or two from time to time.

But if God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? It's like disproving the existence of Dracula or the Incredible Hulk.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I think it's too simplistic and that you are creating a false dichotomy.  I personally think I'd belong to both of your camps.  I dismiss the god concepts as human fabrications that are silly and superstitious, but won't hesitate to use logic and reason to disprove a god or two from time to time.

But if God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? It's like disproving the existence of Dracula or the Incredible Hulk.

I don't think of myself as wanting to disprove god, I think of myself as wanting to communicate with people of faith to the point where they have to accept that my position has validity.  I don't want to change anyone's mind because I honestly don't care - pray to a popple and worship cinnamon toast crunch, it's all the same to me.  The issue I see is that there are people in positions of power and influence who use religion to convince the masses of certain ideas which then are put forth as laws with lots of support from said masses.  I don't have a lot of money so I can't take an active stand against the people of power, so I do what I can and reach out to people who follow the people of power and try to explain to them why it's wrong to legislate their religion.

I would love to not feel the compulsion to do this and to simply live my happy atheist life, but I can't do that unless other people wake up and realize that belief, even in mass numbers, does not equal a free license to start dictating how others live.  I don't go out of my way looking for confrontations or arguments, but I don't back down if I come across them and I rarely ignore them - even if the argument is about something as stupid as whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or if God definitely exists or not.  These discussions are less about the subject for me and more about being continually active as yet another voice of atheism.  I think, this is stupid to argue about, but maybe if I make enough good points, it'll add to all the other good points this person has heard and they will at least THINK about why they're supporting what they're supporting.  Maybe if enough people say they disagree, religious people might stop blindly following that random religious person in a position of influence and start thinking for themselves a little more, and things will get better.

Maybe it's a naive waste of time or delusions of grandeur on my part, I don't know, but at least I'm doing SOMETHING to help spread the word that atheists exist, we're rational people who deserve the same rights as everyone else, and even though people may not agree with us that doesn't give anyone the right to treat us like we count less or don't count at all.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I think it's too simplistic and that you are creating a false dichotomy.  I personally think I'd belong to both of your camps.  I dismiss the god concepts as human fabrications that are silly and superstitious, but won't hesitate to use logic and reason to disprove a god or two from time to time.

But if God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? It's like disproving the existence of Dracula or the Incredible Hulk.

I don't think of myself as wanting to disprove god, I think of myself as wanting to communicate with people of faith to the point where they have to accept that my position has validity.  I don't want to change anyone's mind because I honestly don't care - pray to a popple and worship cinnamon toast crunch, it's all the same to me.  The issue I see is that there are people in positions of power and influence who use religion to convince the masses of certain ideas which then are put forth as laws with lots of support from said masses.  I don't have a lot of money so I can't take an active stand against the people of power, so I do what I can and reach out to people who follow the people of power and try to explain to them why it's wrong to legislate their religion.

I would love to not feel the compulsion to do this and to simply live my happy atheist life, but I can't do that unless other people wake up and realize that belief, even in mass numbers, does not equal a free license to start dictating how others live.  I don't go out of my way looking for confrontations or arguments, but I don't back down if I come across them and I rarely ignore them - even if the argument is about something as stupid as whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or if God definitely exists or not.  These discussions are less about the subject for me and more about being continually active as yet another voice of atheism.  I think, this is stupid to argue about, but maybe if I make enough good points, it'll add to all the other good points this person has heard and they will at least THINK about why they're supporting what they're supporting.  Maybe if enough people say they disagree, religious people might stop blindly following that random religious person in a position of influence and start thinking for themselves a little more, and things will get better.

Maybe it's a naive waste of time or delusions of grandeur on my part, I don't know, but at least I'm doing SOMETHING to help spread the word that atheists exist, we're rational people who deserve the same rights as everyone else, and even though people may not agree with us that doesn't give anyone the right to treat us like we count less or don't count at all.

You took the words right out of my mouth.  If we didn't have people trying to pass laws based on their superstitious beliefs (and succeeding) then I would be in the first boat where I just don't care.  I probably wouldn't be on here, I wouldn't be vocal about my atheism, and I wouldn't be worried about engaging people in debate.  Unfortunately there are certain groups of lobbyists and political groups (republicans mainly) who try  to pass laws (which limit our freedoms) based on their pastors particular interpretation of a 1900 year old book.  Though I view a deity like I view Santa Clause and thus shouldn't have to show it doesn't exist because it should be obvious.  When people try to make a law in the name of the imaginary deity I want to at least try and show them that they are worshiping something that isn't real and that the laws they pass are as silly as their belief.  If somehow a law got passed saying that atheists are not allowed to get married because marriage is under God how would you respond to it?  Or how would you respond to science teachers having to teach the literal word of the bible for the origins of the world rather then Big Bang Cosmology or Evolution?  Though the Jewish-Christian god is as real as the tooth fairy does that really mater if followers pass these laws?  Not only would I tell people that these laws were asinine but that their belief in their particular god was just as asinine and I would do everything under the sun (that was legal and not a lie) to convince them of this.  

Well guess what laws are still trying to be passed to retard science education for ancient man's superstitious beliefs.  We have incidents where science teachers refuse to teach evolution or big bang cosmology.  We have teachers evangelizing students in science classes.  We have law makers constantly attempting to make atheists second class citizens.  Why should I not be concerned with this?  Why shouldn't I do everything in my power to stop these things from happening?  Why must I ignore all this craziness?  People think that their fantasy is real enough to legislate on behalf of it.  If we don't try and break them of their fantasy then with their sheer numbers they can win.  It doesn't matter that the tooth fairy isn't real, not when people demand you to pull out your teeth to appease it or they will do it for you.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"It doesn't matter that the tooth fairy isn't real, not when people demand you to pull out your teeth to appease it or they will do it for you.

 :idea:
[/OT commentary]


When there is no more theism, there will be no more atheism. Whether that's a good thing depends on the sequence.

I agree that it is a human invention. I think you can tell it's a human invention because god has all the petty differences and hatreds and proclivities of the people who invented him- whichever him you might refer to at the moment.  
My problem is with the "seeking to disprove it" side. A) how do we prove a negative? It's the theists who are submitting a theory, so it's kind of up to them to prove it. And B) so what if god were proved, would he really be anything you'd want to worship?

Like others have mentioned, theists' refusal to "live and let live" forces atheists to adopt a more pro-active stance.  Because theists themselves have attempted to construct logical proofs for the existence of god, atheists in turn are forced to formulate arguments that then disprove these arguments.  Like atheism itself is only a concept because of theism, pro-active atheism only exists because of pro-active theism.

Well said.

Maybe I should start over again. Let me see here...

Okay, maybe this will work to get my point across. Once I determined that God was made-up, that closed any and all books about the existence of God, even those written by the great philosophers. To me the reality, as I saw it, was plain as day and I saw no further reason to give it any attention. It all points right back to humanity and what we think and why.

Then there's the other group that argues against the metaphysical supernatural concepts of God as presented and adhered to by the believers. To me that argument is settled once and for all when you come to the conclusion that it's all made-up. There isn't any metaphysical supernatural whatever. Why try to argue in favor of a negative? It can't be done, as we all know.

It's never been a matter to me that there's not enough proof, because there isn't any at all. But there is ample evidence to show that God was made in the image of man for man's purposes.

So I see two camps, for lack of a better way of putting it. Camp one is comprised of those who are convinced that God is no more than a human invention. Camp two is comprised of the philosphers, those who approach the God issue on a more intellectual level as if it's something to be seriously considered, even if all that means is addressing the arguments made by the God believers.

Does that make any sense?

Edit: No, this isn't the way to say what it is I'm trying to say. I'm not articulating it well at all.

Are we sure they are actually two camps? Are we sure the philosophers to which you refer really think it's a worthy argument or are they just more willing to pay lip service then the rest of us?
*Keeping in mind I may not be understanding your point correctly.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Maybe I should start over again. Let me see here...

Okay, maybe this will work to get my point across. Once I determined that God was made-up, that closed any and all books about the existence of God, even those written by the great philosophers. To me the reality, as I saw it, was plain as day and I saw no further reason to give it any attention. It all points right back to humanity and what we think and why.

Then there's the other group that argues against the metaphysical supernatural concepts of God as presented and adhered to by the believers. To me that argument is settled once and for all when you come to the conclusion that it's all made-up. There isn't any metaphysical supernatural whatever. Why try to argue in favor of a negative? It can't be done, as we all know.

It's never been a matter to me that there's not enough proof, because there isn't any at all. But there is ample evidence to show that God was made in the image of man for man's purposes.

So I see two camps, for lack of a better way of putting it. Camp one is comprised of those who are convinced that God is no more than a human invention. Camp two is comprised of the philosphers, those who approach the God issue on a more intellectual level as if it's something to be seriously considered, even if all that means is addressing the arguments made by the God believers.

Does that make any sense?

Edit: No, this isn't the way to say what it is I'm trying to say. I'm not articulating it well at all.

Maybe you should wider your scope.
There is a whole spectrum from believer through agnostic to atheist (with all the variations in between).
Camps are for tents and fires etc.

Quote from: "happynewyear"Maybe you should wider your scope.

Good idea. I'll try to "wider" it.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Are we sure they are actually two camps? Are we sure the philosophers to which you refer really think it's a worthy argument or are they just more willing to pay lip service then the rest of us?
*Keeping in mind I may not be understanding your point correctly.

If I follow correctly, I think that's about how I feel about it. On the one hand, I think the idea of god existing is just silly beyond all imagination; but on the other hand, I encounter people thus afflicted on a daily basis. People believe it.... and those people sometimes talk to me about it. I guess, in part, I feel an obligation to at least try to help them. I'm a compassionate person. But I'm afraid I wouldn't get very far with many of them if I were to bluntly dismiss their assertions as ridiculous self-serving delusions, without any further explanation.

Depending on the person's attitude I might anyway, though.

Quote from: "elliebean"People believe it.... and those people sometimes talk to me about it. I guess, in part, I feel an obligation to at least try to help them. I'm a compassionate person. But I'm afraid I wouldn't get very far with many of them if I were to bluntly dismiss their assertions as ridiculous self-serving delusions, without any further explanation.

That's something I have long since dropped as being pointless. Rather like teaching pigs to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig. More power to you if you can do it, but not an exercise I can take on.

It certainly feels pointless and maybe it is, in most cases. The thing that's always in the back of my mind during these debates is the fact that, even if I do influence the person's thinking, I won't necessarily see the results. It can take a while for this influence to make a real impact on their ability to believe in magical thinking. It might even take an event in their life leading to a crisis of faith before the process takes effect. It did for me. And when it did I was so grateful to the few people who had "wasted" their time trying to get through to me in the past, though there was no way they could know it. I wish I'd been able to thank them.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Maybe you should wider your scope.

Good idea. I'll try to "wider" it.

Yes, sorry about the spelling mistake, it should have read "Maybe you should widen your scope".
But in response to your original post, of course humans invented, the word "god" and the concept "god".

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Maybe you should wider your scope.

Good idea. I'll try to "wider" it.

Yes, sorry about the spelling mistake, it should have read "Maybe you should widen your scope".
But in response to your original post, of course humans invented, the word "god" and the concept "god".

My scope is pretty wide actually. It used to be a lot wider but that was back when I was a young crazy person, a long time ago. Now my wife refuses to let me have a bottle of Jack Daniels in the house, except for Christmas and then I only get to have a half-pint.

And that's about the best I can do in response to your post, other than to point out that comma that shouldn't be there.

What a coincidence, my signature states this point exactly, ;)