Formerly god-attributed observations

[CosmicJoghurt]

Greetings.

To strengthen my atheism and to have decent arguments to defend it, I've decided to make a list of formerly god-attributed observations. In other words, stuff that people have, centuries ago, or even further, attributed to God and seen God as the only explanation. This quest resulted from the recent thinking I've been doing on why obviously quite intelligent people have, in the past, been theists, and are commonly used in discussions as arguments for God's existence (*facepalm*).


And... I have not found any. Does anyone know a good one? Just for a laugh xD



Cheers!

 

[Pulsar]

Life, the universe and everything.

that's pretty much it

 

[Anachronous Rex]

To strengthen my atheism

I object to this notion. Atheism describes the state of reality, and is preferable only if it is evidently true. One need not strengthen it as the theist strengthens their faith. This is exactly as ridiculous as beginning a paragraph by saying, "To strengthen my belief in the theory of Quantum Elecrodynamics," or "to strengthen my disbelief in String Theory."

Don't take this the wrong way, but I sometimes wonder if you are some attempt at a strange atheist poe.

 

[BrainBlow]

To strengthen my atheism

I object to this notion. Atheism describes the state of reality, and is preferable only if it is evidently true. One need not strengthen it as the theist strengthens their faith. This is exactly as ridiculous as beginning a paragraph by saying, "To strengthen my belief in the theory of Quantum Elecrodynamics," or "to strengthen my disbelief in String Theory."

Don't take this the wrong way, but I sometimes wonder if you are some attempt at a strange atheist poe.

This.
But you can "have it your way" by simple having this in mind:
In any case where someone attributes God as an explanation to any phenomenon without evidence, just cut it with Occam's Razor.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

To strengthen my atheism

I object to this notion. Atheism describes the state of reality, and is preferable only if it is evidently true. One need not strengthen it as the theist strengthens their faith. This is exactly as ridiculous as beginning a paragraph by saying, "To strengthen my belief in the theory of Quantum Elecrodynamics," or "to strengthen my disbelief in String Theory."

Don't take this the wrong way, but I sometimes wonder if you are some attempt at a strange atheist poe.

I believe I haven't been clear. This is just a small thing for security purposes. The thing is, I know there are many cases of god-attributed beliefs in the past, it's just that I want to be more secure with my own beliefs and actually have some information to rely on. A usual theist doesn't seek things to strengthen their belief, he just wants any remote info to pseudo-support his blind faith. I just want clearer information to be more secure.

It's different. Also, who doesn't want to be the funny victor in ridiculous one-minute arguments that might come up? Again, for a laugh


Cheers!

 

[Squawk]

Lets strengthen the love of not collecting stamps...

On a side note, pick any phenomena that has required an explanation and it will have, at some point, been attributed to God. Thunder, lightning, floods, tides, storms, sunsets, life, mr bean.

 

[Salphen]

He's 13, Rex. For his age, I'd say he's off to a good start on the skepticism front. It just seems he's working through limited understanding of the language involved. If he's American, even if raised in a largely secular household, the language of society is loaded with the phrasing he used. He's working from a limited vocabulary, from my perspective. He'll get his legs under him soon enough, if he truly has a rational bent to his thinking.

Besides, could be that he's started from the typical teenage rebellion against the status-quo and hasn't really decided where his convictions lay yet. Let's feed him all the information he craves, young minds are hungry

Or, better yet, teach him how to teach himself.


As for examples of things once attributed to God.... prettymuch everything has been, at one time or another, been believed to have supernatural causes. Diseases were once thought to be the work of demons, droughts and plagues meant some powerful being was unhappy. Comets were almost universally considered significant portents, messages from higher beings. Iron meteorites were gifts from above, before we learned how to smelt the iron already on Earth. A certain African deity was believed to have vomited up the world, people, and all the animals whilst suffering a tummyache.

Just browse around, iA, there's no end to the absurdity you'll find. If nothing else, you'll find lots to laugh at. Look on religious websites for the myths, then Google up the naturalistic explanations for said myths. You've the largest library in the world just a few keystrokes away in the internets, ya just have to learn to navigate it.

((Edit addition: I could be wrong about his age >.> His intro says he identified with atheism at age 13, so I don't know how old he is now <.< ))

 

[lrkun]

Except for the following:

1. Life - it's something that philosophy nor science can't "fully" explain. It's something that you can still attribute to god. >.<

2. The origin of everything - it's something you can still attribute to god because this is unknown to science.

3. What happens after death - it's something you can attribute to god.

Science can explain the rest.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

He's 13, Rex. For his age, I'd say he's off to a good start on the skepticism front. It just seems he's working through limited understanding of the language involved. If he's American, even if raised in a largely secular household, the language of society is loaded with the phrasing he used. He's working from a limited vocabulary, from my perspective. He'll get his legs under him soon enough, if he truly has a rational bent to his thinking.

Besides, could be that he's started from the typical teenage rebellion against the status-quo and hasn't really decided where his convictions lay yet. Let's feed him all the information he craves, young minds are hungry

Or, better yet, teach him how to teach himself.


As for examples of things once attributed to God.... prettymuch everything has been, at one time or another, been believed to have supernatural causes. Diseases were once thought to be the work of demons, droughts and plagues meant some powerful being was unhappy. Comets were almost universally considered significant portents, messages from higher beings. Iron meteorites were gifts from above, before we learned how to smelt the iron already on Earth. A certain African deity was believed to have vomited up the world, people, and all the animals whilst suffering a tummyache.

Just browse around, iA, there's no end to the absurdity you'll find. If nothing else, you'll find lots to laugh at. Look on religious websites for the myths, then Google up the naturalistic explanations for said myths. You've the largest library in the world just a few keystrokes away in the internets, ya just have to learn to navigate it.

((Edit addition: I could be wrong about his age >.> His intro says he identified with atheism at age 13, so I don't know how old he is now <.< ))

My age shall remain unknown to thou, hidden beyond the limits of thy imagination...

Alright... I'm still 13

Oh, and I'm not American. Let's just say... English isn't my mother language, I guess that's enough info about me already, huh?

Thank you for the info, by the way, I'll take a look at what's out there

I guess I've been thinking about specific observations attributed to God, but it turns out... almost everything already has been... Well, cheers!

 

[Salphen]

My age shall remain unknown to thou, hidden beyond the limits of thy imagination...

Alright... I'm still 13

Oh, and I'm not American. Let's just say... English isn't my mother language, I guess that's enough info about me already, huh?

Thank you for the info, by the way, I'll take a look at what's out there

I guess I've been thinking about specific observations attributed to God, but it turns out... almost everything already has been... Well, cheers!

Well, given that English isn't your first language, you use it far better than far too many of my native engish-speaking neighbors....

It's nice to see you've the sense to keep personal details to yourself. Save for sharing cultural anecdotes, where we're all from really doesn't factor into the arguments we make unless geographic and cultural specifics are relevant to the discussion at hand

Enough derail though, if you want a classic, look up the similarities between the stories of Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus. There's an argument for the plagiarism of religions.

 

[Squawk]

13? If true you are extremely lucid, all the more so for English as a second language.

Except for the following:

1. Life - it's something that philosophy nor science can't "fully" explain. It's something that you can still attribute to god. >.<

Can still apply to anything, anywhere. There are varying degrees of evidence, where is the line?

2. The origin of everything - it's something you can still attribute to god because this is unknown to science.

I do know the origin of a baby, I can still attribute it to God

3. What happens after death - it's something you can attribute to god.

No it's not, its a question.

Your premise here rests on some arbitary line of evidential support. God can be used unless evidence is at X level. That's about as absurd as the theistic arguments that are generally put forth in the first place.

Demonstrate that a God exists. Then and only then can we start to have God as an explanation for anything. Until such a time, meh, it's pie in the sky.

 

[lrkun]

13? If true you are extremely lucid, all the more so for English as a second language.

Except for the following:

1. Life - it's something that philosophy nor science can't "fully" explain. It's something that you can still attribute to god. >.<

Can still apply to anything, anywhere. There are varying degrees of evidence, where is the line?

2. The origin of everything - it's something you can still attribute to god because this is unknown to science.

I do know the origin of a baby, I can still attribute it to God

3. What happens after death - it's something you can attribute to god.

No it's not, its a question.

Your premise here rests on some arbitary line of evidential support. God can be used unless evidence is at X level. That's about as absurd as the theistic arguments that are generally put forth in the first place.

Demonstrate that a God exists. Then and only then can we start to have God as an explanation for anything. Until such a time, meh, it's pie in the sky.

^^ that's the point. Can you explain to me how life came to be? If not, then I can use god as an explanation for the mean time.

Can you explain to me what happened before the big bang or how it started? it's unknown, so I can use god as an explanation for the meantime.

Death and after the event? We'll know when we die or not know. Until it happens I can use god as an explanation for the meantime.


---

I'm not saying god exists or his explanation is correct. I can very well make up a lot of answers without basis. Though to answer it through the perception of science, it is unknown until, we've figured out how to answer such subject to the experiment.

 

[BrainBlow]

That is "god of the gaps" and is pretty much "theist fail 101".
It isn't logical. At all.

 

[lrkun]

That is "god of the gaps" and is pretty much "theist fail 101".
It isn't logical. At all.

True; but Feynman also said that as long as we don't know the truth about the matter, we can always use god as an explanation until a valid scientific explanation can take over god's position in the argument. It means god has a purpose as an explanation for that which we don't know; but the better term or to be consistent with science is to use the word unknown. And when we do find the correct answer, we can use that explanation and take away god from such position as an explanation.

Original Feyman quote:

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "

Richard Feynman, quoted by P. C. W. Davies and J. Brown in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything,p. 208.

 

[Salphen]

That is "god of the gaps" and is pretty much "theist fail 101".
It isn't logical. At all.

Agreed. Worse yet, being satisfied with some superficial, supernatural, non-explanation inhibits the search for real answers, and only prolongs the period of time ignorance reigns.

What's wrong with the three words, "I/We don't know"? Saying Goddoneit is just a copout. Regardless what Feynman says.

 

[lrkun]

That is "god of the gaps" and is pretty much "theist fail 101".
It isn't logical. At all.

Agreed. Worse yet, being satisfied with some superficial, supernatural, non-explanation inhibits the search for real answers, and only prolongs the period of time ignorance reigns.

What's wrong with the three words, "I/We don't know"? Saying Goddoneit is just a copout. Regardless what Feynman says.

I guess like brainblow, you speed read what I wrote. Sigh... Look, I expect you guys to be better than the normal people. Don't let me down here.

True; but Feynman also said that as long as we don't know the truth about the matter, we can always use god as an explanation until a valid scientific explanation can take over god's position in the argument. It means god has a purpose as an explanation for that which we don't know; but the better term or to be consistent with science is to use the word unknown. And when we do find the correct answer, we can use that explanation and take away god from such position as an explanation.

 

[BrainBlow]

The problem is, why bother using god in the first place at all?

 

[Salphen]

Meh, I just got home from some funfunfun oral surgery. My brain's fuzzy today. Apologies.

 

[lrkun]

The problem is, why bother using god in the first place at all?

Because of the thread title. Formerly god-attributed observations. One must be consistent with the thread starter's inquiry. I used 1, 2, and 3 as the exceptions, the rest can be explained by today's Science. Of course, 1,2, or 3 might not be the only exceptions; but they are the first that came to mind. So with the exceptions of 1, 2, and 3 (or others), the thread starter can distinguish the things he can attribute to science and the things he can attribute to as having no explanation as of yet (unknown or 1,2, and 3).

 

[Salphen]

My confusion came into play when you were saying 'I could', rather than 'one could', when making your point. Anesthetic-fuzzied mind failed to translate :lol: You seemed to be speaking from a personal perspective, rather than from an abstract.