What's Your "Heart Barrier"?
Posted on: July 8, 2007 - 11:51pm
Offline
What's Your "Heart Barrier"?
In other words, why can't you believe in a God?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
That's possibly the lamest term I've ever heard.
That's a record. I've been insulted on the first post. How about answering the question?
For me, its not that I can't, its that I don't.
Thank you for answering the question. Can you explain what led you to that conclusion?
Alright. Here's my answer: I do.
As for the atheists here, I can imagine that there answers would fall along the lines of the lack of evidence for a god, the fact that "god" is an incoherent term, and the fact that no gods seem to be worth worshipping. They might also complain about the whole "heart barrier" thing, not because it's lame, but because it takes for granted that atheism is an emotionally rooted position rather than an intellectually rooted one.
Why do you assume it to be a heart barrier? Surely belief in God or lack thereof is a conclusion that one should reach due to thinking, not feeling?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Here we are getting stuck on terminology again. Silly me. I should have used a different term. Ignore the title and try to answer the question I made in the actual post.
Why cannot I believe in God
-Meaningless term
-No place in universe of discourse
-Incoherent
-Deliberately obfusicated theology
-No evidence
-Occam's Razor
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Why?
...
I just don't. I can't say it anyway else. I don't. Why don't you believe in Zeus, or Taoism, or Raelians, or Scientology? If I had think of SOME reason, I'd say because they do not fit the universe the way I see it.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
I'll start with my response to deludedgod.
I'd have to say the first three are a matter of opinion. To the fourth, I'd have to say that most of the theology can be seen clearly. The fifth one is just plain false. And the sixth one...
On Occam's Razor:
Occam's Razor philosophy
. That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is.
The English philosopher, William of Occam (1300-1349) propounded Occam's Razor:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
(Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary"
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.
This can't be used since God didn't cause himself to exist, but has always been. There's also the fact that only a divine being like God could cause something such as the universe to exist, since the universe couldn't make itself anyway.
Now, my response to xamination...
Unlike Greek Mythology, Taoism, Raelians, and Scientology, the Bible can be backed up.
Okay... I'm pretty sure I want to post this... nothing seems wrong right now... but I'll wait for your responses to see if I am or not.
A truly stunning rebuttal.
To fit the truly stunning answers deludedgod gave...
You have proof the Bible is the divine word of an omnipotent God? Let's see it.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Okay, but it will require a longer than normal answer, so I'll get to that in my free time. You'll get it tomorrow.
It's pretty funny when the theists start doing your work for you.
Thanks, LosingStreak! 
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Gee, thanks. If only there were an easier way to express sarcasm online. The first four are valid:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term
http://www.rationalresponders.com/noncognitivist_arguments_part_i_god_exists_is_mutually_contradictory
http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts
http://www.rationalresponders.com/noncognitivist_arguments_part_ii_the_matter_information_conjecture_is_a_crisis_for_the_existence...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response
(this one is more to do with the mind and brain, but it does cast serious doubt on the possibility of an immaterial God being a conscious entity with a mind)
Five is plain false? Do enlighten me. And not some rehashed nonsense like Design or Cosmology, something original, Danke.
And why do you strawman me. I was actually referring to Occam's Razor in this sense:
When we observe the universe’s history, it clearly goes from simple to complex, driven by free energy. Let us look at it in reverse order:
1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)
Now, why not look at the same list, except with God inserted into it, in reverse order again?
1. Consciousness
2. Eukaryotic life
3. Prokaryotic life
4. Terrestrial planets
5. Galactic clusters
6. Stellar formation
7. Plasma gas cooling
8. Hydrogenous ionization
9. Atomic organization
10. Universal expansion
11. Singularity collapse
12. Singularity state (literally ex nihilo)
13. Consciousness
It’s absurd. Utterly absurd. Far from being an explanation of the universe, it merely creates superfluous epistemic baggage, unnecessary questions on the existence of the entity against the grain of natural law. So it should come as no surprise that it gets swiftly eliminated via Occam’s Razor.
But seeing as you were referring to cosmology...
Lies, Damn Lies, and False Beliefs about Ex Nihilo aka How to pretend you know cosmology without really trying
BTW all of those, save two, are mine.
{link}
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I hope you understand that it's going to take me a while to read all that, respond to all that, and provide the evidence I have of the existence of a God. Oh, AND the evidence for the credibility of the Bible.
I see beyond any doubt that you are a very smart person, deludedgod. Maybe I'll learn something from you.
I did not expect you to respond to all that, definitely not to read all of it. I was merely challenging your assertion that my suggestions on the list were unsubstantiated matters of opinion, by showing that I had indeed considered the matters.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Many reasons for my disbelief in all forms of deities. The main of one being that much of what religion and the bible said it answered as divine or the result of god, was later explained by science or disproven by science. Now science can't answer everything now, and probably won't be able to answer every single question or mystery. However much of what religion has stated has been shown in many ways to have occurred naturally without the intervention of a supreme deity.
Other than that, the need and so far the way god acts seems to be far to "human". a creation to control man, a way such as totalarian dictators run it, trying to control everything including thought.
Anyother reason is have i had no reason for this belief, I have seen no evidence of the biblical god, or any god, i see nothing else than a man made religions and beliefs to explain things that at one time had no proper explanation, full of superstitions and ignorance.
I am not angry at god and this is not my source of disbelief. It is merely i have no need of this god to live my life, to be happy and fruitful. To enjoy this life that i have, I like many have good days and bad days, but in the end i do not require this god to move on and to continue my day. I know simply that it will pass, that like everything in this universe it is continually changing and the bad part of my life will change to good, as long as i work towards it.
because i have no reason to believe in a man-made distortion of history and nature that has caused more grief, violence, suffering, bigotry, prejudice and death than good. it's pure fiction and it's cons far outweigh it's pros. it's entirely detrimental to the growth and well-being of our species.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
IF you say so.
From what I understand, the heart barrier is a reason that blocks the feeling of God entering people's "hearts" (or feelings). I can believe in God. I used to be a Theist, but I just don't believe anymore.
I learned that believing in God has really nothing good about it. Everything about my faith was founded in ignorance, closed-mindedness, ever-growing human ego and mental weakness. Here are demonstrations based on my personal experience:
Ignorance: I thought that Atheists were stupid for discounting the existence of God, because everything couldn't have happened by "chance".
Closed-mindedness: I was very dogmatic about some things. When I heard the idea that paranormal things such as God needed to be proven, I thought that people who thought so were stupid.
Ego: I liked the idea of eternal life. Instead of completely disappearing after death, I would go to heaven for eternity, and I wouldn't be forgotten. I also would be part of God's plan here on earth, and no matter what I did, I was always being useful to him. This really satisfied my ego. It gave me a very enpowering feeling out of arrogance.
Mental weakness: I refused to believe that this would be the only life I have. That I would have to be on this imperfect earth for just about 80 years. I wanted to believe in a perfect place, where there are no troubles. But such belief only eroded my mental strenght. Now all I can do is try to be happy in this "imperfect" world. Instead of refusing, I now can face the truth.
I gave up God, because I knew it would make me better as a person. It sure was a noble goal.
Edit:
Oh, yes. And that too. The utilitaristic reasons.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
1) "supernatural" is incoherent. It cannot exist.
2) God is defined as supernatural. It cannot exist.
****
1) "God" as described by the bible is indistinguishable from any other "god" as described by any other "holy book."
2) Since such a being would presumably be distinguishable, it follows that this god is simply another invention of man.
3) Furthermore, this god is particularly nasty, and can only be assumed to be the invention of particularly cruel and primitive men.
****
1) A being that is not supernatural is testable.
2) Based on available information, there is no such being interacting with the earth or its inhabitants.
3) Having no evidence of interaction, there is no way of testing for its existence. With no other compelling reason to believe, the default position is disbelief.
****
1) Contemporary research points to a negative correlation between god-belief and societal health.
2) Since America, the most Christian country in the world, is also the most unhealthy in many respects, this is good evidence against the benefit of god-belief, regardless of the reality of god's existence.
****
1) Contemporary research points to a positive correlation between freethinking/secular belief and societal health.
2) Since the countries that are the most secular are also typically the most healthy in many respects, this is good evidence against the benefit of god-belief, regardless of the reality of god's existence.
****
1) There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
2) There is contemporary evidence suggesting that the Jesus story is a conglomerate of previous god-stories.
3) This points to a story originated by man, not an all powerful deity.
****
1) The concepts of heaven and hell do not correlate with the concepts of reward and punishment.
2) Since an all powerful deity would have known this, it stands to reason that an all powerful deity didn't invent them.
****
1) Morality is not only demonstrably human made, there has yet to be a religion to contribute anything meaningful to moral thought. Religion must steal morality from secular thought.
2) Since god is described as the originator of morality, there is a contradiction. Since I have evidence of the existence of secular morality, god seems unneccesary.
3) Occam's razor.
****
1) the god concept makes any explanation of the origin of life more complicated, not less.
2) Occam's razor.
****
1) the god concept makes any explanation of the origin of the universe more complicated, not less.
2) Occam's razor.
****
1) There is a statistically amazing correlation between religious belief and parental religious belief.
2) This points to a cultural origin, as opposed to a scientific origin.
****
1) There is not a single coherent definition of god which has ever crossed before my eyes.
2) If it's not defined, I can't even choose whether or not to believe in it!
****
1) Dualism has been utterly refuted with regard to human consciousness.
2) There is no other evidence for the existence of a "soul."
3) With no evidence for a soul, there is also no evidence for an afterlife.
4) With no evidence for an afterlife, there is no reason to believe a story that includes one.
****
Any other silly questions?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
As posted in another thread, this is why:
Christians must believe that Yahweh, a god of a nomadic people of the middle east is the one true god who created everything that is, including the human race.
Xians must also believe, then, that all people of the earth who are non-xian are "lost" and are rebeling against the "one true god."
This would make, for example, the Inuit a Satanic people, or at best, spiritually bankrupt, and therefore a people who will burn for eternity in hell if they do not accept Christ as their personal savior.
Please do not gloss over this, but do take A LONG TIME to ponder the absurdity of this, the tenets of your religion.
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
I could easily believe in a god. To just believe that someone else is looking out for me and that I will continue to exist forever is something I very much want to. However I am aware of how much I desire it to be true so I am very cautious of letting myself believe it. I am more than open to the possibility but there is a depressing lack of evidence to support it.
If, as the evidence suggests, it is not true then me giving into that want and believeing would be the equivalent of selling my soul. Note, this is metaphorical as I don't believe in the soul. My intellect is the most valuable thing I have and to give that up for a happy ignorance would be totally dishonest and cowardly.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
on top of reasons that others have posted as to why I dont believe (i.e. no evidence, occam's razor, etc.)
I simply got tired of watching religion tear apart my friends and family, but moreso than that, when I actually started researching past attrocities done in the name of religion, I came to the conclusion that I never want to be a part of that kind of fear, hatred, mysogony, terror, bloodshed, violence, genocide, or what have you based on ignorant and completely unprovable beliefs. Even if it were true and god came down and stood before me I'd still tell him to piss off.
To use your terms, I have a "head barrier"
God concepts can't break past my improved reasoning skills (I used to be an evangelical Christian)
Find a way that God can square with common sense and we'll talk.
Attacking emotions is easy so the "heart barrier" can be quickly compromised.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't believe in god for the exact same reason you don't believe in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy.
My heart barrier is that my heart is still beating, so at this time I have yet to see any evidence for the existence of a God.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Seeing how it would take me forever to reply to each and every one of your posts, I'm going to try something different.
It seems most of you can't believe because of the "lack" of evidence. So, I'm going to start a blog demonstrating the different points of evidence I have come across in my readings.
Maybe after that if we can come to a common ground that there is undoubtedly evidence for God, I can try to shed light on some misconceptions concerning the suffering of the human race and hell.
Good luck.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
If you're just going to repeat the information that's on a site like this one:
http://www.christiananswers.net/
Then save yourself some time and just refer to the site. They pretty much cover all the basics. These are all old arguments that we've all heard before.
If you have some new argument that isn't already in fifty billion apologist sites and books, I'd be interested to hear that.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I'm putting down $5 he'll start with an argument from design. Any takers?
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Based on Dylan's earlier posts, my money is on the post hoc prophesy argument ("the Bible is full of true prophecies!"
possibly followed up with the error of composition argument from Biblical science ("the Bible has all these true science facts in it!"
.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I think he'll give cosmological argument it seems to be the most common.
Seriously, no offense, Dylan, because I believe you're sincere, but I'll personally send you a check for $100 if you can come up with anything that we've not seen before.
That's how sure I am that you can't possibly come up with anything new. There simply isn't anything.
If you can come up with some undoubtable evidence for god, I'll be at your Nobel Prize ceremony. Trust me. I really will.
I'm going to save you some trouble:
God of the Gaps: This is any evidence that says, "We can't explain this, so the only explanation is God. This fails, not only because it's a basic fallacy, but because god is inevitably a more complicated answer than any of the current theories. (Occam's Razor)
Cosmological: See "god of the gaps"
Evolution: See "god of the gaps"
Personal anecdote: See fallacy: Personal Anecdote, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, non causa pro causa
Morality: non-sequitur
Group anecdote: See Personal anecdote.
History, longevity of religion: argumentum ad antiquitatum
Faith as a virtue: equivocation, argumantum ad ignorantium
Faith in science: equivocation
First Cause: See Cosmology
Uncertainty Principle: equivocation, non-sequitur
Law of Thermodynamics: Scientific Ignorance
Biblical inerrancy: Puh-lease...
Dualism: non-sequitur, god of the gaps, argumantum ad ignorantum, scientific ignorance
Origin of thought/logic/perception: Ignorance of logic/neurology
Ignorance on both sides: Bifurcation, begging the question, non-sequitur, unsupported premise, argumantum ad ignorantium, ignorance of logic
Ugh... I'm tired of this.
Trust me. You don't have anything new.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Great! Please remember that the word "evidence" has a meaning that is not open to interpretation or alternate usage, so if you have actual evidence this will be an interesting read.
That's a big "if"; I mean can-see-it-from-orbit big. Start with the first part before you prepare anything for the second.
The skeptics here are a very adept bunch and spotting bad reasoning and the process can be disheartening/upsetting for those who haven't gone through it before. Divorcing your emotions from your arguments is a very hard thing to do when you're arguing about something about which you care deeply, but it's an important step. Remember: we (well some of us) will be criticizing your argument, not you.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Just to be clear, Dylan, let's make sure we know what the word "evidence" means.
Lots of things that people think are evidence are indeed evidence, but not for what they think...
For instance, if I say, "There are five million people in the united states who are sure that we're being visited by aliens. This is evidence that there are aliens." That's not true. It's evidence that there are differences of opinion on aliens, but precious little else.
Lots of what people think is evidence for god's existence is only evidence for different human propensities, or for human ignorance.
Evidence is falsifiable. Therefore, any evidence for god will be testable and reproducable, and will point directly to god, not to people.
Like many have said, good luck. So far, I think there's $105 in it for you.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Howw u go platnum?
I'm honestly not sure what the platinum level of donation is. It's a good question, since it doesn't seem to list it as an option under Paypal.
I'll ask in the mod forum. Maybe one of them knows.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I see I have some barriers on my search. Okay... I won't use cosmology, I won't use "evidence" from the Bible to support the Bible, or use the Bible to support anything else for that matter... um...
When you say I can't use design, can you explain?
I'm assuming it means the ridiculous "watchmaker" argument.
The argument from design (teleological argument) is one that has been bandied about here for ages.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument (what it is)
http://skepdic.com/design.html (why it doesn't work)
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So, in other words, it doesn't work because of the common dog eat dog world animals live in and the fact that this world is far too messed up to be created by an omniscient and omnipotent creator?
Or, if you don't feel like slogging through the long versions, here's an extremely short summary:
All arguments from design depend on this assumption:
"I always know when something is designed because it *looks* designed."
The problem with this assmuption is that it is false. Science has revealed situations where something looks designed, but is actually a result of natural processes. The theory of evolution is, in one sense, an explanation for why living creatures are not designed even though they look that way.
So the assumption that you can tell when something is designed can't be used as part of a sound argument.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
So, when theists use this, they only imply that it's designed because it merely looks designed? They don't go any farther in depth?
99% of the arguments from design start with the assumption that everything that looks designed is designed.
A small number of the arguments start with the assumption that there are things which are "irreducably complex," and which could not have happened by natural processes and therefore must be designed. But no one has yet been able to find an actual example of anything "irreducably complex" that stands up to real scrutiny, so that argument has washed out too.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
The leap goes from "If there is design, there must be a designer." to "That designer must be God" without a lot of evidence or depth.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, Dylan, many think they have gone further in depth, but the simple fact is, any appeal to design eventually begs the question.
Honestly, you should check out the long links. It's very likely you're going to go "in depth" to the same places many have gone before.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
To be precise, this is a concession to prove just how bad the argument from design is!
First, it can't be proven that there is a designer.
However, if we grant that there is, and that's absolutely not necessary, then it still doesn't point to any designer in particular, and we have no reason to think that we can have any knowledge of that designer, since we can have no empirical data from before the big bang, and creation had to be initiated before the big bang.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism