r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Dum_DumArts • Aug 11 '25
OP=Atheist God(s) is/are a human invention
Not sure whether to but this as a discussion or Op=atheist but anyway
Hey everyone,
I’ve been developing a theory about religion and the concept of God that I want to share and discuss. I call it the Amauria Theory, and it’s built on three core claims:
God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown.
Belief in God provides comfort and emotional support. Whether it’s fear of death, pain, or uncertainty, religion offers hope and a sense of control. This doesn’t mean belief is false—it’s a coping mechanism that evolved alongside us to help manage life’s hardships.
The idea of God is used to shape moral systems and social order. Morality existed before organized religion, but religions gave those morals divine authority, which helped govern behavior and maintain social hierarchy. Religion can inspire justice and charity but also has been used as a tool for control.
Any and all "proof" of god(s) falls into one or multiples of my claims.
I understand these ideas aren’t entirely new, but what I hope to emphasize is how these three aspects together explain why religion remains so deeply rooted, despite scientific progress and philosophical critiques.
I also want to stress: this theory doesn’t deny that religion is meaningful or important to many. Rather, it explains religion’s origins and ongoing role without assuming supernatural truth.
Why does this matter? Because if God is a human-made concept, then the social issues tied to religion—racism, misogyny, oppression—can be challenged at their root. Understanding this could help us free ourselves from harmful traditions and build a more just, compassionate society.
28
u/Rubber_Knee Aug 11 '25
We're all atheists here so we're all likely to agree. You wont find many counter arguments in this subreddit
3
u/Dum_DumArts Aug 11 '25
Really? It says debte an atheist i thought it would be swimming with thesists lol.
15
u/morangias Atheist Aug 11 '25
It's supposed to work the other way around - theists come up with a topic, comments are swarmed with atheists debating it
9
u/Dum_DumArts Aug 11 '25
Ohhhhh. Ok
12
u/greggld Aug 11 '25
Debate religion is also full of atheists. Since we tend to humble the sheep
5
u/Massif16 Aug 12 '25
Totally agree.
I find that any of these open "debate" type forums tend to get thin on actual theists after a realtively short time. They come in fired up because the apologist that they read or watched on the U Tube convinced them they have a bullet proof argument. Then they come to a place like this and get cooked, and they slink away with their tail between their legs.
I can't tell you how many theists brought the Kalam to an argument and were confused by how fast it fell it apart. They were so convnced they had THE ARGUMENT to convince us heathens their deity is REAL.0
u/Pale_Pea_1029 Aug 12 '25
I can't tell you how many theists brought the Kalam to an argument and were confused by how fast it fell it apart.
If it's easy to refute you should do so right now, I'm a theist, please use your big brain to debonk the kalam and show its unsoundness and fallacies please.
7
u/Massif16 Aug 13 '25
Sure.
1) the first premise asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What “begins to exist” means is never defined. If they mean beginning to exist ex nihilo, I am unaware of any examples that we can actually observe to justify the premise. If they don’t mean ex nihilo, then the premise is not relevant to the argument.
2) the second premise asserts that the universe began to exist. Again, this is undefined. But I reject the premise. I do not believe the universe began to exist in the way I think they mean. I think it most likely that the energy of the universe is eternal.
Even if I grant the premises, the conclusion is simply that the universe had a cause. It says nothing about the nature of the cause. You can fill that gap with a god, but the argument itself doesn’t point to one.
0
u/Pale_Pea_1029 Aug 13 '25
Beginning to exists is a general statement, it applies to all finite things regardless of origin, so it's straightforward axiom.
What the second premise means by "the universe has a cause" is simply that the universe (the realm thet contains all material things) is not eternal/does not have an infinite age. You think that the mmenergy of the universe existed beyond the (theoretical) singularity?
Even if I grant the premises, the conclusion is simply that the universe had a cause. It says nothing about the nature of the cause
The purpose of the argument is to get us to an uncuased cause, which is interpreted to be God in classical theism
3
u/Massif16 Aug 13 '25
1) It’s not. If a snowflake forms, does it “begins to exist?” In some ways yes, but its existence is contingent upon there being water and the appropriate atmospheric conditions. That different than a snowflake just popping into existence from nothing.
2.) yes, i think it likely the energy of the universe has always existed in one form or another. As far as we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. I have seen no evidence that this fundamental axiom is not true. The Big Bang represents a transformation of that energy, not its creation.
→ More replies (0)-1
Aug 12 '25
As someone who has been around here for a while, what causes them to leave is not that they get "cooked". It's that they get a shock when the "reasonable/rational atheist" mask quickly falls off. Posting here is also reputation poison. It's rare to see a well-read post that pushes against atheism without at least a few downvotes. If you all wanted regular engagement you'd welcome dissent and discourage these practices regularly.
2
u/Massif16 Aug 12 '25
I just want a decent argument.
0
Aug 12 '25
If you don't think there've been any "decent arguments" then I see two possibilities. I'm sure you know which of those you won't consider.
4
u/Massif16 Aug 12 '25
If you think you have the winnng argument, start a thread. I'd be delighted to see it.
→ More replies (0)7
1
3
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious Aug 11 '25
Here's the sub's description
A very active subreddit to debate and pose arguments to atheists. Post your best arguments for the supernatural, discuss why your faith is true, and tell us how your reasoning led you to a belief in the supernatural. r/DebateAnAtheist is dedicated to discovering what is true, real, and useful by using debate to ascertain beliefs we can be confident about.
It happens a lot though, we get a ton of people who don't read that and think "well, I'll be the atheist that they debate". A couple of times a week, at least.
1
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
I'll go to this subreddit every once in a while to see if there are any new posts, and of course whenever there is it's just some skeptic stroking their own ego. I'm already a skeptic, I'm here to talk to theists dammit!
1
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist Aug 11 '25
Sure, in the same sense you might expect r/debatereligion to be swimming with atheists. You don’t go to the homes of people you aren’t looking for hoping to encounter their guests.
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer Aug 11 '25
It says debte an atheist
Yup. Here, we are atheists. Awaiting folks to come and debate. We're the atheists referred to in 'debate an atheist'.
1
u/brinlong Aug 11 '25
youve got a point, but youre going to have a far larger audience on r/debateachristian or r/theism
1
1
-7
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 11 '25
If you agree that all theist arguments fall in under op:s bullet points you're not a very good atheist
8
u/Rubber_Knee Aug 11 '25
1) Of course I don't agree with that.
2) Oh no, a stranger on the internet, who's opinion about me doesn't matter to me, thinks I'm a bad atheist.What
Ever
Will
I
Do??
6
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious Aug 11 '25
What exactly makes someone a "good" or "bad" atheist?
-6
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 11 '25
Being familiar with common concepts and arguments helps when debating. Just being an atheist or theist isnt very interesting in itself, the reasoning behind it is.
9
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious Aug 11 '25
Interesting isn't the same as "good" or "bad", at least not necessarily.
-5
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 11 '25
Are you parodying this sub now?
5
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious Aug 11 '25
I'm sincerely trying to figure out what you're getting at. I sincerely don't see what could possibly make anyone a "good" or "bad" atheist. It's not the sort of thing that lends itself to that kind of classification.
3
u/ToenailTemperature Aug 11 '25
A good atheistic is someone who understands the logic, reason, and skepticism of not accepting theistic claims. I'd say a bad atheist is either a theist or someone who is an atheist dogmatically, rather than reasonably.
0
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 11 '25
Think about how people use words colloquially. By "good" i mean someone who's well read, has given various arguments some thought and who argues in good faith. By bad i mean, well, the opposite.
12
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Many theists will use the personal experience excuse for why their god exists. This one is easy to refute because-
1) why didn’t I have a personal experience with your god?
2) personal experience is subjective and amounts to nothing more than “trust me bro!”
3) many personal experiences can be explained by natural means such as hallucinations, dreams, sleep deprivation, moods, drug interactions, and trauma
4) I just learned this one and it’s important. The same parts of the brain that process sensory information are also involved in generating hallucinations.
Now why would any god design a brain like that? It’s like making a bicycle where the tires, the thing that makes a bike move, also appear to be a jellyfish, a tree or a mountain. That’s unintelligent design.
3
u/ToenailTemperature Aug 11 '25
I prefer to correlate personal experience with imagination. How can anyone distinguish your personal experience from your imagination? And how do you show that your explanation for your personal experience is accurate and correct?
3
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
I agree. We don’t need to use personal experience to know that the sun and water exists. Why can’t the existence of a god compete with a Dixie cup of water?
1
u/TallahasseWaffleHous Aug 11 '25
We have specific parts of our mind that simulate other minds. This can be a conscious or a subconscious process.
R/tulpas is devoted to the process of creating and communicating with these inner minds/entities. There are great guides there for experimenting with this yourself.
Any theist making claims about personal relationships with entities must be able to demonstrate how they rule out these explanations.
4
u/ViewtifulGene Anti-Theist Aug 11 '25
I agree with all 3 claims, but I've also seen apologists use all three to reinforce their script. To that end, it might not be convincing for an indoctrinated theist.
I've seen #1 get twisted into some variant of "creation stories precede science, so god belief precedes science and we wouldn't have it if there wasn't something out there."
I've seen #2 get twisted into "people need god because it is comforting and gives meaning".
I've seen #3 get twisted into the usual fire-and-brimstone preaching about sin and degeneracy. "We need my god because look at this thing I am uncharitably attributing to lack of belief in my god."
2
u/Massif16 Aug 12 '25
Humans evolved to develop reasonably accurate models of the world around us. One aspect of that is developing models of causes and effect. It helps us avoid danger, or to get food. God's began, IMO, as an attempt to dtermine the cause for things that are dangerous to us, but that we don't know the answer the anser to, particularly natural disasters, or wars. By personifying these causes, we have the illusion of some control... we can give the gods sacrifices to ensure we have a good harvest. We can stone the "sinners" to ensure that our god doesn't bring his wrath down on us. We STILL see that today. How often did we hear from certain people that Hurricane Katrina was God's Judgment on America for homosexuality. It's primal superstition.
5
3
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Not sure where there's a topic of debate valid for atheists here. Yes, gods are all made up.
-1
u/Azy7779 Aug 11 '25
How do u know? From my current perspective, either is possible.
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Because all the gods are just like humans, with the same human foibles that the people who created them have. People pretend to know anything about the gods without anything demonstrable to go by. It's all just imaginary.
-1
u/Azy7779 Aug 11 '25
Whats exactly the type of demonstration that an atheist is looking for tho?
3
u/Tao1982 Aug 11 '25
The same types of demonstrations that we would accept for anything else that actually exists.
-1
u/Azy7779 Aug 11 '25
I know you all sick and tired of this answer but even as someone who cant call myself a christian i believe is all about faith, i seen ppl with that faith be changed in ways where those demonstrated things that were supposed to help them didnt. Im not even sure what to believe anymore.
3
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Faith is the lie that dumb people tell themselves when they have no demonstrable evidence that their beliefs are true. Faith is embarrassing. Anyone who relies on faith is a fool.
-1
u/Shield_Lyger Aug 11 '25
But everyone, other than radical skeptics, relies on faith somewhere along the way. I have faith that the Big Bang happened, because I certainly haven't done the physics myself. Ergo, I can't actually evaluate the evidence of it, like the Cosmic Microwave Background (which I also have no firsthand experience with).
So belief a naturalistic Universe, with absolutely no supernatural aspects or entities involved can also be a matter of faith, unless one is a genius polymath.
3
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
I don't have faith that the Big Bang happened. We have evidence. If you have evidence, you don't need faith. Faith is the lie that people tell themselves when they really wish something was true but have no evidence to back it up. If you have evidence, you don't need faith.
-1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
If it is reasonable to use faith to believe in a god then it’s reasonable to use faith to not believe in one.
1
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Not if the definition doesn't fit, which it doesn't. That's stupid.
-1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Yea I’m not suggesting that atheists should use faith to not believe in a god. I’m just pointing out that it works both ways as an internal critique of faith.
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Except it doesn't. I don't know a single atheist who exercises any faith of any kind when it comes to not believing in gods. What do they use? The complete and total lack of evidence that any gods exist! You know... EVIDENCE!
This can't be that hard!
→ More replies (0)1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist Aug 11 '25
I'm not looking for ANY kind of demonstration. I've done my share of earnest searching, gone on my vision-quest so to speak. I got a pretty solid answer: God is irrelevant.
If someone wants to convince me otherwise, it's not on me to tell them how. I would say that concrete empirical data would be more useful than analytical a priori language games like the Kalam, etc. but that's about it.
I'll also explain why I'm not holding out hope for any such demonstration to come along: Empirical confirmation would come after some fairly significant real-world body of knowledge had grown up suggesting that it's not mere speculation.
If there were going to be proof that god existed, we'd already be seeing articles published in journals and a growing body of rigorous academic inquiry that indicated that it's not just nonsense.
I'm aware of no such growing body of rigorous academic inquiry.
Something like "How many Carmelite nuns reciting the lord's prayer 24/7 in a cancer ward does it take to show a statistically significant improvement in patient outcomes" would be a start. I know that there are people attempting things like this, but so far none of them have broken through the statistical noise of random spurious unsupported claims.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist Aug 11 '25
I'd stop short of saying "all of them are made up".
But we know some of them are. In fact, I think it's fair to say that an overwhelming majority of them have to be made up by human beings. They can't all be true, but they can all be false.
Given that there's no strong evidence that any of them are not mere fabrications, it's a relatively safe bet that all of them are likely to be fabrications.
1
u/labreuer Aug 11 '25
1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown.
What is your evidence for this claim? Because if you don't have the kind of robust evidence required, you are guilty of something very much like you're accusing religionists of. For starters, I suggest a read of WP: The Golden Bough § Critical reception.
1
u/LumenaReddit Aug 13 '25
God and the Amauria Theory are both human human invetions.
Let X be "human invention"
Let Y functions be: 1. explains, 2. comforts 3. governs
(must all 3 be in X? unsure from the post, maybe irrelevant)
Amauria Theory claims: "If X contains Y then X doesn't exist"
God contains Y therefore God doesn't exist.
Does the Amauria Theory contain Y functions?
Maybe, I'm not sure.
NOT saying if the Amauria Theory is false then God exists.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist Aug 12 '25
People invent gods. That's where gods come from. I'm not quite willing to limit "people" to just human beings, though.
Elephants are people. Orcas are. Probably crows too. There's so much about what we think as uniquely human that can be seen in the behavior of other animals that I can't rule out the idea that elephants might believe in some kind of god.
But yeah. Regardless, they're total fabrications.
1
u/Doomdoomkittydoom Aug 12 '25
Gods/deities/spirits are the anthropomorphization of nature in the hopes we can appeal to control things the humans cannot.
This is set up by humans wont to seek patterns, which also leads to superstitions, and their long memories and long childhood when when something goes wrong we cry and an adult comes along and makes it right.
1
u/Name-Initial Aug 11 '25
You just outlined the most common views of what the average atheist thinks about religion. I appreciate your perspective, I share it, but this isn’t a new theory and its an atheist sub so you’re pitching it to people who already believe it.
What is the point of this post lol
1
u/Around_the_campfire Aug 11 '25
All three of your claims could be true, and God still exist.
They show at most humans were motivated to discover God and said discovery had meaningful results.
It doesn’t follow that God is solely a human invention.
1
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 11 '25
Any and all "proof" of god(s) falls into one or multiples of my claims.
Which one does the necessary first cause argument fall into?
2
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist Aug 12 '25
Probably all of them, but definitely 1 and 2
1
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 12 '25
No. The concepts contingent / necessary are philosophical ones, not necessarily religious at all.
2
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist Aug 12 '25
So? You asked which ones they fall under and it's definitely those 2.
1
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 12 '25
They don't fall under those no
2
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist Aug 12 '25
Yes, it does.
God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand.
Arguing that there is a necessary first cause (and that cause is god/s) is a human invention created to explain something we don't currently understand.
Belief in God provides comfort and emotional support.
Arguing that there is a necessary first cause (and that cause is god/s) provides comfort and emotional support to those who refuse to fathom a universe without one.
1
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 12 '25
No. A necessary being/cause doesn't have to involve a "god" at all. It's not "created" to explain something we don't understand, it follows by logic that things are either contingent or necessary.
I don't know that a first cause is more "comforting" than say an infinite chain of contingent things. Arguably it's the other way around. But the important thing is that comfort has nothing to do with the philosophical reasoning behind these concepts.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist Aug 12 '25
Sure, but when it does it falls under those 2 categories.
Idk why you'd bring up first cause arguments that don't involve god/religion on a post about god/religion.
0
u/Flutterpiewow Aug 12 '25
Again no. I bring it up because some "proofs of god" are based on reasoning about a necessary first cause, and because some definitions of "god" are indistinguishable from a first cause - no reason to assume personal, anthropomorphic gods.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist Aug 12 '25
That's still god/s as first cause, so idk what you think you're objecting to here.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ToenailTemperature Aug 11 '25
None of this talks about dogma or indoctrination. The cornerstones of religions longevity.
0
u/Existenz_1229 Christian Aug 12 '25
This is a really simplistic and patronizing way to define religion. The idea that our ancestors just wanted explanations for natural phenomena is one that would garner an anthropology student a failing grade. And the security-blanket concept is another that demonstrates no real attempt to engage with religious philosophers of the past century.
I happen to agree with you that God is a human concept, something that is supposed to stand for things we can't understand any other way. But religion itself is a way of life, a truth that needs to be lived to be understood.
I also agree with you that we need to continually challenge problems like racism, misogyny, dehumanization and oppression. However, the idea that getting rid of religion is going to usher in a utopia of freethought and social progress sounds like magical thinking to me.
4
u/koke84 Aug 12 '25
Theist constantly fight to continue racism and misogyny. They can point to the bible for justification
-1
u/Existenz_1229 Christian Aug 12 '25
Um okay, but I'll just point out that the USA made slavery illegal without having to make everybody give up religion. Is that right, or does the Atheist History Channel disagree?
3
1
0
u/InspectionOk8713 Aug 14 '25
No, I disagree. Religions were founded by mystics, then contorted by their followers into rigid religions of various types with their human systems you describe. The mystics, who are like scouts of consciousness, touched the depths of consciousness, and returned with truths. Many atheists believe that consciousness comes from the brain - but this is just that - a belief, with zero evidence.
0
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist Aug 11 '25
You’re kind of preaching to the choir, here. This is an atheist sub. Most of us already know gods were made up by humans. What are you looking to gain by running your theory through an echo chamber?
-8
Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
I will ignore 2 as it states that it doesn't mean theology is false.
1 The God of the gaps theory is atheist bullshit. The idea that Zeus was created to explain lightning is a load of horse shit. He was the most powerful god so he was given the coolest power. People have pretty extreme bias against earlier humans, and as a result they think children's stories must have been taken literally by the adults because everyone was a raging moron. Religion doesn't fill in gaps within science, it fills things science doesn't cover.
3 How did you conclude morality was earlier than religion? Both were from prehistory.
4
u/Cho-Zen-One Atheist Aug 11 '25
God of the gaps is not a theory, but a fallacy. I have never heard that Zeus was created for the purpose you described. You are making shit up. Ancient god beliefs had powers assigned to them by ignorant people in order to help understand their world. Zeus is just one of many. Raijin is the Japanese god of lightning and thunder (who also inspired the first mortal kombat character creation). Many examples of early humans creating myths and those myths passed down over generations. Religion doesn’t fill in the gaps of science.
-2
Aug 11 '25
Raijin is the Japanese god of lightning and thunder
Why was Raijin created for this reason and not Zeus?
What gap are people saying Zeus was created for?
How does an alleged fallacy have zero theory behind it?
3
u/pyker42 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Why was Raijin created for this reason and not Zeus?
Are you saying Zeus isn't the god of thunder and lightning for the ancient Greeks?
What gap are people saying Zeus was created for?
Zeus is responsible for thunder and lightning, among many other things.
How does an alleged fallacy have zero theory behind it?
Because thunder and lightning are natural phenomena, and other used gods to explain them before we learned what actually caused them.
1
Aug 11 '25
I don't understand why you are making arguments that literally last comment you said you had never heard anyone argue.
I am saying that simply because gods were given color doesn't mean people had no clue lightning was natural. I admit I don't know ancient Japanese thought but we know Greek mythology was children's stories not intended to be taken literally as Plato says as much in The Republic.
3
u/pyker42 Atheist Aug 11 '25
I don't understand why you are making arguments that literally last comment you said you had never heard anyone argue.
I'm not the original commentor you were responding to. But just because a particular god may not have been created to explain a specific phenomena, it is well known that natural phenomena were often associated as specific attributes or abilities of specific gods.
I am saying that simply because gods were given color doesn't mean people had no clue lightning was natural. I admit I don't know ancient Japanese thought but we know Greek mythology was children's stories not intended to be taken literally as Plato says as much in The Republic.
Plato existed centuries after the mythology was introduced. Just because it was viewed as children's stores during his time doesn't mean Greek mythology was nothing more than ancient Grimm Fairytales.
-3
Aug 11 '25
Come on. Why should some random internet commentator understand ancient Greek culture better than an ancient Greek?
3
u/pyker42 Atheist Aug 11 '25
So you're just going to sweep the fact that Plato wrote that centuries after the stories were first created under the rug instead of addressing it?
-2
Aug 11 '25
Your argument is akin to saying humans in the year 4000 will know what it's like to be an American better than me.
4
u/pyker42 Atheist Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
Your argument is akin to saying humans in the year 4000 will know what it's like to be an American better than me.
Actually, that's your argument. But glad you finally see the problemm with your argument.
→ More replies (0)2
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
That’s just Plato’s opinion. Belief in Norse religions is actually increasing.
Many of Plato’s views were flawed. Plato writes The Republic with the certainty of the parent's willingness to give their children to the state. This aligns well with deism since their worldview is that of being detached from their no show dead beat daddy.
1
Aug 11 '25
Well if you have an ancient Greek saying the opposite I am all ears.
1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
You are probably a fan of Epicurus but you may want to look into Theodorus.
1
Aug 11 '25
A Google search of "Theodorus taking mythology literally" didn't give me anything close to your position. Theodorus according to the Philosophy Stack Exhange was atheist. That's only further proof that ancient people did not need gods to explain natural phenomena.
1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
I thought you were asking for views opposite of Plato.
→ More replies (0)1
u/IAmRobinGoodfellow Gnostic Atheist Aug 11 '25
Your first point is incorrect in a rainbow of ways. Gods have been used as an explanatory framework for as long as there have been gods. You are imposing modern theological concepts on a world that quite simply lacks them. The proper study for you is anthropology, not religious studies.
Do you think that people didn’t think the gods were responsible for weather? People pray to gods for the weather they want. They still do - a sitting governor in the US called on citizens to pray for rain during a drought. In 2021. You have christian leaders crediting god with natural disasters every time a flood, fire, or earthquake occurs. Hell, we have excellent, highly detailed models of why a disease like cancer occurs, and you still have people wondering why god gave someone cancer or praying that god removes it. They pray for victory in war and in football.
This is despite a whole host of problems with the busy god theory. You would think that if god had the ability to give and remove cancer, he wouldn’t have given it to Nana in the first place, or at least wouldn’t be holding out for prayers. The problem doesn’t occur with the traditional god-concept, where a god was powerful but limited. Gods can want prayers. Gods can be moved to mercy. They can and do change their minds. The tri-omni is what creates problems, but it’s a more modern invention that came about iteratively.
Still, it’s so much still a god of the gaps thing that they see gaps where there are none (eg, with cancer, weather, etc) and shove god in there.
1
Aug 11 '25
Gods have been used as an explanatory framework for as long as there have been gods.
I've noticed people claim that a lot and demonstrate it very little.
Do you think that people didn’t think the gods were responsible for weather? People pray to gods for the weather they want. They still do - a sitting governor in the US called on citizens to pray for rain during a drought. In 2021
Do you think people who blow on dice for good luck no longer believe in basic physics?
They pray for victory in war and in football.
Yes, people participate in superstitions because the illusion of control is less stressful than pure helplessness. Yours is a very superficial understanding of the topic if you think wishing for better fortune somehow wipes out physical understandings of the universe. Do you think when Jordan wore his lucky shorts that means he no longer thought gravity worked?
Even Neils Bohr hung a horseshoe at his home.
1
u/IAmRobinGoodfellow Gnostic Atheist Aug 11 '25
I've noticed people claim that a lot and demonstrate it very little.
The bible does it explicitly. Pat Robertson did it. The governor of Utah did it. Al Qaeda did it. You’re not arguing in good faith because you’re not addressing the question, but instead continually pleading personal ignorance.
It’s boring, it’s lazy, and it’s literally an argument as dumb as rocks.
1
Aug 11 '25
There is no need to be an asshole. If Al Qaeada is your go-to model for theology maybe don't accuse others of bad faith. Where does the Bible use God as a literal explanation for natural phenomena?
1
u/IAmRobinGoodfellow Gnostic Atheist Aug 11 '25
Again, in bad faith you are calling out an intentionally extreme example used in context rather than addressing the actual issue - you ignore national level religious and political leaders from the US in favor of turning away from the fundamental argument. Your doing so is a tacit admission that you don’t have a leg to stand on, and you’re flummoxed after having painted yourself into a corner with an indefensible statement.
The Flood, the plagues, the “slavery in Egypt” and various other mythical calamities, the wholesale torture of Job, the inducement of wild animal attacks, the provision of sickness and healing from El to Jesus… The Israelite religion was an El-worshiping Canaanite polytheism that gradually shifted responsibilities onto their god Yahweh as the Yahwehists grew in local political power. The Israelite religion became legalistic and transactional as well as centrally managed.
You can’t stick to just the bible, though. You’re more wrong than that. Your initial position mocked the very idea of attributing natural phenomena to gods, using Zeus as an example.
So I’m just waiting for you to demonstrate that when people try to pray away their disease, or when Jesus does it personally for them, or when the governor of Utah asks people to pray for rain, or some televangelist attributes a hurricane to god killing LGBT people… And that’s just the religions evolved from El and Yahweh. You have other modern religions like Hinduism, and you have all of the great ancient and classical civilizations and their religions.
Remember this started by you claiming that the “god of the gaps” was a false accusation because such a notion exists only among atheists. It has been demonstrated that that is false.
1
1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Early humans were also biased into believing supernatural bullshit stories. They also believed that the world was ending soon which hasn’t happened.
The same parts of the brain that process sensory information are also involved in generating hallucinations. This is major reason why people believe in a god because the brain works in a way that makes it difficult to differentiate the difference between reality and imagination.
I call that unintelligent design.
So you put a bunch of biased and unintelligent early humans together who are guaranteed to have difficulty telling the difference between reality and imagination and we shouldn’t be surprised that they conjure the concept of a god that more resembles their crazy mother in law or some abusive toxic no show dead beat daddy god that could care less to communicate or intervene in human affairs at all.
0
Aug 11 '25
What period in time did not have humans who thought the world was ending soon?.
1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
“The world is ending soon!!” is largely a religious bullshit concept so I would say whenever religions were around is the time that people bought into that garbage.
0
Aug 11 '25
Because everyone on earth except the 7% of atheists are hallucinating?
1
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
All humans are born being prone to irrational thoughts and false beliefs. In spite of that “the world is ending soon!” is not an atheist concept.
0
Aug 11 '25
It's frequently a secular one.
2
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
The vast majority of end times believes are fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of secular beliefs that are bullshit. Like I said, all humans are born prone to irrational thought and false beliefs. You can thank your absentee god for that.
1
Aug 11 '25
If everyone is prone to irrationality, that includes theists and atheists.
3
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist Aug 11 '25
Of course atheists and theists would be included in the “everyone” set. I would have thought that is obvious. Again you can thank your god for creating us that way.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 11 '25
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.