Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Kilgore Trout]

My concept of "god" is deliberately defined in the OP in order to head off this objection, but you did not acknowledge that definition in your response. I'm willing to be flexible about it up to a point (i.e. I won't insist on a rigid definition), but I'm not just going to accept anybody's definition of gods.

"god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality

Yet all your arguments for rejection focus on religion. God, as you define it, isn't contigent on religious beliefs. All the arguments you make describe how religions may be wrong, but not necessarily that a god doesn't exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

If religion is wrong, what reason is there to believe in God? Which God, for that matter?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If religion is wrong, what reason is there to believe in God?

Non-religious reasons, I suppose.

Which God, for that matter?

Non-religious gods, I suppose.

 

[Copernicus]

Yet all your arguments for rejection focus on religion. God, as you define it, isn't contigent on religious beliefs. All the arguments you make describe how religions may be wrong, but not necessarily that a god doesn't exist.

I honestly do not know how prayers are supposed to work in the absence of gods. Who receives them? How do miracles get performed? Look, it doesn't bother me that those five arguments might have broader implications for religion in general, but I wasn't going for that in the OP.

Non-religious reasons, I suppose.

Non-religious gods, I suppose.

I know of no non-religious gods. The concept of a god is perfectly well-defined for most people. After all, most people believe in their existence, and all too many are willing to commit violence to promote their beliefs.

 

[ellenjanuary]

If religion is wrong, what reason is there to believe in God? Which God, for that matter?

Science don't work for you? My first inkings of a possible god came from science.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I honestly do not know how prayers are supposed to work in the absence of gods. Who receives them? How do miracles get performed? Look, it doesn't bother me that those five arguments might have broader implications for religion in general, but I wasn't going for that in the OP.

If you were in the hood, I'd say; wanna do an experiment?

I have this diagram, came from god/insanity/cavities picking up old Star Trek re-runs... but I have this annoying suspicion that one could build this thing to intercept the prayers of a large congregation; condense 'em into some real world mojo, and capture it on youtube.

Or is that too much tin-foil hat?

 

[Copernicus]

Or is that too much tin-foil hat?

Yes, but you would not have asked if there were not a "still small voice" in your head to motivate you to ask that question.

 

[lunamoth]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

I don't see this as a basic tenet of Christianity (that minds exist independent of bodies), and I don't think it's an obstacle for any other religion that believes in a continuation of the self after this mortal life. The information accumulated from this life that constitutes 'self' could be transferred and translated to some other kind of existence. The next 'body' could be very different from this mortal coil.

Record of failed explanations.

Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

Religion is not science and is not meant to explain the scientific aspects of this universe. Religion is about our role in this universe, our relationship with God, nature, and each other.

Record of failed revelation.

Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

The interpretation of revelation depends quite heavily on the person receiving it. The light from the sun is the same, but it appears quite different when it is intercepted by a stone vs. cut diamond vs. the leaf of a plant.

Record of failed prayers.

No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

Prayer raises all boats together.

Record of failed corroboration of miracles.

Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Because a miracle is, by definition, something outside the bounds of science and human control, it is no surprise, and no damning evidence of failure, that miracles are not corroborated by science.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Because reason #1 is the least relevant to religious faith or the existence of God, I'd say your argument is overall quite weak. Minds depending on this physical brain is not a no-brainer.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Fair enough!

 

[Where Is God]

Humans have no souls. We are not special. We are a part of nature, just like that tree outside your window. So why doesn't the tree worship god?

 

[lunamoth]

Humans have no souls. We are not special. We are a part of nature, just like that tree outside your window. So why doesn't the tree worship god?

That tree is worshiping God.

 

[Where Is God]

That tree is worshiping God.

 

[lunamoth]

You liked me better as a strong atheist, didn't you.

 

[Where Is God]

You liked me better as a strong atheist, didn't you.

I don't care if you are an atheist or not. I'm not a theist but I'm not a total atheist anymore ish!? I just think it's really stupid to say that a tree worships anything for that matter.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't care if you are an atheist or not. I'm not a theist but I'm not a total atheist anymore ish!? I just think it's really stupid to say that a tree worships anything for that matter.

I was speaking metaphorically.

 

[Where Is God]

I was speaking metaphorically.

It still was non-sense. The idea of religion is idiotic in a natural view of life.

 

[lunamoth]

It still was non-sense. The idea of religion is idiotic in a natural view of life.

OK then!

 

[Madhuri]

Humans have no souls. We are not special. We are a part of nature, just like that tree outside your window. So why doesn't the tree worship god?

In your opinion.

 

[Madhuri]

It still was non-sense. The idea of religion is idiotic in a natural view of life.

In your opinion.

 

[Where Is God]

In your opinion.

So what religion does my dog associate herself with? I have been *dieing* to know. Oh and what about the rain cloud over my house, is it Christian or Jewish?

 

[Madhuri]

So what religion does my dog associate herself with? I have been during to know. Oh and what about the rain cloud over my house, is it Christian or Jewish?

I am simply warning you about your wording. You have to be careful to not proselytise. Try to word your posts in such a way that it doesn't come across as preachy, otherwise your posts may be reported for moderation (it's against the rules to proselytise).