Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[cottage]

Yes that is better. Now I will agree with that. Better isn't when we deal with facts instead of your perception of what I wrote.

Now if you will just admit you made a mistake, that I didn't argue the position that it must be true because X amount of people say it is true, then perhaps we can have a sensible dialogue, instead of me having to deal with your imagination.

Now if you need supporting evidence to what I said, google up an country in the world, see the religious percentage of the country and it will give you fair indication where higher education lays.

That has to be the most dishonest and comical excuse for an argument that I’ve ever seen on any message board! You wrote a perfectly clear statement, but it was misconceived, as you soon came to realise. But you then attempted to weasel out of the unintended fallacy by pretending to mean something entirely different, though it makes no sense at all as an answer to the matter in hand.



Copernicus wrote:

1. 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.

You replied:


“1: World wide, there are more intelligent people, higher educated people, who have a belief in a deity or a religious belief, than there are people of atheist belief. This resoundly defeats the faith based belief in item 1.”

Your first sentence states in response to #1 that there are more intelligent people who believe in a deities or religion (A) than there are atheists (B) who do not. ‘More’ is the quantifier and ‘intelligent’ is the qualifier.
The next sentence is conjoined with the first by the demonstrative pronoun ‘This’, which asserts in response to 1# that the argument is proven quantitatively and qualitatively that belief in souls is credible (thus disproving B).
The first sentence is an assertion: more As than Bs.
The second sentence is the conclusion: If A, then B. A, therefore B:
Belief A is greater than belief B
Therefore A is correct, and thus #1 argued by B is wrong.
And that is an argument ad populum


And as an aside, even your assertion that there are more intelligent, more highly educated people who have a belief in religion or a deity than atheists is completely unjustified. In fact studies in the US, for example, purport to show that that religious believers do less well in IQ test than atheists by a difference of 4.3 points (Nyburg 2008). Other studies by Lynn and Poythress have shown similar results. My own view is that intelligence and formal education makes little or no difference to religious faith, and it is shown that some the greatest thinkers in history were prepared to suspend reason and hold to their beliefs as an article of faith. And finally, not all religions and not all believers accept the notion of souls and disembodied consciousness. In fact many adherents to Christianity, one the world’s largest religions, disagree profoundly over resurrection or immortality of the soul.

 

[AxisMundi]

Thanks for your responses, Axis.


I do not deny a "spiritual self", only that it can exist independently of a physical brain. That includes what you so loosely term the "subconscious". We are not conscious of most of the activity that goes on in our brains/minds. Also, remember that I am not claiming it is impossible for spirits to exist independently of their physical bodies, just that it is extremely implausible. There is no reasonable evidence to license belief in bodiless spirits.

This doesn't really address my point, which is that natural explanations always trump supernatural explanations, never the reverse. "God of the Gaps" has emerged as the historical pattern.

I do not expect most Germanic speakers to "fully understand" Woden. It is possible for people to understand a lot about gods in foreign cultures, and you even see people converting to belief in foreign gods. So, yes, I would expect Arabs to be capable of understanding "Woden" to the extent that they might convert or reject conversion to belief in that god. People are capable of understanding other cultures and their deities.

So say you. Other believers have claimed that they can and do just that. The vast majority of those who worship gods certainly do believe that their god or gods can respond to prayers. If gods did respond, one would expect to detect patterns of divine intervention. As things stand, there is no evidence that any group of theists is better off than any other, or than atheists, for that matter.

OK. Name a theistic religion that does not believe in miracles. Have you ever heard of a god that cannot perform miracles?

1. Thanks for clarifying. Food for thought. Does a radio wave exist with or without a physical structure after leaving the transmitter? Or is it "structured energy" independent of any physical structure?

2. And if there is no such thing as "supernatural"? Merely the "natural" we can readily see and other layers we cannot? For example, are the hypothesized other dimensions "supernatural"?

3. Don't forget, we speak of ancient man. While I do not make the mistake of selling our ancestors short in any way, and fully realize there was much movement among them, the vast majority of people were unaccustomed to dealing with other cultures as the average person is today. One can turn on the tube and learn quite a bit from watching East Enders, or watch Japanese cinema and learn something of the Japanese culture, or immerse oneself in Bollywood cinema and get a pretty good idea about Indian culture. And let us not forget my addiction, documentaries.

4. And now you know you cannot generalize religions and lump them all into one category. But I absolutely agree with your comments in this paragraph. There is no evidence suggesting any group of theist, or theists in general, are better off than atheists or each other. As I've stated elsewhere, the gods are more like wise old uncles than anything approaching omni-powerful beings, and are a personal thing.

5. Look at my religion under my username.

I'm unsure but I also think Buddhism isn't big on miracles either. Miracles are necessary in some belief systems to support the imagined Ultimate Authority of their deity. Thus we see the Creation, Adam & Eve, WWF, Job, and healing Myths reinforced in the Abrahamic systems with "miracles" (ancient miracles that happen to be only recorded in their scriptures) and such shams and fabrications we see today as "uncorrupted flesh" (mummies) Jesus on Toast, and the Elder lady in Texas whose family (but no medical professionals) claim was dead for two hours.

 

[Copernicus]

1. Thanks for clarifying. Food for thought. Does a radio wave exist with or without a physical structure after leaving the transmitter? Or is it "structured energy" independent of any physical structure?

I do not think that it is useful to carry the analogy between radio waves and consciousness too far. Analogies are useful for explaining new concepts, but they cannot be used to prove anything, because they always fail at some point.

2. And if there is no such thing as "supernatural"? Merely the "natural" we can readily see and other layers we cannot? For example, are the hypothesized other dimensions "supernatural"?

The word "supernatural" refers to something that is not subject to natural laws. It operates outside of physical or material boundaries. When physicists hypothesize the existence of other "dimensions", they are talking about the behavior of the material universe, not supernatural phenomena.

3. Don't forget, we speak of ancient man...

I'm not forgetting that.

4. And now you know you cannot generalize religions and lump them all into one category. ...

I have not done that, and I have been fairly explicit about not doing it, since others have jumped to the same false conclusion.

...But I absolutely agree with your comments in this paragraph. There is no evidence suggesting any group of theist, or theists in general, are better off than atheists or each other. As I've stated elsewhere, the gods are more like wise old uncles than anything approaching omni-powerful beings, and are a personal thing.

Do you believe that they interact with humans in any way? If so, how? And how would you come to know this about them?

5. Look at my religion under my username.

It does nothing to explain your claim. Celts were polytheists before they were Christianized. Their gods performed miracles and intervened in the lives of humans. After all, they were Indo-Europeans.

I'm unsure but I also think Buddhism isn't big on miracles either. Miracles are necessary in some belief systems to support the imagined Ultimate Authority of their deity. Thus we see the Creation, Adam & Eve, WWF, Job, and healing Myths reinforced in the Abrahamic systems with "miracles" (ancient miracles that happen to be only recorded in their scriptures) and such shams and fabrications we see today as "uncorrupted flesh" (mummies) Jesus on Toast, and the Elder lady in Texas whose family (but no medical professionals) claim was dead for two hours.

All that aside, I still maintain that all gods perform miracles. Being able to perform miracles is actually central to the definition of gods. And, BTW, it is a Western myth that Buddhists do not believe in gods or miracles. The majority of Buddhists believe in both, but there are non-theistic versions of the religion. Let's not forget the title of this thread, however. I was not aiming to give 5 reasons to reject all religions, although #1 applies generally to any religion that promotes belief in bodiless minds. And almost all of them do promote that idea.

 

[AxisMundi]

I do not think that it is useful to carry the analogy between radio waves and consciousness too far. Analogies are useful for explaining new concepts, but they cannot be used to prove anything, because they always fail at some point.

The word "supernatural" refers to something that is not subject to natural laws. It operates outside of physical or material boundaries. When physicists hypothesize the existence of other "dimensions", they are talking about the behavior of the material universe, not supernatural phenomena.

I'm not forgetting that.

I have not done that, and I have been fairly explicit about not doing it, since others have jumped to the same false conclusion.

Do you believe that they interact with humans in any way? If so, how? And how would you come to know this about them?

It does nothing to explain your claim. Celts were polytheists before they were Christianized. Their gods performed miracles and intervened in the lives of humans. After all, they were Indo-Europeans.

All that aside, I still maintain that all gods perform miracles. Being able to perform miracles is actually central to the definition of gods. And, BTW, it is a Western myth that Buddhists do not believe in gods or miracles. The majority of Buddhists believe in both, but there are non-theistic versions of the religion. Let's not forget the title of this thread, however. I was not aiming to give 5 reasons to reject all religions, although #1 applies generally to any religion that promotes belief in bodiless minds. And almost all of them do promote that idea.

1. Quite a useful analogy. We see the spiritual as merely another form of energy yet to be explored by science.

2. Exactly my point. These other dimensions are not measurable qualities (yet) either, yet they are hypothesized as nature. We see the spiritual/divine as merely another natural facet of the Universe.

3. Good.

4a. Merely going by your statements. You have tried to apply Abrahamic beliefs to all religions.

4b. We believe they interact with humans through rather non-physical means. Dreams, for example, or what might be seen as intuition as well.

5. Again, said interaction happened on a subliminal level. The "miracles" you attribute to Celtic myths involve people using natural resources to influence their surroundings, what modern people might term "magic", and interactions with mythical creatures.

6. There is indeed a branch of Buddhism that contains deities, but not all Buddhists are theists.

 

[Copernicus]

1. Quite a useful analogy. We see the spiritual as merely another form of energy yet to be explored by science.

No, the analogy is worthless in this context. Analogies are considered logical fallacies as a form of argument.

2. Exactly my point. These other dimensions are not measurable qualities (yet) either, yet they are hypothesized as nature. We see the spiritual/divine as merely another natural facet of the Universe.

No, we do not. Gods are typically conceived of as thinking agencies, the same as human beings. They are imagined to have the power to control some aspect of our physical reality (i.e. perform miracles), but they are not grounded in the physical universe.

4a. Merely going by your statements. You have tried to apply Abrahamic beliefs to all religions.

It would be nice if you tried to defend this claim by showing how it is true. The OP does not address the properties that make the Abrahamic God unique. It is an argument against belief in all gods, and I have defined what I meant by the term "god".

4b. We believe they interact with humans through rather non-physical means. Dreams, for example, or what might be seen as intuition as well.

Dreams are caused by physical events in a brain, as are so-called "intuitions". Mental events are effects of brain activity, not vice versa.

5. Again, said interaction happened on a subliminal level. The "miracles" you attribute to Celtic myths involve people using natural resources to influence their surroundings, what modern people might term "magic", and interactions with mythical creatures.

I honestly do not know what you are trying to say, and I suspect that you are struggling with it, as well. Miracles are physical events. People may experience delusions, or they may misinterpret real physical events. What makes something a "miracle" is whether or not it is a physical event that has a supernatural cause. If you are trying to say that people imagine miracles to be real, then I am in full agreement with you. Real miracles do not happen.

6. There is indeed a branch of Buddhism that contains deities, but not all Buddhists are theists.

But the overwhelming majority (Mahayana Buddhism, including Vajrayana Buddhism) are. I really do not believe that you have looked very closely at Buddhism as practiced in Asia. Look, just start with the Wikipedia page entitled God in Buddhism. Theravadan Buddhism is a more atheistic (and esoteric) version of Buddhism, but it is not the most popular form of that religion. Even so, you will find elements of theism in the Pali Canon. American Buddhists tend to de-emphasize the theistic elements of Buddhism, but they represent only a fragment of practicing Buddhists in the world.

 

[footprints]

That has to be the most dishonest and comical excuse for an argument that I’ve ever seen on any message board! You wrote a perfectly clear statement, but it was misconceived, as you soon came to realise. But you then attempted to weasel out of the unintended fallacy by pretending to mean something entirely different, though it makes no sense at all as an answer to the matter in hand.




Copernicus wrote:

1. 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.

You replied:


“1: World wide, there are more intelligent people, higher educated people, who have a belief in a deity or a religious belief, than there are people of atheist belief. This resoundly defeats the faith based belief in item 1.”

Your first sentence states in response to #1 that there are more intelligent people who believe in a deities or religion (A) than there are atheists (B) who do not. ‘More’ is the quantifier and ‘intelligent’ is the qualifier.
The next sentence is conjoined with the first by the demonstrative pronoun ‘This’, which asserts in response to 1# that the argument is proven quantitatively and qualitatively that belief in souls is credible (thus disproving B).
The first sentence is an assertion: more As than Bs.
The second sentence is the conclusion: If A, then B. A, therefore B:
Belief A is greater than belief B
Therefore A is correct, and thus #1 argued by B is wrong.
And that is an argument ad populum

I wrote there are more intelligent and higher educated people in the world who have a religious or deity belief, because it is a fact. Nothing to do with the illusions you see.

And as an aside, even your assertion that there are more intelligent, more highly educated people who have a belief in religion or a deity than atheists is completely unjustified. In fact studies in the US, for example, purport to show that that religious believers do less well in IQ test than atheists by a difference of 4.3 points (Nyburg 2008). Other studies by Lynn and Poythress have shown similar results. My own view is that intelligence and formal education makes little or no difference to religious faith, and it is shown that some the greatest thinkers in history were prepared to suspend reason and hold to their beliefs as an article of faith. And finally, not all religions and not all believers accept the notion of souls and disembodied consciousness. In fact many adherents to Christianity, one the world’s largest religions, disagree profoundly over resurrection or immortality of the soul.

Simply stated IQ tests are impracticable, and have been abandoned by most specialists around the world as a measure of intelligence.

 

[Copernicus]

I wrote there are more intelligent and higher educated people in the world who have a religious or deity belief, because it is a fact. Nothing to do with the illusions you see.

There you go again. You claim that belief in a deity is not an illusion because it is an extremely popular belief ("Nothing to do with the illusions you see."). That is a fallacious appeal to the popularity of a belief, which is also a fact.

 

[cottage]

[/color][/size][/color][/font]

I wrote there are more intelligent and higher educated people in the world who have a religious or deity belief, because it is a fact. Nothing to do with the illusions you see.

To which you added: This resoundly defeats the faith based belief in item 1.”

In any case you are being thoroughly untruthful, and here is why:

I said: Consider the contrary position, which is that if atheism outnumbered theism to the same degree it would not prove that atheism is true and that God doesn’t exist.

You replied: “It most certainly does.”

So, you have clearly stated that thing will be the case if x number of people believe it to be such.

Popularity does not make a thing true.

 

[jtartar]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

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.

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.

Copernuicus,
When a person reasons on the fact of God, we must remember a few things. All mankind is limited in his knowledge. WE all find that the term Egocentric Predicament applies to all of us. Egocentric Predicament means that all men are limited in what they can contemplate, because they are all reasoning from their own storehouse of knowledge. How can a person who knows so little start to reason that an Almighty God, who created all things, does or does not exist??
The only way a person casn be sure about God is to search His word, The Holy Bible. God gives us the promise that He will help us the understand His ways, if we sincerely search for Him, Prov 2:2-9, 1:20-32, 1Cor 2:7-10, 11-15.
We have a promise from God that He will not allow man to adulterate His word, Ps 12:6,7. Jesus even said that God's word is truth, John 17:17, so we know that all the Hebrew Scriptures are true.
God has had recorded that we should not put our trust in men, because there is no salvation in men, Ps 146:3,4, Pro 3:5,6, Jere 17:5, Mark 7:6-9.
The reason some believe that God does not exist is the very proof that He does exist. Many see the condition of mankind today and say; if there is a God why does He not do something about our plight?? THe problem is people do not study God's word so that the understand that SATAN is the god of this world, not God, John 14:30,16:11, 2Cor 4:3,4, 1John 5:19, Rev 12:9. Have you ever really considered the dialogue between Jesus and Satan at Luke 4:5-8, where Satan remarked to Jesus that the worlds kingdom had been given to him, and to whomever he wanted he could give all the glory of them. Notice that Jesus did not dispute Satan,but only said that worship should go to God alone.
When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, He allowed Satan to rule the world for a period of time to show all mankind that they could not rule in a way that would bring good conditions to men, Ecc 8:9, Jere 10:23.
This period of rule was to go on for a certian period of time. That time ran out at 1914, when Jesus was instituted as King of God' s Messianic Kingdom. We are actually eyewitnesses to the truth of this fact. The Bible tells us that right after Jesus would be put in as ruler, WAR would break out in heaven and that Satan and his hords would be thrown out of heaven down to earth, Rev 12:7-9. We are then told that WOE for the earth was eminent, Rev 12:10-12.
So, because mankind has failed to search the Holy Scriptures, he does not realize that all we are seeing is exactly as prophesied by God, and all these things would happen just before God sends His son to earth to bring about the end of this system and bring about a paradise earth, Matt 24:3, 7,8, 34-39. There are actually 39 composite signs that were prophesied to occurr in one generation, to point out to men that this is the generation. All those signs a now present. WARS on an unpresidented scale, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, and all kind of unreast and no agreements between men, 2Tim 3:1-5, Luke 21:10,11, 28,312,32.

 

[justbehappy]

Though I do not think that any religions are correct, there is no proof that there isn't a God-like being. After all, we are intelligent design, and it seems we would need an intelligent designer maybe. There is no proof that there is a God, though. Hence I am Agnostic.

 

[AxisMundi]

Copernuicus,
When a person reasons on the fact of God, .....

Sorry, you lost the debate right there.

The gods cannot be proven past personal experiences, they cannot be considered "fact", especially when you go on to quote a source that has zero credibility.

 

[AxisMundi]

No, the analogy is worthless in this context. Analogies are considered logical fallacies as a form of argument.

Fallacy? Not according to Webster's. An anology can also be used to explain a concept not fully understood. As I said, we consider the spiritual/divine to be merely another form of energy.

No, we do not. Gods are typically conceived of as thinking agencies, the same as human beings. They are imagined to have the power to control some aspect of our physical reality (i.e. perform miracles), but they are not grounded in the physical universe.

We do, in fact, belief that the gods are thinking entities, created by the concentrated will of many human beings over time. However, you are attempting to attribute something to all deities that 1. we do not believe in, and 2. does not apply to all deities.

It would be nice if you tried to defend this claim by showing how it is true. The OP does not address the properties that make the Abrahamic God unique. It is an argument against belief in all gods, and I have defined what I meant by the term "god".

Go back and read your responses.

Dreams are caused by physical events in a brain, as are so-called "intuitions". Mental events are effects of brain activity, not vice versa.

Please cite the reeearch that shows that intuition is a "physical event". As for Dreams, Shamans (loosly translated as Dreamers) have been utilizing Dreams for tens of thousands of years. Using the radio anology, our brains are merely the transceiver that can, at times, conenct to our spiritual aspects when the concious mind is removed from the equation.

I honestly do not know what you are trying to say, and I suspect that you are struggling with it, as well. Miracles are physical events. People may experience delusions, or they may misinterpret real physical events. What makes something a "miracle" is whether or not it is a physical event that has a supernatural cause. If you are trying to say that people imagine miracles to be real, then I am in full agreement with you. Real miracles do not happen.

No struggling at all, I was clear and consice in my reply concerning Celtic mythology. We actually agree on "miracles", one of the Abrahamic mainstays you are attempting to attribute to all beliefs.

But the overwhelming majority (Mahayana Buddhism, including Vajrayana Buddhism) are. I really do not believe that you have looked very closely at Buddhism as practiced in Asia. Look, just start with the Wikipedia page entitled God in Buddhism. Theravadan Buddhism is a more atheistic (and esoteric) version of Buddhism, but it is not the most popular form of that religion. Even so, you will find elements of theism in the Pali Canon. American Buddhists tend to de-emphasize the theistic elements of Buddhism, but they represent only a fragment of practicing Buddhists in the world.

Please read my reply again, I never claimed that "most" were theists.

 

[DeepShadow]

Simply stated IQ tests are impracticable, and have been abandoned by most specialists around the world as a measure of intelligence.

Source, please? I just finished a paper on the topic of intelligence testing, and my findings disagreed with your claim.

Granted, part of my research indicated that they ought to abandon them, but they have not done so.

 

[DeepShadow]

No, the analogy is worthless in this context. Analogies are considered logical fallacies as a form of argument.

Analogies only illustrate, but do not prove. That does not make them fallacies. The fault here is yours, in framing your argument in such a way that an analogy "illustrates" your limited understanding of religions. Not all religions conform to the limitations you are using to refute them.

Speaking of which, I replied to your OP. I'd appreciate hearing your response.

 

[DeepShadow]

We do, in fact, belief that the gods are thinking entities, created by the concentrated will of many human beings over time. However, you are attempting to attribute something to all deities that 1. we do not believe in, and 2. does not apply to all deities.

Interesting. Would these be similar to tulpas, or egregores?

 

[DeepShadow]

Fallacy? Not according to Webster's. An anology can also be used to explain a concept not fully understood. As I said, we consider the spiritual/divine to be merely another form of energy.

We do, in fact, belief that the gods are thinking entities, created by the concentrated will of many human beings over time. However, you are attempting to attribute something to all deities that 1. we do not believe in, and 2. does not apply to all deities.

 

[AxisMundi]

Interesting. Would these be similar to tulpas, or egregores?

Of a sort, I guess one could use the same theosophy in that we see that all deities are created by man, but that they are independant, thinking entities.

 

[footprints]

Source, please? I just finished a paper on the topic of intelligence testing, and my findings disagreed with your claim.

Granted, part of my research indicated that they ought to abandon them, but they have not done so.

Simply put, they are still part of the curriculum. It was a stage of development which led us to new heights.

Based on the Stanford-Binet (WAIS scale), three seperate tests were prepared, and given to seperate distinct groups at society level. What the tests conclusively showed was that depending on the nature of the tests, and what perception they were derived from, that the resultant intelligent levels changed between relative groupings. This was a prime basis for Gardners theory of multiple intelligence and further influenced Sternbergs Triarchic Theory of Intelligence.

To put it in a more simple way, the tests were biased. Aboriginal cultures were distinctly disavantage by the tests and unless they had an education, scored very low in IQ testing, even though their cognitive skills as they pertained to life clearly suggested this wasn't so. Illiterate people faced the same problems and issues. Unless a person can relate in the first place, they cannot associate. However give them a test which they can relate to, and their IQ rating increases considerably.

My source is most practicing psychologists and behavioural scientists that I know of (Australia). Albeit, if I didn't mention it earlier, are still employed for basic, association skills testing but not as a measure for intelligence. The other thing I may add, is sometimes America moves slowly.

 

[Copernicus]

Analogies only illustrate, but do not prove. That does not make them fallacies. The fault here is yours, in framing your argument in such a way that an analogy "illustrates" your limited understanding of religions. Not all religions conform to the limitations you are using to refute them.

DeepShadow, you seem to have contradicted yourself here and misunderstood the nature of fallacies. You agree with me that they do not prove, yet you claim that they are not fallacies. In fact, that is what makes them technically "informal fallacies". This type of fallacy is often called False Analogy, but it goes by other names in lists of fallacies (e.g. Questionable Analogy, Wrong Analogy, etc.). Also, you need to read the OP more carefully. It is not an argument against belief in all religions. It is aimed at general belief in the existence of gods.

Speaking of which, I replied to your OP. I'd appreciate hearing your response.

Sorry I missed it. I will definitely look up your reply and respond to it. Been falling behind due to issues in RL lately.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernuicus,
When a person reasons on the fact of God, we must remember a few things. All mankind is limited in his knowledge. WE all find that the term Egocentric Predicament applies to all of us. Egocentric Predicament means that all men are limited in what they can contemplate, because they are all reasoning from their own storehouse of knowledge. How can a person who knows so little start to reason that an Almighty God, who created all things, does or does not exist??

By this logic, I don't understand how you believe people can reason about anything at all, since, as you point out, we are creatures of limited knowledge. Egocentric Predicament, to the extent that it applies to any arguments, goes beyond arguments about the existence of supernatural beings.

The only way a person casn be sure about God is to search His word, The Holy Bible...

This takes us off-topic. The very first sentence in the OP establishes that I am not talking about any specific gods, let alone the Abrahamic versions of God. All religions have doctrines, and the vast majority of doctrines are based on some type of scripture. Where scripture is relevant is in my comments about revelation, which is supposedly the source of encounters with divine spirits. Perhaps you could address those points. I may start another thread about the Abrahamic versions of God, but most of the forum is devoted to discussions of that particular god. My OP is about general belief in gods and why I reject that kind of belief.