Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not knowing is not equivalent to 'knowing not'.

Yet somehow this concept continually eludes you when discussing atheists and atheism.

Faith is an excellent method of engaging with existence when sufficient knowledge is not available to us.

Faith is NEVER a good idea. Reserve belief for when sufficient knowledge is available. Nothing less can be called knowledge. Belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, tentative (never certain), and that degree of belief should vary when new evidence arises changing the likelihood of the belief being correct.

Scientists call it the “singularity”. And by definition it’s “supra-natural“.

No, it's not. That must be your definition. No such thing is known to exist. Nor do the supernatural, infranatural, the extranatural, the juxtanatural, the transnatural, the micronatural, the hypernatural, the holonatural, and the quasinatural exist. Those are just words with no real referent. As far as we know, there's just nature, and if infinitely small and dense things exist, they exist in nature.

Belief is faith that what we believe is true even though it cannot be proven as a fact. What is the danger that can result?

What danger can result from holding an incorrect belief by faith? A lot if it affects your decision making. If you believe angels exist in heaven, that's relatively harmless. If you believe that they will protect you when driving and act on that such as drive drunk or uninsured because you believe that these angels are guardian angels, you might come to regret such choices.

God is not a fact since God can never be proven to exist.

Yet elsewhere you wrote, "I do not believe that God is a possibility. I am certain that God exists." You are certain of the existence of a particular god that you say can't be "proven" to exist. This is a nice example of internal contradiction, a form of incoherence.

I sense a bias in this statement.

That was a response to, "It is certainly reasonable to be an atheist." Yes, relying only on critical thought and empiricism to decide what is true about the world is a bias, and one that causes great consternation in many a believer. It's a rational bias, like avoiding drunk driving and making pedophilia a crime. It's only the irrational biases such as Abrahamic declarations of what is an abomination (gays, atheists) or that faith and scripture have more value than reason and the "wisdom of the world" that we need to protect ourselves from holding and unfortunately, that we also need to protect ourselves from others who hold them.

The way I see it... being atheist can be unreasonable, or not, depending.

Being an atheist is never unreasonable. Reason dictates being an agnostic atheist. Any other position is faith-based, which is the opposite of reason-based.

In the same way, believing in god(s) can be unreasonable, or not, depending.

No, believing in gods is never reasonable. For some, it's a practical alternative to living without a god belief and outside of religion if they are not comfortable without that belief.

 

[Nakosis]

They?
If the 'one true God' exists I don't think He would agree.

I don't pretend to know God's gender or pronouns.
So then you believe God is not as reasonable as some theists are?

 

[Trailblazer]

So then you believe God is not as reasonable as some theists are?

I believe that God is more reasonable than any theists are.
To be clear, if God' exists I don't think He would agree that it can be reasonable to be an atheist.

 

[Audie]

Yet somehow this concept continually eludes when discussing atheists and atheism.

Faith is NEVER a good idea. Reserve belief for when sufficient knowledge is available. Nothing less can be called knowledge. Belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, tentative (never certain), and that degree of belief should vary when new evidence arises changing the likelihood of the belief being correct.

No, it's not. That must be your definition. No such thing is known to exist. Nor do the supernatural, infranatural, the extranatural, the juxtanatural, the transnatural, the micronatural, the hypernatural, the holonatural, and the quasinatural exist. Those are just words with no real referent. As far as we know, there's just nature, and if infinitely small and dense things exist, they exist in nature.

What danger can result from holding an incorrect belief by faith? A lot if it affects your decision making. If you believe angels exist in heaven, that's relatively harmless. If you believe that they will protect you when driving and act on that such as drive drunk or uninsured because you believe that these angels are guardian angels, you might come to regret such choices.

Yet elsewhere you wrote, "I do not believe that God is a possibility. I am certain that God exists." You are certain of the existence of a particular god that you say can't be "proven" to exist. This is a nice example of internal contradiction, a form of incoherence.

That was a response to, "It is certainly reasonable to be an atheist." Yes, relying only on critical thought and empiricism to decide what is true about the world is a bias, and one that causes great consternation in many a believer. It's a rational bias, like avoiding drunk driving and making pedophilia a crime. It's only the irrational biases such as Abrahamic declarations of what is an abomination (gays, atheists) or that faith and scripture have more value than reason and the "wisdom of the world" that we need to protect ourselves from holding and unfortunately, that we also need to protect ourselves from others who hold them.

Being an atheist is never unreasonable. Reason dictates being an agnostic atheist. Any other position is faith-based, which is the opposite of reason-based.

No, believing in gods is never reasonable. For some, it's a practical alternative to living without a god belief and outside of religion if they are not comfortable without that belief.

Speaking as a awful abominable lesbian asian
atheist I say

" Hear, hear".

 

[Nakosis]

I believe that God is more reasonable than any theists are.
To be clear, if God' exists I don't think He would agree that it can be reasonable to be an atheist.

I'd agree if God provided evidence beyond hearsay of a few folk I've never met and have no reason to trust.
However in current circumstances, it seems a pretty unreasonable expectation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is NEVER a good idea. Reserve belief for when sufficient knowledge is available. Nothing less can be called knowledge. Belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, tentative (never certain), and that degree of belief should vary when new evidence arises changing the likelihood of the belief being correct.

I agree that belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, but the problem is that everyone does not view evidence the same way, as you well know. What I consider evidence for God and Messengers of God you do not consider evidence at all, and never the twain shall meet, so there is not point arguing about it.
That being said, I agree that belief should vary when new evidence arises changing the likelihood of the belief being correct.

What danger can result from holding an incorrect belief by faith? A lot if it affects your decision making. If you believe angels exist in heaven, that's relatively harmless. If you believe that they will protect you when driving and act on that such as drive drunk or uninsured because you believe that these angels are guardian angels, you might come to regret such choices.

I never suggested anyone should believe on faith alone. I only ever said that some faith is necessary to believe since there is no proof that God exists or that God sent Messengers. Faith with no evidence is blind faith but since I believe I have evidence I don't believe my faith is blind.

Yet elsewhere you wrote, "I do not believe that God is a possibility. I am certain that God exists." You are certain of the existence of a particular god that you say can't be "proven" to exist. This is a nice example of internal contradiction, a form of incoherence.

There is no contradiction or incoherence because my certainty of the existence of God is not based upon proof, it is based upon evidence.
Not only do I not need proof, I know there could never be proof of God unless God provided that proof. I do not believe God will ever provide proof because God wants our faith, reason-based faith not blind faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd agree if God provided evidence beyond hearsay of a few folk I've never met and have no reason to trust.
However in current circumstances, it seems a pretty unreasonable expectation.

Not only unreasonable, but highly unlikely.

 

[Nakosis]

Not only unreasonable, but highly unlikely.

Well then hopefully God sees it the same way we do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I consider evidence for God and Messengers of God you do not consider evidence at all, and never the twain shall meet, so there is not point arguing about it.

Agreed, but it is still worth noting that what you use to connect what you call your evidence to what you say it supports is not fallacy-free reasoning. You made a similar comment recently and I noted that you seem to believe opinions using idiosyncratic "logic" are equal to those derived from valid reasoning.

I never suggested anyone should believe on faith alone. Faith with no evidence is blind faith but since I believe I have evidence I don't believe my faith is blind.

You seem to think that if you say that you have evidence, that your belief isn't blind. If your beliefs aren't sound conclusion derived from valid reasoning, they're believed by faith, which is by definition blind, that is, believed without sufficient supporting evidence by academic standards.

You're like the kid doing an addition problem, who says that some of his reasoning was standard, with some of his own idiosyncratic rules for adding thrown in. It doesn't matter how little. If any single step in the process is invalid, so is the answer. Ecce fides (behold faith):

"If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

There is no contradiction or incoherence because my certainty of the existence of God is not based upon proof, it is based upon evidence.

You said that you were certain of something not known to be a fact. Your claim to use evidence doesn't help you if what you are calling the evidence doesn't establish the fact. You're still guessing and being certain of your guess as if they were knowledge. That's incoherent. Guesses aren't knowledge.

I do not believe God will ever provide proof because God wants our faith, reason-based faith not blind faith.

Reason-based faith is an oxymoron. Reason or faith: Ones beliefs are either justified or not. All beliefs are one or the other, and none are both or neither. Any faith at all and the conclusion can only be believed by faith as with the sum derived using custom arithmetic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well then hopefully God sees it the same way we do.

I doubt that.

 

[Audie]

Agreed, but it is still worth noting that what you use to connect what you call your evidence to what you say it supports is not fallacy-free reasoning. You made a similar comment recently and I noted that you seem to believe opinions using idiosyncratic "logic" are equal to those derived from valid reasoning.

You seem to think that if you say that you have evidence, that your belief isn't blind. If your beliefs aren't sound conclusion derived from valid reasoning, they're believed by faith, which is by definition blind, that is, believed without sufficient supporting evidence by academic standards.

You're like the kid doing an addition problem, who says that some of his reasoning was standard, with some of his own idiosyncratic rules for adding thrown in. It doesn't matter how little. If any single step in the process is invalid, so is the answer. Ecce fides (behold faith):

"If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

You said that you were certain of something not known to be a fact. Your claim to use evidence doesn't help you if what you are calling the evidence doesn't establish the fact. You're still guessing and being certain of your guess as if they were knowledge. That's incoherent. Guesses aren't knowledge.

Reason-based faith is an oxymoron. Reason or faith: Ones beliefs are either justified or not. All beliefs are one or the other, and none are both or neither. Any faith at all and the conclusion can only be believed by faith as with the sum derived using custom arithmetic.

The faith I see is faith in self.
Faith that what one takes to be
evidence is valid.
Faith that the interpretation is correct, nay,
betimes, infallible.

Unforgettable is a walk across campus with
a Christian girl when a nice red leaf fell
at our feet.
She announced it was a message from
God, to represent the trinity.

Shown it had five parts it became a Sign about the pentarch.

 

[Trailblazer]

Agreed, but it is still worth noting that what you use to connect what you call your evidence to what you say it supports is not fallacy-free reasoning. You made a similar comment recently and I noted that you seem to believe opinions using idiosyncratic "logic" are equal to those derived from valid reasoning.

A logical argument with premises and conclusions can never be used to prove that God exists or has Messengers since the premises can never be proven to be true. However, that does not mean that my premises and conclusions are false. It only means they cannot be proven true.

You seem to think that if you say that you have evidence, that your belief isn't blind.

Correct.

If your beliefs aren't sound conclusion derived from valid reasoning, they're believed by faith, which is by definition blind, that is, believed without sufficient supporting evidence by academic standards.

My beliefs are sound conclusions derived from valid reasoning that was used to assess the evidence.

You said that you were certain of something not known to be a fact. Your claim to use evidence doesn't help you if what you are calling the evidence doesn't establish the fact. You're still guessing and being certain of your guess as if they were knowledge. That's incoherent. Guesses aren't knowledge.

It is not a guess since it is based upon evidence.

Reason-based faith is an oxymoron. Reason or faith: Ones beliefs are either justified or not. All beliefs are one or the other, and none are both or neither. Any faith at all and the conclusion can only be believed by faith as with the sum derived using custom arithmetic.

Reason-based faith is faith with evidence to back it up.

I hope we are not going to go around this block again. Justified by whom? Who determines if one's beliefs are justified?

"Any faith at all and the conclusion can only be believed by faith as with the sum derived using custom arithmetic" is the fallacy of black and white thinking. Belief can be held on faith plus evidence. Any God belief has to be partly held on faith since there is no proof that God exists, only evidence.

 

[ppp]

A logical argument with premises and conclusions can never be used to prove that God exists or has Messengers since the premises can never be proven to be true. However, that does not mean that my premises and conclusions are false. It only means they cannot be proven true.

It does mean that your position is not logically sound.

 

[Audie]

It does mean that your position is not logically sound.

It works for Nessie, bigfoot, astrology.
And possibly Batboy.

 

[Trailblazer]

It does mean that your position is not logically sound.

It doesn't matter if my position is logically sound. It can still be true, and that is all that matters.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The faith I see is faith in self.
Faith that what one takes to be
evidence is valid.

I'm not sure just what you're saying there. I might say that I have faith in myself, but that's a different word than faith as in unjustified belief. This other faith is justified by experience. On these threads, I try to confine my use of the word faith only religious-type faith, or insufficiently justified belief, to avoid an equivocation ambiguity, or in phrases where I can't be misunderstood (in good faith, the Jewish faith, Faith Hill)

Unforgettable is a walk across campus with
a Christian girl when a nice red leaf fell
at our feet.
She announced it was a message from
God, to represent the trinity.

Careful! From an earlier post:

"Incidentally, I'll digress here for a moment, since that description of the experience of the sun through clouds hit home. Early in my Christian walk - first year, actually - while in the Army, I was sitting on the barracks steps one evening with my girlfriend, the Christian who brought me to Jesus, and just as you described, I witnessed crepuscular rays piercing through the clouds, felt a frisson travel my spine, and thought that the Holy Spirit was guiding me to ask this woman to be my wife. So, I asked her, and we got married. Big mistake."

Just kidding. I'm sure you know what to do.

A logical argument with premises and conclusions can never be used to prove that God exists or has Messengers since the premises can never be proven to be true. However, that does not mean that my premises and conclusions are false. It only means they cannot be proven true.

Your conclusion is unsound, not false.

My beliefs are sound conclusions derived from valid reasoning that was used to assess the evidence.

No, they are not. I can't convince you of that, but that doesn't change the fact that your thinking is fallacious, and your conclusions unsound (non sequitur).

It is not a guess since it is based upon evidence.

That's not enough when that evidence doesn't imply your conclusions. If you believe them anyway, you're guessing.

Who determines if one's beliefs are justified?

The academic community.

Belief can be held on faith plus evidence.

Yes, but if the evidence doesn't imply the belief according to accepted rules of inference, then it wasn't enough to justify the conclusion, which makes it faith. Recall the arithmetic metaphor. One error in an addition problem makes the sum wrong. You need rigor from start to finish, or what you end up with is no more useful than if somebody gave their Social Security number as the sum without even looking at the addends. Some error and all error are the same thing. So are some faith and all faith. If a leap of faith is necessary to get you to your conclusion, it doesn't matter how far you got before leaping.

 

[Trailblazer]

The academic community.

I have never heard anything quite that illogical in my entire life.
The academic community cannot decide if religious beliefs are justified since they know NOTHING about evidence for God.

 

[ppp]

It doesn't matter if my position is logically sound. It can still be true, and that is all that matters.

That is all that matters to you. And sorry, but you have no knowledge as to whether it can be true.

 

[ppp]

It works for Nessie, bigfoot, astrology.
And possibly Batboy.

Not batboy!?!

 

[Audie]

Not batboy!?!

I left some space there for Batboy, and his
secret Moon- lab.