Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[nPeace]

Then that falls under the "whatever reason".

What's that?

 

[PureX]

Correct. He probably would not even see how unreasonable it is to decide that he gets to decide how weak or strong the evidence must be, and weak evidence does not qualify as evidence. "the evidence is weak" he says
Clearly, not a willingness to be reasonable.

He's already decided based on the conclusion that he's already reached.

 

[F1fan]

When you start unreasonably, you obviously don't know what is reasonable. So, you already disqualified yourself from being able to give judgment without bias.

This reply appears to apply to you, not me. You claimed that belief in God is reasonable and I asked you to explain how this is true, and this is your response? Frankly I doubted you could offer a valid explanation since there never has been one in thousands of years.

I point out that the lack of evidence for any gods is why no one can reasonably conclude any exist in reality, and outside of their imagination.

You haven't answered my questions in the other thread either. So, reasonableness does not lie with you.

What do questions of other topics have to do with your claim on this topic, except being used as an excuse for why you can't defend your claim that it is reasonable to believe a God exists?

 

[nPeace]

What do questions of other topics have to do with your claim on this topic, except being used as an excuse for why you can't defend your claim that it is reasonable to believe a God exists?

There are markers showing how far conversations eith you get, and the reason there are always one directional... with you talking, and listening to yourself, and responding only to what you hear yourself saying.

 

[F1fan]

Then that falls under the "whatever reason". I can't possible know what everyone's reasoning to believe or disbelieve so so can enter "whatever" reason they feel necessary.

My reason for not having a belief is a lack of knowledge about God.

This implies there is knowledge about God (just one god, or the many that are believed existing?) that a rational and impartial mind can learn. Obviously we can look up what is described of most all gods in human history, is this knowledge about God (gods) or knowledge about whjat humans believe gods to be? Can you see how language can be confusing, and expose certain assumptions and biases that we are not consciously aware of?

So since I don't know anything about God I have nothing to base a belief on.

The dilemma here is that believers lack evidence for their God so instead tend to recommend seeking an experience with God. As we know many believers "find" God this way, and more objective folks don't "find" God. God never appears, there is no experience. Those folks are accused of being insincere, or God hasn't chosen them, or lacking faith, or many other excuses. It's notable that even those who claim to experience God struggle to explain what God is. The most reasonable answer is that they are hearing what other claims as an experience with God and mimicking the behavior. Notice only pentacostals speak in tngues as a way to experience the divinity of God, but no other Christians do. Kind of odd. Only Catholics take the Eucharist, no protestants. Muslims pray to God 5 times a day, but Christians don't have to. The lack of consistency among the many different religions suggests humans designing and following cultural rituals and practices that work to validate belief in whatever version of the God of Abraham they adot and believe in.

So if you learned all these different rituals and practices that offer knowledge of God, how do you decide which one is most accurate (assuming any are accurate and not just cultural behaviors)? For me the more I learn about the diversity of religions the less likley any can be assumed true.

Agnostics, meaning they lack knowledge about God. So they are just being honest about not having any knowledge about what they should believe in.

I have always suggested that all humans are agnostic where it comes to religious belief, because where is there any actual knowledge of a God, or gods, that is verifiable and can lead to a sound, rational conclusion?

 

[F1fan]

There are markers showing how far conversations eith you get, and the reason there are always one directional... with you talking, and listening to yourself, and responding only to what you hear yourself saying.

You totally ignored how I exposed your views as undefendable. You claimed that belief in God is reasonable, and then accused me of not being reasonable, and now twice you fil to back up these claims. Were you bluffing? Trying to fool us that you know something we don't? Well, your evasion only informs us that you are not making true statements about what you believe, or your judgment about our abilities. That's bad manners, in both life and debate.

So can you admit your previous comments were not true?

 

[F1fan]

I happen to think it's quite reasonable to believe that no gods exist.
For the same reason I consider it reasonable to believe that there is no undetectable dragon following me everywhere I go.

There is this saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".
And to an extent, that is true. But in certain specific ways it isn't.

For example.... there is no evidence of the biblical flood.
According to that saying, that means that that doesn't count as evidence that no such flood happened.
I disagree. If such a flood happened, there should be evidence..

The fact that this evidence is absent, actually is evidence that it didn't happen.

I think the same holds for gods (or anything other branded as "supernatural").

If supernatural things exist, there should be evidence of such.
The fact that there isn't any such evidence, is evidence that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

So that's what I go with.
Does it prove there is no such thing? Off course not. There's no absolute certainty here (which is why we use the word "evidence" instead of "proof").

But until there actually is evidence to show otherwise, the most likely answer seems to me to be that there is no such thing.

So yes, I consider it reasonable to believe that are no gods, for that reason.
I'm very open to change my mind in light of new evidence. But until that time, I have no reason to.

Good post. If thesists are going to assert that their gods can't be dismissed as existing there should be some degree of plasubility. If Jim has a lunch box and no one sees evidence of a ham sandwich being inside it is plausible that one is in there since ham sandwiches are known as existing. There is no evidence of any supernatural, so to assert that a God existing can't be discounted it is not reasonable to think any of the many versions of gods are likely to exist.

Theists, give us something..... some scrap of actual evidence that a God is more likley existing rather than not. Thus far nature explains a lot, and the fact that human biology is so flawed doesn't help us assume a God is behind us existing as special creatures.

 

[nPeace]

You totally ignored how I exposed your views as undefendable. You claimed that belief in God is reasonable, and then accused me of not being reasonable, and now twice you fil to back up these claims. Were you bluffing? Trying to fool us that you know something we don't? Well, your evasion only informs us that you are not making true statements about what you believe, or your judgment about our abilities. That's bad manners, in both life and debate.

Pay attention to what you wrote. Whom are you listening to? What's it all about? Is it you, and what you want?

So can you admit your previous comments were not true?

No. There are precisely true.

 

[F1fan]

Pay attention to what you wrote. Whom are you listening to?

What do you mean, this is a vague question. Ask a specific question if you really want a direct answer.

What's it all about? Is it you, and what you want?

What is "it"? Thus far science is the best resource to understand what is true about how things are. My purpose in life is what I create and acheive for myself. I don't expect society to give me purpose and meaning as a dependent, as theists do.

No. There are precisely true.

Yet you can't show us they are true, and that is why I reject your comments.

Show us that belief in God is reasonable.

Show us that I am not a reasonable thinker. That means point out the errors I am making in rejecting your claims.

I bet you can't, and won't. You have the chance to prove me wrong in front of everyone. Or will you deflect yet again out of pride?

 

[Nakosis]

What's that?

Whatever reasoning a person happens to have for their position.

 

[nPeace]

Whatever reasoning a person happens to have for their position.

I'm lost. So, no reasoning is good, including that of science?

 

[Quintessence]

Just as a reminder:

Evidence of gods has been presented ad nauseam on these forums.
Many, many, many, many times.
So many, many, many, many MANY many times.

And just as often, evidence of the gods has been dismissed out of hand by those who have already decided against the proposition.

Consider carefully what you want to waste your time on.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your belief simply does not make it so.

I never said that it did.

Nor does it justify your claiming it to be so.

I am not making any claims, I only have beliefs.

And that is why the rejection of doubt that "belief" is, is dishonest.

What would be dishonest is if I said I doubt my belief, because I have no doubts.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm lost. So, no reasoning is good, including that of science?

The point being I can't know everyone's reasoning for their beliefs.
So it is up to each individual to apply their own reasoning in this case.

 

[Nakosis]

Just as a reminder:

Evidence of gods has been presented ad nauseam on these forums.
Many, many, many, many times.
So many, many, many, many MANY many times.

And just as often, evidence of the gods has been dismissed out of hand by those who have already decided against the proposition.

Consider carefully what you want to waste your time on.

Sure, lots of evidence of God. In fact too much evidence for any number of Gods.
Just not any evidence that can be shared beyond telling a story.

 

[nPeace]

The point being I can't know everyone's reasoning for their beliefs.
So it is up to each individual to apply their own reasoning in this case.

I don't know all atheists reasoning. So I can't say any one of them is reasonable.
Maybe I got lost along the way. Or your point was lost.

 

[F1fan]

Just as a reminder:

Evidence of gods has been presented ad nauseam on these forums.

It’s not evidence that is valid or adequate for logic or in law. Most of the evidence is personal opinion and hearsay. There is a significant gap between the ideas claimed true and evidence sufficient to justify a sound conclusion. Theists are extremely liberal in what they consider evidence and reject the high standards of critical thinkers.

You might say that there is evidence for faith, but not for reason.

Many, many, many, many times.
So many, many, many, many MANY many times.

And just as often, evidence of the gods has been dismissed out of hand by those who have already decided against the proposition.

Like believers in different gods. It’s interesting how occasionally there is a dispute between believers but these are not considered as big a threat as with critical thinkers. I find that both odd and revealing in that there seems a sort of alliance among believers in some form of god.

Consider carefully what you want to waste your time on.

On RF, of course.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Not to mention, childish.

When you aren't doing this...

You're running away. Like here.

 

[F1fan]

When you aren't doing this...

You're running away. Like here.

Oh the irony. If you aren't able to support your claims why did you make them? How are atheists not reasonable in not believing in a God? Is there a problem for you not showing us you were correct?

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, lots of evidence of God. In fact too much evidence for any number of Gods.
Just not any evidence that can be shared beyond telling a story.

This is the case for ALL types of evidence. So why is this different? Right, because the "there's no evidence" crowd tell themselves the story that the evidence presented to them isn't evidence. Which they have every right to do, mind.

It’s not evidence that is valid or adequate for logic or in law. Most of the evidence is personal opinion and hearsay. There is a significant gap between the ideas claimed true and evidence sufficient to justify a sound conclusion. Theists are extremely liberal in what they consider evidence and reject the high standards of critical thinkers.

That's an interesting (and often incorrect) interpretation of what's going on, but fair enough. After all, the complexities of ontology and epistemology are simply far too much for the "high standards of critical thinkers" to handle. It's way easier to avoid that stuff and practice "critical thinking" instead of critical thinking.