Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[shunyadragon]

The intent was to maybe let folks see the opposing position could also be held by reasonable people.



Sure, fair. I just had finished several posts that assumed that God's existence was self-evident and any other position was unreasonable.
I thought maybe they could see someone else having this same confidence in there not being a God.



That is the difference I see between belief and faith. Belief allows subjectivity, faith doesn't.

I do not make the distinction you are making between faith and belief in this perspective. In my view both are subjective and allowing alternatives in subjectivity is a separate issue. It is true that most Theists do not consider atheism (no God(s) exist) a rational alternative belief, and of course, by far most atheists do not consider theism a rational alternative belief.

My belief in a fundamental philosophy of Universalism (not UU) reserves judgment concerning choices of alternative human beliefs. I do realize that most believers don't wander far from home and make their choices within a narrow range of alternatives within their culture and peer beliefs.

Another assumption of universalism is most frequently logic is used to justify one's belief and not to evaluate independently possible alternative choices.

 

[shunyadragon]

One of the major interests of my philosophy is why people believe as they do, and how they relate to those who believe differently.

Atheists believe strongly in philosophical naturalism and relate to theists with intellectual superiority and indignation.

Theists believe variably in a personal God of various forms and relate to atheists with emotional hostility often considering it evil and a threat to the moral foundation of society. Often the necessary existence of morals and social order is equated with the existence of God.

 

[Raju3v]

I believe in god because I feel he/she exists from my heart. Not because I have some valid reason for it that he/she exists. It's a matter of believe I think. Anyways, no one can proof that god exists or not. We never knew! It's true that human's cannot go beyond one vision.

 

[PureX]

One of the major interests of my philosophy is why people believe as they do, and how they relate to those who believe differently.

Atheists believe strongly in philosophical naturalism and relate to theists with intellectual superiority and indignation.

Theists believe variably in a personal God of various forms and relate to atheists with emotional hostility often considering it evil and a threat to the moral foundation of society. Often the necessary existence of morals and social order is equated with the existence of God.

Theists vary so widely that I think your assessment here is way over-stated. Some theists think this way, of course, but many do not. Whereas atheists also vary in their positions toward theists, but not nearly to the degree that theists vary in their positions toward ... everything.

 

[bobhikes]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

It is reasonable to believe anything. Belief is just that belief. What is unreasonable is to force your beliefs on others.

 

[Nakosis]

It is reasonable to believe anything. Belief is just that belief. What is unreasonable is to force your beliefs on others.

Well, that is kind of what we do with our children isn't it?

Parenting is an exercise in the unreasonable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Theists vary so widely that I think your assessment here is way over-stated. Some theists think this way, of course, but many do not.

Agree this should be worded better, but I believe the strong negative view toward atheists is very prevalent in varying degrees fundamental to the necessity at the root of Christian beliefs

Whereas atheists also vary in their positions toward theists, but not nearly to the degree that theists vary in their positions toward ... everything.

Atheist views are not as hostile and sometimes indifferent to Theists.

 

[bobhikes]

Well, that is kind of what we do with our children isn't it?

Parenting is an exercise in the unreasonable.

That's not how I parented. I have always made sure to tell them, it is my opinion and that I don't have an answer. I have always told them there are other opinions and sometimes given examples of other opinions.

 

[PureX]

Agree this should be worded better, but I believe the strong negative view toward atheists is very prevalent in varying degrees fundamental to the necessity at the root of Christian beliefs

I think the more 'religious' one is, the more inclined one is to being prejudiced against atheism and atheists. Just as the more anti-religious the atheist is, the more inclined he also is to being prejudiced against theism and theists as a whole. So the issue isn't really one of prejudice among theists and atheists, it's far more about animosity between the religious and the anti-religious.

I know plenty of folks that are theists, and that are atheists, that really have no particular attitude toward theism or atheism one way or another. They just assume it a personal choice and leave it at that. It's when religion becomes the main focus that the bigotry begins to rear it's head ... on both sides. At least that's been my observation.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?
Regards

But they don't have any, so they will always hide under different pretexts, right?

Regards

Isn't it strange that none of the non-believers has come out for the evidences they ask from the believers, please, right??
Non-belief in the truthful one G-d is neither supported by the Scientific Method (for physical and material realm) nor by the Religious Method (for Ethical, moral and spiritual realm), isn't it therefore merely their conjecture, please, right??

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

paarsurrey said:
Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?
Regards

Isn't it strange that none of the non-believers has come out for the evidences they ask from the believers, please, right??

Not strange at all.

Logically it is up to those who make the positive claim to provide the evidence for that claim. Unfortunately, the subjective claim for the existence or non-existence of God or Gods does not have any verifiable evidence either way without further information.

The problem that remains is the viability of an argument for the Gods of ancient religions. Ancient views are problematic, and the argument of which religion or God(s) is correct is subjective from the fallible human perspective.

The best argument for God is a Universal God without the preferences of individual religions.

Non-belief in the truthful one G-d is neither supported by the Scientific Method (for physical and material realm) nor by the Religious Method (for Ethical, moral and spiritual realm), isn't it therefore merely their conjecture, please, right??

Regards

Belief nor non-belief is not supported by any evidence.

From here your argument is mute.

 

[shunyadragon]

My belief in a fundamental philosophy of Universalism (not UU) reserves judgment concerning choices of alternative human beliefs.

One clarification here to 'reserving judgment' is considering different religions not right or wrong but in the context of the time, culture, and those that compiled them during the formative time the religion originated creating the final text believed by the followers. thus by the evidence religions as a whole evolve over time and merge and divide into different beliefs and variations.

 

[YoursTrue]

By both. They both don't know what they are talking about.

They may have reasons. It's almost like a jury trial. Some proclaimed evidence move some jurors to vote guilty or not guilty. Not all necessarily agree and sometimes a verdict is wrong. I'm not saying everyone's reasons are right, or those I agree with, but if a person believes in God, or gods, he probably has a reason to believe. Clearly from these posts, some have reasons to believe there is no God or gods. Again -- what's the alternative? Agnosticism? Some do claim that as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

But they don't have any, so they will always hide under different pretexts, right?

Regards

So it seems. And then when further asked to explain their views, some may say they are being hounded, harrassed, persecuted, etc. What do you think?

 

[ppp]

But they don't have any, so they will always hide under different pretexts, right?

Regards

Why do I need to provide evidence against when believers fail to provide evidence for?

 

[Heyo]

They may have reasons. It's almost like a jury trial. Some proclaimed evidence move some jurors to vote guilty or not guilty. Not all necessarily agree and sometimes a verdict is wrong. I'm not saying everyone's reasons are right, or those I agree with, but if a person believes in God, or gods, he probably has a reason to believe. Clearly from these posts, some have reasons to believe there is no God or gods. Again -- what's the alternative? Agnosticism? Some do claim that as well.

Agnosticism is the way to look at the problem from outside the box. What value has it to argue about something from what neither you nor your interlocutor have any idea what it is?

 

[shunyadragon]

So it seems. And then when further asked to explain their views, some may say they are being hounded, harrassed, persecuted, etc. What do you think?

This may apply to Theists also, but nonetheless, a smoke screen approach to the problem is also advocated by @paarsurrey avoiding the bottom line that simply there is no objectively verifiable evidence for either the existence or the non-existence of God(s) therefore the claims remain subjective based on belief.

There is a severe problem among Theists where a wide range of conflicting beliefs concerning God makes anyone subject to question which is true. If you look at the ancient religions and their scriptures the human beliefs evolve over time and are very different. Archaeology confirms this. Even in the Bible, the most ancient view was anthropomorphic polytheism evolving to anthropomorphic monotheism and tritheism. Islam and the Baha'i Faith then advocate a strict monotheism. Each ancient religion claims to have the one and only true belief in God or Gods.

The reality is if a truly universal God exists the ancient religions are an evolving human view of God. and the relationship with humanity and Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do I need to provide evidence against when believers fail to provide evidence for?

. . . because you cannot neither believers nor non-believers have any evidence to present.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

Believing that no Gods exist is the same as saying that there can be no other species superior to yourself.

For someone to think they belong to the most developed, smartest, most powerful species in the universe seems unreasonable when this is such a vast universe with at least 100 billion galaxies with over 100 billion stars each.

 

[McBell]

Believing that no Gods exist is the same as saying that there can be no other species superior to yourself.

Bold empty claim

For someone to think they belong to the most developed, smartest, most powerful species in the universe seems unreasonable when this is such a vast universe with at least 100 billion galaxies with over 100 billion stars each.

How does this not equally apply to ones favoured chosen deity?