Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[mikkel_the_dane]

So in your view believing that a god exists in reality is unreasonable?!

Depends on the version. But for certain versions of gods interacting in the everyday world, you end up with in effect: Someone is right and someone else is wrong, because of reasons.
The problem is that works in both directions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So Mormonism is more reliable than Christianity and Islam?

You tell me.

Smith dictated the text of the plates while a scribe wrote down the words which would later become the Book of Mormon. Eyewitnesses to the process said Smith translated the plates, not by looking directly at them, but by looking through a transparent seer stone in the bottom of his hat.

After the translation was complete, Smith said that he returned the plates to the angel Moroni; thus they could never be examined.
Golden plates - Wikipedia

I don't find it particularly credible. It all happened in a background of the the early 19th century, where religious revivals and the formation of new religious movements of the Second Great Awakening took place around New York, to such a great extent that spiritual fervor seemed to set the area on fire.

Family members [of Smith] supplemented their meager farm income by hiring out for odd jobs and working as treasure seekers, a type of magical supernaturalism common during the period.

Sorry, I'll pass on that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know of any other things that exist outside of space and time.

You've probably seen me argue previously that the idea of existing outside of time or space is incoherent. Existing means being somewhere at some time. Are gods not said to think and act? Those require the passage of time - from before states to after states. The definition of existing is to occupy time and space and to interact with other existing objects and processes in time and space. Real things do that, and imaginary things do not.

Taking an extreme stance such as "God is no different to Spaghetti monster"

OK, but I don't see what's extreme about that. Isn't that simply saying that God has no more claim to existence than the FSM? Isn't that in effect the same thing as what I just said to Trailblazer - neither exist in any place at any time, or affect things that do exist? The FSM also can be found nowhere at any time interacting with the rest of reality. That's also true of werewolves and Santa Claus. And Zeus and Odin.

It's one thing to say that you believe scripture is based on falsehood .. and it's another to claim it is all made up stories in the same way as Alice in Wonderland.

I believe that what most skeptics say is that they don't believe the god referred to in these books actually exists. If that's true, the words written about such gods and the words attributed them are the words of men alone. If so, the supernatural stories about them are myth, not history. How is Alice In Wonderland different apart from never being offered as history? Is there any nonexistent thing that gods can be compared to that isn't considered extreme or offensive?

was Muhammad deluded or a fraudulent poet?

That doesn't address my comment, "In the case of holy books holy or otherwise, if their source isn't a deity, then it doesn't matter who wrote them." My point was that such questions as you ask here don't matter if the god he wrote about doesn't exist. Can we assume that that point is settled and that you agree? I'm not asking if you agree that that god doesn't exist, just that if it doesn't, it doesn't matter what Muhammad was.

They ask something similar about Jesus - was he a fraud, insane, or the son of a god (liar, lunatic, or Lord). Probably none of those. He was a devout Jew whose biography and words were embellished by others over a century or so after his death to create a legend. Muhammad may have suffered less embellishment, but I still don't consider him a liar or a lunatic, just a storyteller trying to lead a people.

 

[AppieB]

Depends on the version. But for certain versions of gods interacting in the everyday world, you end up with in effect: Someone is right and someone else is wrong, because of reasons.
The problem is that works in both directions.

Ok, so now you make a distinction between gods who interact in the everyday world and gods who don't interact in the everyday world.
So to believe in gods who don't interact in the everyday world is unreasonable, right?
And if there are gods who interact in the everyday world, then there must be a way to investigate, right? So then I 'demand' evidence or a demonstration of this god. I need sufficient reason to believe this god is real in the everyday world.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

What exactly do Baha'is believe lives on after death? Do you call it a soul or spirit, or do people use those words interchangeably? Then... Why would the soul or spirit dress like and look like their physical body, and also appear as being at certain physical age?

While I can't answer your first two questions about what the Baha'is believe about death and what Truthseeker believes about the soul or spirit, I can answer your last three questions. If you'd like for me to answer your last questions, let me know. However, you need to know that I won't argue and debate with you about my answers. If you want to know why I won't argue and debate with skeptics about anything related to the paranormal, then I suggest reading my older post here where I further explain my reasons.

 

[LuisDantas]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

Those are fair reasons, even if I find the first one to be sort of irrelevant either way.

Ultimately, belief in the existence of any gods that are not demonstrably true (such as Haile Selassie or Prince Phillip) is just an arbitrary esthetical choice. It is not supposed to hold any argumentative weight.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so now you make a distinction between gods who interact in the everyday world and gods who don't interact in the everyday world.
So to believe in gods who don't interact in the everyday world is unreasonable, right?
And if there are gods who interact in the everyday world, then there must be a way to investigate, right? So then I 'demand' evidence or a demonstration of this god. I need sufficient reason to believe this god is real in the everyday world.

Yeah, the point is that both your and my reasons are subjective. They are both first person evaluation.

 

[F1fan]

You tell me.

Smith dictated the text of the plates while a scribe wrote down the words which would later become the Book of Mormon. Eyewitnesses to the process said Smith translated the plates, not by looking directly at them, but by looking through a transparent seer stone in the bottom of his hat.

After the translation was complete, Smith said that he returned the plates to the angel Moroni; thus they could never be examined.
Golden plates - Wikipedia

I don't find it particularly credible. It all happened in a background of the the early 19th century, where religious revivals and the formation of new religious movements of the Second Great Awakening took place around New York, to such a great extent that spiritual fervor seemed to set the area on fire.

Family members [of Smith] supplemented their meager farm income by hiring out for odd jobs and working as treasure seekers, a type of magical supernaturalism common during the period.

Sorry, I'll pass on that.

So your claim that more recent revelations are more credible is INCORRECT? Dang.

What I find odd about believers is that they can apply skepticism to some revelations, while not subjecticting their own to the same level of doubt. Special pleading. I don't find any religious books credible at face value, and that is because I apply an even skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So your claim that more recent revelations are more credible is INCORRECT? Dang.

What I find odd about believers is that they can apply skepticism to some revelations, while not subjecticting their own to the same level of doubt. Special pleading. I don't find any religious books credible at face value, and that is because I apply an even skepticism.

Well, there are several variants of skepticism, so I am skeptical of what kind you are doing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, but I don't see what's extreme about that. Isn't that simply saying that God has no more claim to existence than the FSM?

Yes, and I consider it an extreme viewpoint.
It's more or less saying that the evidence for God is the same as for FSM. Why is it then, that billions of people believe in God, but not the FSM? Very silly, imo.

Isn't that in effect the same thing as what I just said to Trailblazer - neither exist in anyplace at any time or affect our reality?

You don't know that.

How is Alice In Wonderland different apart from never being offered as history?

..not just history .. they also made claims and taught about The One God.

it doesn't matter what Muhammad was

Yes it does .. you are just avoiding the issue.

..just a storyteller trying to lead a people..

..if that satisfies you.
It still means he was either deluded, or was fraudulent in his claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I find odd about believers is that they can apply skepticism to some revelations, while not subjecticting their own to the same level of doubt. Special pleading. I don't find any religious books credible at face value, and that is because I apply an even skepticism.

There are loads of prophetic claims.
One has to examine each, and consider them on their own merit.
They are not all the same. You just assume they are all deluded or fraudulent.

It's not a case of special pleading at all. It's about trying to determine the truth.
eg. What did Moses really teach? What did Jesus really teach? What did Muhammad really teach?

They all claimed to be "sons of God" .. not in the physical sense, nor even as in "made of the same essence", but as in near to God as is possible for a human to be. Chosen by God .. deserving of great respect.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, the point is that both your and my reasons are subjective. They are both first person evaluation.

Whether my or your reasons are subjective or not was not the point. It was about the reasonableness regarding the believe in a god.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yeah, the point is that both your and my reasons are subjective. They are both first person evaluation.

I concur, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread (read here), in my opinion, you, me, and everyone else (including Christians) decide whether or not to believe in God, in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. Also, I don't believe that it is possible to empirically or independently prove or refute the existence of the Christian God or any other gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether my or your reasons are subjective or not was not the point. It was about the reasonableness regarding the believe in a god.

That is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I concur, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread (read here), in my opinion, you, me, and everyone else (including Christians) decide whether or not to believe in God, in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. Also, I don't believe that it is possible to empirically or independently prove or refute the existence of the Christian God or any other gods.

Yes. The short answer is also not possible to give evidence for the fact that the world is natural.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's more or less saying that the evidence for God is the same as for FSM.

Why is that so offensive to you? That's what I believe. Do you think that I should not express that opinion because some people might consider it extreme?

Evidence for God is anything evident to the senses that is better explained supernaturally than naturally. We have no such phenomenon that can't be explained without invoking gods, which is why gods appear nowhere in any scientific theory or narrative. Adding them add no additional explanatory or predictive value.

The same is true for the FSM. There is nothing better explained by positing its existence, so it appears nowhere in any science narrative. This is a salient observation to the empiricist. Maybe you saw my comment to Trailblazer: "The definition of existing is to occupy time and space and to interact with other existing objects and processes in time and space. Real things do that, and imaginary things do not."

When a god interacts with us at some place and time in a way that requires that it be a god, then the idea of a god will have more evidence than the idea of a FSM. But right now, absent any such finding, they have the same status - insufficient evidence that they exist and thus no reason to posit that they do.

Why is it then, that billions of people believe in God, but not the FSM?

Can you think of no other answer than that it is because one exists and the other doesn't? I can, and any such naturalistic explanation is preferred over one that requires that a sentient, supernatural agent exist. One only need examine their beliefs closely to see that these believers don't believe the same thing, which is consistent with contrived answers.

Nothing tethers believers to reality. They are free to create whatever gods they like with whatever talents and thoughts and motives they like, and they do, just as with language, which is why both can be illustrated as nesting hierarchies (trees). Contrast this with something that IS tethered to reality - the periodic table of elements, which comes from studying the elements. There is only one of these.

Religions meet bottom-up and top-down needs, which is why it is believed and why it is promoted. People understand structure and function as design (agenticity). People fear the elements and seek a means of controlling nature, which they believe spirits control, so they wish to appease these spirits with prayers and sacrifices. People instinctively think in hierarchies as children, and parents are the archetypes for gods - superior, more powerful, smarter, punishing but loving. That's the bottom-up pressure.

The top-down relates to who benefits from organized religion - kings and priests. Both of these demographics have an economic stake in promoting religious belief.

You don't know that.

I had written, "neither exist in anyplace at any time or affect our reality" Perhaps you would prefer if I had said that there is insufficient reason to believe either exist.

Yes it does .. you are just avoiding the issue.

That was in response to, "it doesn't matter what Muhammad was."

Avoiding the issue? That was the issue. My claim is that if gods don't exist, it doesn't matter who wrote the holy books. I thought that we had settled that point. You didn't attempt to rebut it when I made it or after I wrote, "Can we assume that that point is settled and that you agree? I'm not asking if you agree that that god doesn't exist, just that if it doesn't, it doesn't matter what Muhammad was." You didn't respond a second time.

It doesn't matter to me who wrote the Qur'an or any other holy book if not a deity. That's also true for other books. Who was Homer? I don't know. What difference does it make? The books attributed to him don't change in significance if it is determined that Homer was actually three sisters writing anonymously. Who was Shakespeare? The question is interesting, but the answer doesn't matter for the same reason. Works of men stand or fall on their merit, not their source.

..if that satisfies you. It still means he was either deluded, or was fraudulent in his claims.

OK. But why would it matter which it was? This is frequently the issue, as with Trump and his claims about a rigged election. Does he really believe it? It might matter to a court of law, but not to me.

 

[F1fan]

There are loads of prophetic claims.
One has to examine each, and consider them on their own merit.

So if this is the approach then anyone can come to whatever conclusions they want, and there be no intellectual standards. This is the primary problem with how theists assess, interpret, and believe.

They are not all the same. You just assume they are all deluded or fraudulent.

I never said this.

What i do say is that i wont accept fantastic claims, like what theists tend to make. If you told me you ate a chicken sandwich for lunch i would accept that. Chicken sandwiches exist. People eat them for lunch on occasion. Its not incredible. But to claim there are prophets and prophecies is hard to accept without very good evidence. And the evidence is weak at best.

It's not a case of special pleading at all. It's about trying to determine the truth.
eg. What did Moses really teach? What did Jesus really teach? What did Muhammad really teach?

Moses is considered a fictional character. So to ask what he taught is not “determining” truth. The Bible and Quran are no more credible than the Mormon Bible. You seem to disagree. Mormons don’t. Arbitrary judgments in the eye of the beholder.

They all claimed to be "sons of God" .. not in the physical sense, nor even as in "made of the same essence", but as in near to God as is possible for a human to be. Chosen by God .. deserving of great respect.

This is a claim, not factual. Why would a rational mind think this is true without evidence?

 

[AppieB]

That is subjective.

Again, that is besides the point. Is it reasonable or not, that was the question.

I see a recurring pattern when you don't want to (or can't) answer a question regarding "the everyday world"; you hide behind metaphysics and semantics. I don't understand why, it gets you nowhere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, that is besides the point. Is it reasonable or not, that was the question.

I see a recurring pattern when you don't want to (or can't) answer a question regarding "the everyday world"; you hide behind metaphysics and semantics. I don't understand why, it gets you nowhere.

I have no standard for reasonable other than my own. What is yours?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I have no standard for reasonable other than my own. What is yours?

And that's really all you can do, in my opinion, in terms of your spiritual beliefs or anything else related to the supernatural.