Reasons for the belief in no God

[McBell]

Because they all either assume the existence of God, or actually take on characteristics of God, like eternity. They are nonsensical, that is why.

So you really want something that cannot be presented?
I mean, you have some lame excuse to reject everything presented out of hand.

 

[outhouse]

OK, your imagination created god.... and thus your imagination?

NO NO NO NO NIO my imagination didnt

and it would be worded ""their imagination created A god" a god, not god

Well what created the natural mechanism that ultimately produced humanity

nature did


I stated there is no god, now if you just want to play word tricks wrapped around ""thought"" is substance, have at it, i wont waist my time on trashy what if threads

 

[spanjo]

Subby,
You are asking people about their reasons for believing that there is no God. Any reason they give you is a good reason. It was enough to convince them, and that is all that matters.
We were all born without a knowledge or belief in God. The burden is on you to teach them about God, and inform them how they can discover God for themselves, if they so choose. To know God is spiritual, not logical.
Even if you successfully dismantle all of their logic, guess what, they still will not know God.

 

[Meow Mix]

Subby,
You are asking people about their reasons for believing that there is no God. Any reason they give you is a good reason. It was enough to convince them, and that is all that matters.
We were all born without a knowledge or belief in God. The burden is on you to teach them about God, and inform them how they can discover God for themselves, if they so choose. To know God is spiritual, not logical.
Even if you successfully dismantle all of their logic, guess what, they still will not know God.

I disagree with a few things.

First of all, "any" reason is not necessarily a good reason. There are many poor/irrational reasons to disbelieve in the existence of gods; just as there are many irrational reasons to believe or disbelieve anything.

The whole point of rational inquiry and reason is to have a solid epistemology -- a good justification/foundation -- for a given belief. "It works for my aesthetic tastes" is not a good reason to believe or disbelieve anything.

Lastly, the foundation of many peoples' atheism lies in the lack of justification for theism. It isn't true that if their "logic is dismantled" that they still wouldn't believe. I don't disbelieve in the existence of gods because I like it or because it's convenient (in fact, it would be nice if a god existed, if it's a good god).

I simply disbelieve because there is no justification for theism's truth. I would gladly accept its truth if theism were a justified position. However, so far it isn't; and until such a time that it's justified I will continue to be skeptical. Just please don't assume that everyone's mind is set and can't be changed. I in fact was originally a theist (I attended a joint Baptist/Presbytarian church in my youth). Atheism wasn't a position I wanted; it was a position I was forced into by lacking the necessary justification for believing that theism of any kind is true. I don't believe in things unless I have justification, even if that means I disbelieve a concept that I wish were true.

As Sagan said, I'd rather understand the universe as it really is than believe what feels good to me, no matter how satisfying and reassuring. I seek the truth, not just what I want to be true. So far nothing convinces me that any gods exist.

 

[Sunstone]

Why in hell would someone need a reason not to believe in god? Does one need a reason not to believe in invisible pink dragons?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I see no evidence to presume there is one.

I second that...

 

[Subby]

I second that...

I have listed many arguments so far none of them have been specifically challenged with anything that requires the non-existence of God, instead it has been posited that I need to assume God exists first.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have listed many arguments so far none of them have been specifically challenged with anything that requires the non-existence of God, instead it has been posited that I need to assume God exists first.

Are you looking for one's reason and simply accepting their reasons...which will be many or are you seeking a debate?

Your OP seems to simply be asking for their reasons.....and that's it....

 

[Subby]

Are you looking for one's reason and simply accepting their reasons...which will be many or are you seeking a debate?

Your OP seems to simply be asking for their reasons.....and that's it....

The question is posed in the first post. So far nothing has been offered other than positing explicitly, or implicitly assuming, that I need the existence of God first.

 

[Amill]

Your language is begging for a transcendent being that is able to author such laws. In fact you are so very close to admitting such a thing, instead you choose to give the laws themselves some sort of eternal nature, which isn't necessary and begs the question, what created those laws?

Where is it stated that the governing laws of the Universe need be created by an intelligent being? We've never seen them created, so why should we assume?

 

[Subby]

Where is it stated that the governing laws of the Universe need be created by an intelligent being? We've never seen them created, so why should we assume?

The topic is about your reasons for accepting the non-existence of God. I have already addressed your eternal universe argument in other posts.

 

[fallingblood]

So I read through the 21 pages so far, and basically a quick summary. For basically every reason for the belief in no God, Subby's response is, to paraphrase, you're dumb, I'm right. I think that is a pretty fair assessment. His first response should that he had no want to hear any answers, but just to tell people basically that they were dumb and his opinion was superior. There was no want for an actual discussion; because if there was, flat out dismissals of others opinions would never happen.

Just for reference for Subby though, using the proper term God, instead of god, suggests that one is speaking about the Abrahamic God. Capitalizing the G in God usually means one is talking about the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God. Not some other god (notice the small g) like Zeus or any other "pagan" god.

Finally, even though I do believe in God, the best reason for a belief in no God is that there is no a single thread of evidence to support the existence of God. To believe in God, one has to have blind faith, as there is no evidence supporting that faith. At most, maybe there is a feeling, but I can get that same feeling by drinking rum.

 

[Subby]

So I read through the 21 pages so far, and basically a quick summary. For basically every reason for the belief in no God, Subby's response is, to paraphrase, you're dumb, I'm right. I think that is a pretty fair assessment. His first response should that he had no want to hear any answers, but just to tell people basically that they were dumb and his opinion was superior. There was no want for an actual discussion; because if there was, flat out dismissals of others opinions would never happen.

I guess you missed all the arguments because not one is specifically challenged.

Just for reference for Subby though, using the proper term God, instead of god, suggests that one is speaking about the Abrahamic God. Capitalizing the G in God usually means one is talking about the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God. Not some other god (notice the small g) like Zeus or any other "pagan" god.

Thus you realize why I was impatient with the constant harping on the definition.

Finally, even though I do believe in God, the best reason for a belief in no God is that there is no a single thread of evidence to support the existence of God. To believe in God, one has to have blind faith, as there is no evidence supporting that faith. At most, maybe there is a feeling, but I can get that same feeling by drinking rum.

Again, this conclusion is based on you not directly pursuing any line of argument I have presented.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The question is posed in the first post. So far nothing has been offered other than positing explicitly, or implicitly assuming, that I need the existence of God first.

Right, but that's why I'm asking. If you simply want reasons then you'll get them but you didn't seem to be asking people to substantiate their reasons with any evidence for their reasons.

There's nothing wrong with the line of reasoning....'Theist haven't presented any evidence that (their version of god) was responsible for X"

 

[fallingblood]

I guess you missed all the arguments because not one is specifically challenged.

I'm sure in your eyes none have been specifically challenged.

Thus you realize why I was impatient with the constant harping on the definition.

Then why not give your definition of God? It should be easy. Because even God is seen by many in different ways.

Again, this conclusion is based on you not directly pursuing any line of argument I have presented.

So I have to follow your line of argument in order to come to a reason as to why God doesn't exist? You realize how illogical that is right? I gave you a clear and concise reason for not believing in God. In order to show that reason is incorrect, you would have to show why there is reason to assume there is some evidence. If you can't provide that reason, or evidence, then my explanation stands.

 

[Subby]

I'm sure in your eyes none have been specifically challenged.

You are correct, which I have already highlighted most require the existence of God.

Then why not give your definition of God? It should be easy. Because even God is seen by many in different ways.
So I have to follow your line of argument in order to come to a reason as to why God doesn't exist? You realize how illogical that is right? I gave you a clear and concise reason for not believing in God. In order to show that reason is incorrect, you would have to show why there is reason to assume there is some evidence. If you can't provide that reason, or evidence, then my explanation stands.

You have provided no such clear and concise reason for not believing in the existence of God.

 

[Amill]

The topic is about your reasons for accepting the non-existence of God. I have already addressed your eternal universe argument in other posts.

Sure, by saying it's "nonsensical" without giving reasons why that is lol.

You have provided no such clear and concise reason for not believing in the existence of God.

Sure he has, considering the fact that it's a reason for him not to believe. It's just not clear and concise in your opinion, I doubt anyone's reasons are.

 

[fallingblood]

You are correct, which I have already highlighted most require the existence of God.

Only because you assume they do. There is no requirement for the existence of God, or any supreme being. Your God is just as likely as some pagan god.

You have provided no such clear and concise reason for not believing in the existence of God.

Yes I have. You choose to ignore it. My clear and concise reason for not believing in God is that there is not a single shred of evidence supporting God's existence. If God can't be shown to exist, that there is no evidence to even support God's existence, why should anyone accept that God exists? That is as clear as I can get.

In order to show my reason to be wrong, you would have to show that there is some evidence that God exists. If you can't do that, then my reason is very sound.

 

[Subby]

Sure, by saying it's "nonsensical" without giving reasons why that is lol.

Again, read my posts. All of peer-reviewed science is against your eternal universe, in which they support an AGE OF THE UNIVERSE, thus a beginning.

Again, read my posts, and realize why your position is nonsensical... If you want to try to salvage your argument, don't repeat it, deal with my critical objections.

Namely, why are you going against modern science with your position?

 

[Subby]

Yes I have. You choose to ignore it. My clear and concise reason for not believing in God is that there is not a single shred of evidence supporting God's existence. If God can't be shown to exist, that there is no evidence to even support God's existence, why should anyone accept that God exists? That is as clear as I can get.

And this " not a single shred of evidence supporting God's existence" fails to interface with any of my arguments directly for the existence of a mind like God.

In order to show my reason to be wrong, you would have to show that there is some evidence that God exists. If you can't do that, then my reason is very sound.

Sure wish you would deal with my arguments I have presented for the existence of God.