Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss....

[McBell]

My math teacher was serious.....oh God!...she was serious!

As for science.....cause and effect ARE serious.
You cannot construct an experiment for proving if you disjoint.....
cause and effect.

With that in mind....
What caused the singularity?
Math can't go there...there will be no equation.
The laboratory won't go.....the petri dish is too small and too large at once!

No photos.

No fingerprints.

Spirit first.

I keep telling you you need to come up with a different song and dance when presenting your dogma.

This one just isn't working.

 

[LuisDantas]

My math teacher was serious.....oh God!...she was serious!

Then I must assume that you failed to understand her meaning. Because, trust, me, you have indeed failed to understand what the purpose and proper scope of axioms are.

As for science.....cause and effect ARE serious.

Sure. But they are hardly suitable for or deserving of the abuse you put them through.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I have no idea of why one would need a reason to stop being Christian.

Not having faith in Christianity would seem to be all the reason needed. What am I missing?




Sure. What do you want to discuss?




Am I supposed to try?

You are aware that not everyone agrees with Christianity. I don't feel that I must warn you of that, nor that I should decide that Christianity isn't good enough for you.

Again, what am I missing?




I don't. I just disagree with you about the validity of belief in God and of Christianity.

That is only an issue if something else beyond the divergence itself makes it an issue.

Is that the case? May you give me some context of what causes the issue then?

Because it certainly isn't the simple existence of atheism and Christianity.

People are allowed to have incompatible beliefs and still be at ease with each other.




I do, but I do not have a lot of material yet. Going by the most popular reasns, maybe you have an aesthetical preference to the idea of an existence that was meant to be; or maybe you believe that belief in God makes people focused and generally better; or perhaps you have a hard time seeing sense in an existence that lacks a promise of an afterlife.

Feel free to confirm or correct as you see fit.




In this thread, talking to you, it is extremely difficult, because you are demanding me both to do it and not to do it.

Besides, as already stated, there is no need for any reason. Disbelief is quite self-justifiable, and that is taking as a premise that justification is needed at all.




And most don't believe in more than a couple, perhaps slightly more. Everyone seems to be entitled to disbelieve in literally thousands of different conceptions of god and of religions, yet you find it strange that some people reject the concept of god entirely.

What is there to find strange in that? It is just taking disbelief ever so slightly further than the average person.

If anything, that is less arbitrary than simply believing in God out of cultural habit as so many people do.




That might perhaps apply to claims of existence or belief in God.

But it naturally doesn't to simple disbelief. Lack of belief does not need a reason.




Yep. But I only learned or thought of them because I happen to exist in a society that keeps asking me for explanations of why I am an atheist.

When push comes to shove, I do indeed "just don't believe". In a different culture I would not even know that I am an atheist, yet I would still be one.

I don't believe in ghosts that travel backwards in time either, but no one finds that odd, or even asks me whether I believe in them or why.




Actually, while I do think I can engage the matter rationally, I refuse to claim that one needs to do so. Atheism needs no justification whatsoever.

As for what you want me to do, it is still not clear what it is, or even that it is not inherently self-contradictory. Maybe I am just failing to understand you.




I don't. Should I? Why?




Indeed it wouldn't. That is why science does not attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Or to state it from the complementary perspective, atheism does not need scientific justification.

Of course, again, it does not need any justification at all.




Why do you see a parallel? How does one test for the existence of God?

It seems to me that if the matter is so important to you there would be a need for you to offer some parameters of what God would be like first. Are we talking about the Abrahamic conception of God, for instance? Do you want a stance about the likelihood of existence of the conceptions of God from Deism, Pantheism and Panentheism? Or is the Christian God, or perhaps that of some specific denomination, the one you want to be justified in either belief or disbelief?

There are many other possibilities, of course. But before you demand a statement, it would be useful for you to tell us what you want it to refer to.




Which you claim to want, yet at the same time somehow just stating that we disbelieve in God is not enough for you.




So is that what you want?




Actually, I am attempting, probably in vain, to follow your perspective as it jumps all over the place.

I have no idea of what you mean by 3). In all fairness, I can't say I was expected to understand it.

Don't worry about it, I think I'm probably not explaining it properly and you are struggling to understand what I'm meaning. It's clear in your posts by mentioning that I find it strange that some people don't believe in God and you think I'm asking you to justify your position. I'm not, I fully accept that people don't believe in God. I fully accept why you don't believe in God. I fully accept that you are an atheist, that isn't a problem for me. I'm not talking about your belief (or lack of) specifically. I'm talking about the concept of some of the responses which have said "I don't need a reason to believe", "I just don't." That concept goes against the working of my mind on scientific, rational and logical levels.

On one hand you guys say "I don't need a reason" or "disbelief is the default" but on the other hand, you have given very valid reasons for not believing. I'm not on about needing to give the world a reason per se, but surely in your mind, you know why you don't accept the claim of the Hindu God, accept the claim of the Christian God, accept the Claim of Islam. As far as I am aware no one has made the claim that ghosts travel backwards...? This would fit into the "I've never heard of it" category.

It's not about a specific test, it's about weighing up the claims which have been made and deciding whether you accept them or not.

Eg God is all loving, well that can't be right, there is so much violence the world (from atheist perspective)...you will counterclaims which is why you don't accept the claims of all religions. I don't accept the claims of some religions.

 

[psychoslice]

Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss.... my god where do I begin, there's so many I just don't know where to begin lol..

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm talking about the concept of some of the responses which have said "I don't need a reason to believe", "I just don't." That concept goes against the working of my mind on scientific, rational and logical levels.

Why?

To the extent that those are even appropriate levels to deal with the matter of belief in God, they are at the very least compatible with such a concept.

On one hand you guys say "I don't need a reason" or "disbelief is the default" but on the other hand, you have given very valid reasons for not believing.

So?

I'm not on about needing to give the world a reason per se, but surely in your mind, you know why you don't accept the claim of the Hindu God,

Actually, to an extent I do. I just don't believe in its literal existence.

Dharmic religion usually produces superior deities, when compared with Abrahamic faiths. They are often excellent sources of inspiration, regardless of matters of belief.

Generally speaking deities are far more suitable for inspiration than for belief.

accept the claim of the Christian God, accept the Claim of Islam. As far as I am aware no one has made the claim that ghosts travel backwards...? This would fit into the "I've never heard of it" category.

Precisely. Just because someone makes the claim, it does not follow that I need a produce a reason to disagree with it. I may simply cut to the chase and disagree.

Independently, I fear that the Abrahamic God is simply too eccentric and self-contradictory to be believed in. At least by me. If you can make sense of it, then it is your business.

It's not about a specific test, it's about weighing up the claims which have been made and deciding whether you accept them or not.

Give me an example, a simulation if you will.

I have no idea of what you are asking, truth be told.

It is like you were asking which letter comes after "a", I answered "b" and somehow that was not enough.

Far as I can tell, there is nothing further to be told. But since you insist that there is, what would it be like?

Eg God is all loving, well that can't be right, there is so much violence the world (from atheist perspective)...you will counterclaims which is why you don't accept the claims of all religions. I don't accept the claims of some religions.

You make it look a lot more bureaucratic than it is, or than it should be.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

There isnt anything else really...the thread changed direction which is probably why we are all confusing each other. I fully accept why you are all atheist. Thankyou for your reasons. I came here to see if there was a reason to not believe (that I hadnt already considered), I dont know everything about the christian God and maybe someone else did. I know it doesnt matter you are atheist, it doesnt matter I believe...I just wanted to test the waters on the other side as it were. But my mind is so anakytical, the concept of lack of belief wothout even thinking about the claims made is a strange one to me. Its interestong how another poster mentioned I dont apply rational thought to faith, but I do, I analyse everything. Even if a claim is false, made up, if ive heard it, my thought processes are still activated and sometimes instantly, I make a judgement on that claim. If your talking about living in a jungle without hearing the claims then I understand..lack of belief is default, because you cant process something you havent heard. However most people here have heard the claims of God, and you will have reasons (as you have said/told) for not accepting those claims. This isnt about proving to other people, its about your personal view on what and why you dont believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

But my mind is so anakytical, the concept of lack of belief wothout even thinking about the claims made is a strange one to me.

That is the core matter. You see strangeness in that which is so very natural.

I can't explain you that which requires no explanation whatsoever.

Rather, maybe it is you who should show us why you consider it rational to demand a reason to disbelieve.

Its interestong how another poster mentioned I dont apply rational thought to faith, but I do, I analyse everything. Even if a claim is false, made up, if ive heard it, my thought processes are still activated and sometimes instantly, I make a judgement on that claim. If your talking about living in a jungle without hearing the claims then I understand..lack of belief is default, because you cant process something you havent heard. However most people here have heard the claims of God, and you will have reasons (as you have said/told) for not accepting those claims. This isnt about proving to other people, its about your personal view on what and why you dont believe.

That is deeply contradictory, you know.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

That is the core matter. You see strangeness in that which is so very natural.

I can't explain you that which requires no explanation whatsoever.

Rather, maybe it is you who should show us why you consider it rational to demand a reason to disbelieve.




That is deeply contradictory, you know.

Im not demanding a reason. Im not on about you giving other people reasons, im on about you suggesting that when someone makes a claim...there is absolutely no thought behind it whatsoever...you simply dont accept it. I agree if the claim didnt exist then yes the natural thig would be to not believe it since you cant believe something you havent heard. I also agree that the burden of proof lies with the existence of something.

Why with everything in life is there a rational, logical thought process? Claim, ideas, thoughts, your own thoughts etc. However with the claim "god exists"....suddenly rational and logic go out the window and there is no thought process just disbelief.

You yourself are being contradictory by claiming this concept and then giving perfectly good reasons why you dont believe. Dont you see the contradiction? How you are saying you have not thought about religion at all, you havent looked at the claims, you know nothing about it, you simply dont believe...and then you give reasons which suggest you have thout about it?

My original thread was about hearing peoples ideas and thoughts about why they are atheist. On I think your request, I started this thread because you wanted me to explain my opinions on one of the reasons given (amount of denominations)...im not sure how that has turned into me demanding reasons, justification etc. I was simply happy to listen, decide for myself if any of them impacted my belief etc. Then I was asked to explain my thought processes and my reasoning...hence this thread.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Would it helped if I phrased the question...reasons you have not accepted the claim that God exists?

In science you have a hypothesis, you then do statistical analysis or look at any "evidence" or lack there of there may be. Question others etc etc...you then determine if hypothesis is true or false. You either accept the hypothesis or nothing changes (as you disregard it)

To an extent, I agree that disbelief is the default BEFORE the claim, as you will only accept something after its proven. However even if the reason is "not enough evidence" there are still "reasons" to discredit accepting it? Hence in a science report you have abstract, intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. You still explain, give reasons for the rejection of the hypothesis even if you are still at your starting point...ie disbelief...then when the next claim comes you do the same process....

 

[LuisDantas]

Im not demanding a reason. Im not on about you giving other people reasons, im on about you suggesting that when someone makes a claim...there is absolutely no thought behind it whatsoever...you simply dont accept it.

There may or may not be any thought.

Either way is fine.

Why would it not be?

I agree if the claim didnt exist then yes the natural thig would be to not believe it since you cant believe something you havent heard. I also agree that the burden of proof lies with the existence of something.

Why with everything in life is there a rational, logical thought process? Claim, ideas, thoughts, your own thoughts etc. However with the claim "god exists"....suddenly rational and logic go out the window and there is no thought process just disbelief.

So you are claiming that a logical justification is necessary?

Why so?

You yourself are being contradictory by claiming this concept and then giving perfectly good reasons why you dont believe.

I may have a favorite color and offer reasons for choosing it as well. Is that a contradiction? Does it become a contradiction if I also say that I do not need reasons?

Dont you see the contradiction?

No, I do not.

How you are saying you have not thought about religion at all, you havent looked at the claims, you know nothing about it, you simply dont believe...and then you give reasons which suggest you have thout about it?

I looked quite a bit at religious claims. I just don't see why anyone would need to justify disbelief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would it helped if I phrased the question...reasons you have not accepted the claim that God exists?

Let's see.

In science you have a hypothesis, you then do statistical analysis or look at any "evidence" or lack there of there may be. Question others etc etc...you then determine if hypothesis is true or false. You either accept the hypothesis or nothing changes (as you disregard it)

And in Theology you do not. That is sort of the point of belief in God, isn't it?

Are you implying that the matter of belief in God is suitable to scientific analysis?

I fear that such is a serious misconception, if not of God, at least of science.

To an extent, I agree that disbelief is the default BEFORE the claim, as you will only accept something after its proven. However even if the reason is "not enough evidence" there are still "reasons" to discredit accepting it?

Wait, are you implying that there are arguments for belief that must be proved wrong?

That is just not so, far as I can tell.

Hence in a science report you have abstract, intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. You still explain, give reasons for the rejection of the hypothesis even if you are still at your starting point...ie disbelief...then when the next claim comes you do the same process....

But there is no need, nor suitability, to use the scientific method when it comes to belief in God. Belief is not a logical matter, but rather an aesthetical preference, a tool for inspiration that some religions use and others do not.

 

[Thief]

Then I must assume that you failed to understand her meaning. Because, trust, me, you have indeed failed to understand what the purpose and proper scope of axioms are.




Sure. But they are hardly suitable for or deserving of the abuse you put them through.

So I googled axiom...just for fun....

So were you hoping to dismiss the notion of axiom for lack of numbers?
Or hoping the word axiom can't be used in spiritual terms?

Try the google....

 

[Truth_Faith13]

LuisDantas...dont worry, you are not understanding what im meaning. Im probably not explainig myself properly. I dont know how else to describe what I mean though.

Thanks for the reasons you gave before though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it's not compartmentalised by my faith?

Science/rational etc answers what, where, when, how etc

Faith answers why?

Unless you can give me some examples?

I wouldn't be here asking for reasons if I didn't apply it to my faith....I'm just yet to find anything which contradicts it. You are assuming I don't because we've come to different conclusions. But my rational mind is every part of my faith.

Please tell us how your answers to these questions come from science:

- what happens to us after we die?
- where will we be after death?
- how will we get there?

You did agree that these sorts of questions are in the scope of science and not faith, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On one hand you guys say "I don't need a reason" or "disbelief is the default" but on the other hand, you have given very valid reasons for not believing. I'm not on about needing to give the world a reason per se, but surely in your mind, you know why you don't accept the claim of the Hindu God, accept the claim of the Christian God, accept the Claim of Islam. As far as I am aware no one has made the claim that ghosts travel backwards...? This would fit into the "I've never heard of it" category.

The fact that we don't NEED a reason doesn't mean we can't have one. As an analogy, take smoking.

I'm a non-smoker. While I do have lots of opinions about why smoking is bad and why I wouldn't choose to do it myself, my "non-smokerness" isn't dependent on any of them. When it comes right down to it, even if I had no strong feelings about smoking at all, if I never decided to put a cigarette between my lips and light it, I would still be a non-smoker.

I can still have strong opinions against smoking without them being necessary for me to be a non-smoker.

And maybe unbeknownst to me, there's some cigarette out there that none of my objections apply to: it makes you healthier, doesn't make you smell awful, and THEY pay YOU to smoke it. Still, I haven't ever seen one of these cigarettes much less smoked it, so I remain a non-smoker.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Please tell us how your answers to these questions come from science:

- what happens to us after we die?
- where will we be after death?
- how will we get there?

You did agree that these sorts of questions are in the scope of science and not faith, right?

Well generally your physical body starts to decompose and turns this interesting yellow colour (what) you are usually placed in a coffin in a graveyard or a jar looking thing after being burnt on a mantle piece or where ever family/you decides to (where)....a hurst is usually the chariot of choice and diggers or furnace (how) I intend to arrive looking a little rough around the edges after a fulfilled life, how about you?

WHY the journey leading upto the above is important....Faith!

My point was less about the specific questions and more about that for me, faith answers questions science can't answer (however you phrase them). Also at the moment I am yet to find anything in my faith (although it's quite a liberal, general,personal faith) that contradicts science.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The fact that we don't NEED a reason doesn't mean we can't have one. As an analogy, take smoking.

I'm a non-smoker. While I do have lots of opinions about why smoking is bad and why I wouldn't choose to do it myself, my "non-smokerness" isn't dependent on any of them. When it comes right down to it, even if I had no strong feelings about smoking at all, if I never decided to put a cigarette between my lips and light it, I would still be a non-smoker.

I can still have strong opinions against smoking without them being necessary for me to be a non-smoker.

And maybe unbeknownst to me, there's some cigarette out there that none of my objections apply to: it makes you healthier, doesn't make you smell awful, and THEY pay YOU to smoke it. Still, I haven't ever seen one of these cigarettes much less smoked it, so I remain a non-smoker.

As I said to luisdantas you guys and me are always going to disagree on this point. Even if I was atheist I would still think the same. It's only logical to me. So there is no point in further discussing this point.

My guess is you guys would quite easily answer "what is the evidence against God" or "what are some counterclaims" - they are just the same as "why don't you believe in God" or "what are your reasons got not believing".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well generally your physical body starts to decompose and turns this interesting yellow colour (what) you are usually placed in a coffin in a graveyard or a jar looking thing after being burnt on a mantle piece or where ever family/you decides to (where)....a hurst is usually the chariot of choice and diggers or furnace (how) I intend to arrive looking a little rough around the edges after a fulfilled life, how about you?

WHY the journey leading upto the above is important....Faith!

My point was less about the specific questions and more about that for me, faith answers questions science can't answer (however you phrase them). Also at the moment I am yet to find anything in my faith (although it's quite a liberal, general,personal faith) that contradicts science.

So you don't believe that people (or at least some of them) go to Heaven when they die?

I think the conflict I see isn't so much with the facts of science as with the process. The scientific approach suggests that a position about facts in the world ought not to be accepted until there's evidence for it. Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon are good examples that get at what I'm talking about. Accepting unwarranted specificity about unknown things is unscientific, even if the details of that specificity can't be demonstrated false (due to a complete lack of evidence about the thing in question).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said to luisdantas you guys and me are always going to disagree on this point. Even if I was atheist I would still think the same. It's only logical to me. So there is no point in further discussing this point.

My guess is you guys would quite easily answer "what is the evidence against God" or "what are some counterclaims" - they are just the same as "why don't you believe in God" or "what are your reasons got not believing".

Of course. I just think that those reasons are over and above what's required for atheism. In an environment with no evidence for or against God at all, atheism would still be rational.

I don't need reasons to be an atheist. I have plenty, but I don't need them.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

So you don't believe that people (or at least some of them) go to Heaven when they die?

I think the conflict I see isn't so much with the facts of science as with the process. The scientific approach suggests that a position about facts in the world ought not to be accepted until there's evidence for it. Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon are good examples that get at what I'm talking about. Accepting unwarranted specificity about unknown things is unscientific, even if the details of that specificity can't be demonstrated false (due to a complete lack of evidence about the thing in question).

I believe in an afterlife, what that afterlife entails I'm not so sure. You asked me what, how and where. You didn't specify physical or spiritual. Of course I knew what you meant I was just being pedantic.