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

[Truth_Faith13]

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.

But this thread has never been about "atheism" itself and whether you should or shouldn't be atheist. I never asked "why are you atheist". I asked for the reasons to not believe, counterclaims etc and in this thread a discussion of those "reasons". I could ask the same question of an agnostic or even someone who believes as long as they are willing to accept there are counterclaims.

I know many counterclaims...if someone asked me the same question, I could respond. The point here was to see if there was anything I hadn't considered, not heard of.

It was never about defending the atheists position. That was just assumed. Don't get me wrong, talking about this subject, I still think atheists will have reasons for keeping to the position of disbelief and not accepting the hypothesis (assuming they have heard it) but that was never the purpose of this thread.

If you guys do have plenty of reasons, why not just answer the question? Let me see if there are any I've not heard of. Instead of playing silly and saying "I don't need to have a reason to be an atheist" where you might as well just not respond to the question.

Don't you think it's overly argumentative "oh I have/know plenty of reasons, but I don't think I need them, so I ain't telling you"

It was a Knowledge question not a defend your position question. In fact this thread was more about defending MY position as luisdantas requested I started it, as wanted to hear my reasons for not accepting a reason to not believe. Perhaps I should have just answered "I don't need a reason" . The original thread, I was just happy to gain knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

I never asked "why are you atheist". I asked for the reasons to not believe, counterclaims etc and in this thread a discussion of those "reasons".

That is such a subtle distinction that I am not sure it even exists, but allow me to give it yet another try.

1. Not feeling like believing. Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate reason not to believe.

2. Existence is simply much too imperfect, much too unfair to suggest that there are such a thing as deities.

3. Belief in God is not particularly healthy in and of itself, which strongly suggests that is is both wrong in the technical sense and unadvisable from a social and psychological perspective.

4. The very concept of God is just barely defined at all, to the point that one has to dig under the surface to actually find out what belief in God entails. It may be actual constructive faith, but it can just as easily be avoidance of difficult issues or the desire to have a justification for manipulating others.

5. Studying religious beliefs in becomes apparent that belief itself is a far more significant element than any conception of deity. Quite a few of those are explicitly created by people instead of revealed in some way. Most if not all of the others certainly seem to be human creations as well.

6. In practice, it is just not possible to believe in a non-arbitrary way. People will and must reject belief in nearly all conceptions of God. Atheists simply do not feel like keeping any at all.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

1. Not feeling like believing. Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate reason not to believe.

Oh I agree with that.

3. Belief in God is not particularly healthy in and of itself, which strongly suggests that is is both wrong in the technical sense and unadvisable from a social and psychological perspective.

Must admit never thought of religion being healthy or not...interesting. I'm assuming you mean as it's based on fear of retribution, guilt etc?

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh I agree with that.




Must admit never thought of religion being healthy or not...interesting.

It is important not to confuse religion with belief in God. Those are only tangentially related matters.

Religion may be either healthy or unhealthy. It depends on lots of factors, including but definitely not limited to the denomination.

The same is also true of belief in God, except that it is somewhat less defensable and at least arguably more dangerous than religion proper.

I'm assuming you mean as it's based on fear of retribution, guilt etc?

Not just that. People allow themselves all kinds of unhealthy excesses once they decide that "god in on their side".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You weren't being pedantic; you were giving half an answer. If the physical and spiritual are both factual, why would I have to specify? Unless the afterlife you believe in is supposed to be some sort of metaphor and not actually real, then it's part of any proper answer to questions about what happens when you die.

 

[Thief]

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).

Still...and however....
Some items can be made certain.
I would not reason myself a greater form of life.
I leave that much to the Creator.
I reason again that heaven is greater than this life.
It is said to be eternal and desirable in many ways.
(if not....then this life is greater....really?)

So a greater life would be .....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Then it cannot be pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated.

It also reasons that a Greater Life might not allow everyone into heaven.
The peace of heaven would be guarded.

I say as much....stands to reason.
It might not be scientific.
But it does seem like a sure thing to me.

Would you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But this thread has never been about "atheism" itself and whether you should or shouldn't be atheist. I never asked "why are you atheist". I asked for the reasons to not believe, counterclaims etc and in this thread a discussion of those "reasons". I could ask the same question of an agnostic or even someone who believes as long as they are willing to accept there are counterclaims.

I know many counterclaims...if someone asked me the same question, I could respond. The point here was to see if there was anything I hadn't considered, not heard of.

It was never about defending the atheists position. That was just assumed. Don't get me wrong, talking about this subject, I still think atheists will have reasons for keeping to the position of disbelief and not accepting the hypothesis (assuming they have heard it) but that was never the purpose of this thread.

If you guys do have plenty of reasons, why not just answer the question? Let me see if there are any I've not heard of. Instead of playing silly and saying "I don't need to have a reason to be an atheist" where you might as well just not respond to the question.

Don't you think it's overly argumentative "oh I have/know plenty of reasons, but I don't think I need them, so I ain't telling you"

It was a Knowledge question not a defend your position question. In fact this thread was more about defending MY position as luisdantas requested I started it, as wanted to hear my reasons for not accepting a reason to not believe. Perhaps I should have just answered "I don't need a reason" . The original thread, I was just happy to gain knowledge.

I didn't realize you wanted actual reasons not to believe; I thought we were having a meta-debate about the reasonableness of atheist positions.

But since you ask, most of the reasons I have for not believing in God boil down to various instances of my realization that the things I see around me are more easy to reconcile with the premise that God doesn't exist than with the premise that he does.

Also, I can't ignore the fact that there are a number of very plausible explanations for god-belief that don't depend at all on the god(s) in question being real. When I have good (not iron-clad, but good) reasons to believe that gods are human inventions, why would I ever assume that they're real?

Another major problem: there's no such thing as generic "god-belief" without specific beliefs wrapped around that core belief in God. Every set of religious beliefs I've ever encountered has had major problems that stopped me from accepting it.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You weren't being pedantic; you were giving half an answer. If the physical and spiritual are both factual, why would I have to specify? Unless the afterlife you believe in is supposed to be some sort of metaphor and not actually real, then it's part of any proper answer to questions about what happens when you die.

But the spiritual isn't factual? It's "belief" and faith.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I didn't realize you wanted actual reasons not to believe; I thought we were having a meta-debate about the reasonableness of atheist positions.
.

Nope, just actual reasons.

Thank you for sharing

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the spiritual isn't factual? It's "belief" and faith.

This brings us back to the question I asked earlier: so you don't think that people will go to Heaven when they die?

Regardless of whether this is "faith", if you really do believe that this will literally happen, it's a belief about the factual state of things. "Spiritual" does not mean "exempt from the normal standards of evidence."

 

[Truth_Faith13]

This brings us back to the question I asked earlier: so you don't think that people will go to Heaven when they die?

Regardless of whether this is "faith", if you really do believe that this will literally happen, it's a belief about the factual state of things. "Spiritual" does not mean "exempt from the normal standards of evidence."

It's more of a hope...I can't claim to know what happens after death because I don't know. We could all be wrong for all I know and we are just brains in a jar in some crazy scientists lab. But I hope that there is heaven, peace, happiness etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wait, so you are seeing belief - or perhaps just disbelief - as a choice?

I'm not sure that happens at all often. I know that it isn't always.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's more of a hope...I can't claim to know what happens after death because I don't know. We could all be wrong for all I know and we are just brains in a jar in some crazy scientists lab. But I hope that there is heaven, peace, happiness etc.

In my experience, faith is more than just hope; it usually also implies an expectation that the thing hoped for will actually happen.

And while I agree that the problem of hard solipsism creates uncertainty for any "knowledge" claims, this doesn't mean that a claim with lots of unwarranted specificity and no evidentiary support is on the same level as a claim that's well supported by evidence.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

In my experience, faith is more than just hope; it usually also implies an expectation that the thing hoped for will actually happen.

And while I agree that the problem of hard solipsism creates uncertainty for any "knowledge" claims, this doesn't mean that a claim with lots of unwarranted specificity and no evidentiary support is on the same level as a claim that's well supported by evidence.

But there is no way to know for certain so it's not a definite. I think some people are more convinced/certain in their faith, but it would be difficult to provide hard evidence for it. There are things which can be claimed to suggest an afterlife (I haven't read it but apparently there is a book which argues for an afterlife without using God, religion, belief etc)...but not everyone will accept those claims as valid/logical etc. I haven't actually heard any of the claims so can't comment specifically, only my idea is based more on a hope and "good feeling" for an afterlife. A preference.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Wait, so you are seeing belief - or perhaps just disbelief - as a choice?

I'm not sure that happens at all often. I know that it isn't always.

For me it's a choice, I think for other people, it's a choice for a lot of people, they just don't know it. I wouldn't say it's always a choice. There do seem to be people hard wired to believe or not believe.

The only problem with saying it's not a choice completely is that it doesn't explain those who swap and change their beliefs, religion etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

For me it's a choice, I think for other people, it's a choice for a lot of people, they just don't know it. I wouldn't say it's always a choice. There do seem to be people hard wired to believe or not believe.

The only problem with saying it's not a choice completely is that it doesn't explain those who swap and change their beliefs, religion etc.

To some degree it's explained by experience, situations, environment, events, etc.

I know from my own case that I didn't choose to lose my faith. I didn't want to, but nothing I experienced gave me confidence that the God that I thought I believed in existed. I realized I was wrong. I didn't want to be wrong, but I was. And my search began to find new answers to the ancient questions.

Actually, I tried really, really, really hard to still believe after I lost my faith. It didn't work. I tried to choose to have faith, but it didn't come. It was like trying to squeeze water out of a dry sponge or a rock. It just wasn't there however much I tried. The choice wasn't to not-believe. The choice was to accept that I didn't believe already and move on to something better and more fitting to life.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

To some degree it's explained by experience, situations, environment, events, etc.

I know from my own case that I didn't choose to lose my faith. I didn't want to, but nothing I experienced gave me confidence that the God that I thought I believed in existed. I realized I was wrong. I didn't want to be wrong, but I was. And my search began to find new answers to the ancient questions.

Actually, I tried really, really, really hard to still believe after I lost my faith. It didn't work. I tried to choose to have faith, but it didn't come. It was like trying to squeeze water out of a dry sponge or a rock. It just wasn't there however much I tried. The choice wasn't to not-believe. The choice was to accept that I didn't believe already and move on to something better and more fitting to life.

I must admit to not thinking of it that way before, but that said, if that's the case, is anything really a choice? Or are we just a product of our experiences, events, environments etc? Religion says we have free will, do atheism say we don't?

I can say the same for homosexuality....I actually believe it's generally who they are, and their love is just as loving as heterosexual love. I believe they are fantastic parents, they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples...marriage etc....do I think it's right? No....I have tried, but I can't. Seeing a homosexual couple together gives me the same reaction as eating marmite. (Sorry I realise that may come across really badly)...it's not even to do with my faith. But I bet many atheists would probably say this is a choice I make.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Just out of curiosity what do you guys say to the supposed "prophecies" of the Bible (destruction of the temple, other worldly problems (I don't know but apparently things that are happening now were predicted although that does come from a cult like Christian I know) ). Also how it talks of the earth being round and an expanding universe (before we knew this scientifically). Lucky guesses? Coincidence? We are seeing something because we want to?

 

[LuisDantas]

Just out of curiosity what do you guys say to the supposed "prophecies" of the Bible (destruction of the temple, other worldly problems (I don't know but apparently things that are happening now were predicted although that does come from a cult like Christian I know) ).

Between the lack of convincing prophecies and the abundance of people taking the Bible way too seriously, I don't really care about the Bible, much less its prophecies.

Even if the Bible turned out to be a reliable oracle somehow (which is not even remotely the case), that would at most be evidence for the sobrenatural. It woud hardly serve as evidence for its suitability for religious purposes.

Also how it talks of the earth being round and an expanding universe (before we knew this scientifically). Lucky guesses? Coincidence? We are seeing something because we want to?

I must have missed those parts of the Bible, but they don't really say anything to me anyway. The Earth was found to be round since very ancient Greece IIRC. There is no particular reason why Bible writers couldn't have learned or guessed that. And the idea of an expanding universe is of considerable poetic appeal and basically impossible to falsify at that point in time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But there is no way to know for certain so it's not a definite. I think some people are more convinced/certain in their faith, but it would be difficult to provide hard evidence for it. There are things which can be claimed to suggest an afterlife (I haven't read it but apparently there is a book which argues for an afterlife without using God, religion, belief etc)...but not everyone will accept those claims as valid/logical etc. I haven't actually heard any of the claims so can't comment specifically, only my idea is based more on a hope and "good feeling" for an afterlife. A preference.

I have a "preference" for my bank account to have $10 million in it, but I don't live as if it does. That's the difference: living as if one's faith is true (even if you concede you may be wrong) vs. living as if those claims haven't been demonstrated to the point that they should be relied upon.