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

[LuisDantas]

I hope you know that what you are describing is apatheism not traditional atheism.

I happen to be an apatheist as well, but so what? That does not change my previous reply in the least.

Contrary to what you just stated, what I have just described is indeed a very traditional case of atheism.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I happen to be an apatheist as well, but so what? That does not change my previous reply in the least.

Contrary to what you just stated, what I have just described is indeed a very traditional case of atheism.

The issue is that my argument is only applicable for a very specific case of atheism . Being an apatheist takes you out of the argument completely as it is an emotional justification. Sort of puts me in an awakard spot here

 

[Thief]

I was Christian for most of my life....... Then I got better.

How about you?

Much better!....thank you for asking!

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue is that my argument is only applicable for a very specific case of atheism . Being an apatheist takes you out of the argument completely as it is an emotional justification. Sort of puts me in an awakard spot here

Maybe you have kept what I have been told to be an Islamic belief, that of people being born already as Muslims (or at least god-believers)?

Quite frankly, that is nonsense. You would have to define god so loosely as to make monotheism undistinguishable from animism in order to give some verissimilitude to that belief, and even then not all infants would qualify.

God is a man-made concept, and one that survived to this day largely because societal pressures make such a point of keeping it alive.

 

[Pink Top Hat]

OK so I have been having a lovely chat with the guys over on the atheism DIR regarding reasons they don't believe in God/follow any particular religion. A couple of the reasons mentioned make a valid point, but personally I don't find them reasons to not believe in God entirely. Being the atheism DIR, I didn't want to cause a debate so it was suggested I start a thread. It would actually be a great topic to explore the differing reasons people choose not to believe (or of course believe in the flip side) and the counter arguments which can be used for the opposing?

Here is the one from the other thread, but please feel free to add and discuss/debate your own...

Reason: the vast number of denominations/religions

Now on the surface, I can fully understand this perspective. I certainly have times where I feel "why bother", on the assumption there is a God of some sort or gods, it would be impossible to work out which is the "right" one to follow. I know some people believe that every religion leads to the same destination but I personally do not believe this.

That said I don't believe this is reason to not believe in God (however you view him or her) entirely and here's why....

Simply put it's the same as a parent child relationship. Parent says do this, child does something else. Just because a child misbehaves, doesn't mean there isn't parent at home trying to discipline them. Now I admit this is a very simple view...but what about "but this being is supposed to be God"...true but like a child, we have the ability to choose (free will)...I'm not sure I would want to worship a God which made us into emotionless robots without the ability to choose. Truth be told I think we are destined to attempt to disobey God, assuming one exists, it appears to be in our nature. Clearly some religions are man made...we would disagree on which ones but it proves that man creates things for his own satisfaction. But should we disregard ALL religions just because many are false. Their are people who murder...are we all murderers?

So why doesn't God make it more clear to us? But would we listen? Has anybody been utterly in "love" at a young age...parents have said its a bad idea (the truth) but we didn't listen? Sometimes the truth is hard to hear, I know many of us including me would have to change our lives in someway. Even if God was to make it abundantly clear...would we follow? Or would we choose to disobey? Has anybody heard when Michael Jackson went to his own look alike competition and LOST...MJ himself was there and no one thought it was him? What would God have to do for us to accept him? A burning bush would be out down to an hallucination these days...

The amount of denominations is down to man not God (at least from my perspective). I'm not even sure which if any are right anymore. They could all be wrong, but there could still be a God.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Reasons to believe in God # 25,987,378,645,387

Look into the mirror and ask yourself 'did a big explosion in space manage to create the human eye' ?

 

[Thief]

A lot of man made concepts are concept...til someone finds a way to make 'proof'.

But of course 'proof' won't happen here.
No photos, no fingerprints ,no equation, no repeatable experiment.

Sounds like 'no reason' to believe in God.

Oh! that's right...this thread is not about reason TO believe.

Oh! that's right...'proof' would be CAUSE to believe.

So what we have on hand is really a thread attempting to debunk belief....for lack of PROOF!....not reason.

Reason to believe in God?....cause and effect.
The universe is the effect....God is the cause.

Sorry for the lack of 'proof'.
You just have to reason about it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Look into the mirror and ask yourself 'did a big explosion in space manage to create the human eye'?

No, it did not; but does that prove any God?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Reasons to believe in God # 25,987,378,645,387

Look into the mirror and ask yourself 'did a big explosion in space manage to create the human eye' ?

Well I mean there was no explosion...

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Russell's Teapot illustrates the problems with - and IMO unscientificness - of accepting a claim for which no evidence exists for or against it.

You say that God is not disprovable... IOW that God is unfalsifiable. This means that God doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

No because a hypothesis is just the initial idea or question, then you conclude with accepting the hypothesis, rejecting it, or inconclusive.

There are plenty of scientific experiments which turn out as rejection or inconclusive....it's still science. In science, there is a saying which goes you haven't failed x times, you have just found x ways y doesn't work. It's still scientific information.

Science is not just about the experiments which turn out to be correct with evidence.

Even evolution is still technically a theory...they gather more and more evidence each day but it's not been concluded yet. Culture has just accepted it already (as it's highly likely to be the case)

 

[LuisDantas]

No because a hypothesis is just the initial idea or question, then you conclude with accepting the hypothesis, rejecting it, or inconclusive.

There are plenty of scientific experiments which turn out as rejection or inconclusive....it's still science. In science, there is a saying which goes you haven't failed x times, you have just found x ways y doesn't work. It's still scientific information.

Science is just about the experiments which turn out to be correct with evidence.

So is there anything left for science to say about God's existence one way or another? I think not.

Even evolution is still technically a theory...they gather more and more evidence each day but it's not been concluded yet. Culture has just accepted it already (as it's highly likely to be the case)

That really amounts to saying that science has no divine authority to say that evolution is an unquestionable fact. There is no way for anything scientifically found to eventually be "more" than a theory.

 

[Brickjectivity]

An impersonal God is something that I could accept more easily than a personal one.

My strongest objection to a personal God (though I don't consider myself atheist) is that God allows people to lie to each other about God. How is that acceptable at all? "I'm a prophet, and God says so." "No, you are not a prophet -- I am a prophet, and God says so." "I'm an apostle of God, and you should ignore both of those other prophets!" That confusion is reason enough to doubt. If God is personal, then that is a personal betrayal for God to allow so much confusion. If God isn't personal then the conversation is moot, because an impersonal God is irrelevant to us as individuals. If however God is personal and allows people to lie to each other about God, then I just don't think that makes any sense. I was born not knowing how to tell the difference between two liars.

My second objection to a personal God is that I have seen an ignorant baby suffer for four years and die though it did have its joys and laughter. God is not that interested in me personally or that child. If I had the power the child would not have suffered, so I was personally more interested than God. Anyone personally interested could not have been so unmoved by that child's cries.

 

[Ouroboros]

A lot of man made concepts are concept...til someone finds a way to make 'proof'.

Like how the mind comes from the brain? It has been made to "proof" thousands and thousands of times. Spirit comes from substance. That's what the proof shows.

But of course 'proof' won't happen here.
No photos, no fingerprints ,no equation, no repeatable experiment.

No, the problem is that the "proof" shows otherwise, and many decides not to hear about it.

Sounds like 'no reason' to believe in God.

Oh! that's right...this thread is not about reason TO believe.

Oh! that's right...'proof' would be CAUSE to believe.

Si what we have on hand is really a thread attempting to debunk belief....for lack of PROOF!....not reason.

The proof is that spirit comes from mind which comes from brain that comes from substance. So what's your evidence? Your evidence is that there is no evidence?

Reason to believe in God?....cause and effect.
The universe is the effect....God is the cause.

Reason, God, Cause, Effect, Universe, is all ONE. I AM means All That Is, including you and me.

Sorry for the lack of 'proof'.
You just have to reason about it.

Sorry for having the proof for the opposite.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

So is there anything left for science to say about God's existence one way or another? I think not.




That really amounts to saying that science has no divine authority to say that evolution is an unquestionable fact. There is no way for anything scientifically found to eventually be "more" than a theory.

Of course there is....there are plenty of things which are "fact" as opposed to "theory". The problem with evolution on the large scale is it's impossible for humans to watch from beginning to end because of time frame vs life span. Most people accepts sciences authority though....don't you?

I don't understand what your first question means, and how it relates to science not just being about experiments which went right. In my mind God is inconclusive from a scientific perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course there is....there are plenty of things which are "fact" as opposed to "theory".

True. But we are talking proper scientific terminology here. By that yardstick, nothing can be "truer" than a theory.

The problem with evolution on the large scale is it's impossible for humans to watch from beginning to end because of time frame vs life span.

It depends on which tools one has access to, and to a degree on how much one trusts available info.

Most people accepts sciences authority though....don't you?

I don't know what that would be, so I guess not.

I don't understand what your first question means, and how it relates to science not just being about experiments which went right. In my mind God is inconclusive from a scientific perspective.

More like God is not of interest to science, nor truly within its scope from an epistemological perspective. The concept itself is of course of enormous anthropological interest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No because a hypothesis is just the initial idea or question, then you conclude with accepting the hypothesis, rejecting it, or inconclusive.

... based on evidence. An unfalsifiable hypothesis can't be tested, so that conclusion can never be made.

There are plenty of scientific experiments which turn out as rejection or inconclusive....it's still science. In science, there is a saying which goes you haven't failed x times, you have just found x ways y doesn't work. It's still scientific information.

Science is not just about the experiments which turn out to be correct with evidence.

I may have assumed badly - when you said "God is neither provable nor disprovable", I took this to mean "God can never be proven or disproven"; was this what you meant?

Even evolution is still technically a theory...they gather more and more evidence each day but it's not been concluded yet. Culture has just accepted it already (as it's highly likely to be the case)

In science, "theory" doesn't mean something like "tentative conclusion"; it means something more like "an explanation that is well-supported by evidence and is useful for making predictions." There are many theories (including the theory of evolution) that are so well-supported that their core ideas can be taken as fact for all practical purposes.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm with Luis on this one..
A scientific theory is the HIGHEST PINNACLE that a hypothesis can achieve.
Nothing is higher.
A theory doesn't "graduate" into something else.

 

[McBell]

Then why are you making implications to being an atheist?

I am not implying anything.
I am an atheist simply because I do not hold any belief concerning a deity.

You are quite the dishonest character

Your transference is comical.

It isjsut that considering you do your best to manipulate any one argument you come across I find it historical that you expect me to take you seriously.

Seems to me the problem here is your ignorance of atheism.

But I bet you won't let that ignorance interfere with your false accusations...

I never said anything like this now I know you were never being serious.

Really?
Then what are you accusing me of being ignorant and uninformed about?

There is a massive difference between argumentation and circle talk.

One you seem to have trouble distinguishing.

Conversation ended.

Ah yes,
The return home to the flock technique.

 

[Thief]

I'm with Luis on this one..
A scientific theory is the HIGHEST PINNACLE that a hypothesis can achieve.
Nothing is higher.
A theory doesn't "graduate" into something else.

It could graduate to 'proof'.

Theory is speculation....belief.

Proof renders the discussion dead.
There can be no further objection.

 

[Thief]

Like how the mind comes from the brain? It has been made to "proof" thousands and thousands of times. Spirit comes from substance. That's what the proof shows.


No, the problem is that the "proof" shows otherwise, and many decides not to hear about it.


The proof is that spirit comes from mind which comes from brain that comes from substance. So what's your evidence? Your evidence is that there is no evidence?


Reason, God, Cause, Effect, Universe, is all ONE. I AM means All That Is, including you and me.


Sorry for having the proof for the opposite.

God would have to be the exception.
Otherwise...God was a mortal.

Beget of substance, He will be busy saving His own soul.
And you have no hope for your own.

 

[LuisDantas]

It could graduate to 'proof'.

Theory is speculation....belief.

Proof render the discussion dead.
There can be no further objection.

Whatever you are talking about, it ain't science.