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

[Monk Of Reason]

What are your reasons for not believing in Islam?
Or what are you reasons for not believing in Bigfoot? Or anything else you don't believe in that doesn't have definitive evidence to the contrary?

You don't need a reason "not to believe". You need a reason "to believe".

 

[Truth_Faith13]

What are your reasons for not believing in Islam?
Or what are you reasons for not believing in Bigfoot? Or anything else you don't believe in that doesn't have definitive evidence to the contrary?

You don't need a reason "not to believe". You need a reason "to believe".

Sorry I don't see your point, I think you do need reasons for both...why would you not believe without a reason even if that reason is "I don't have any reason to believe"

But everyone has a reason of some sort.....

I have reasons to not believe in Islam or Bigfoot, I have reasons to believe in God

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Sorry I don't see your point, I think you do need reasons for both...why would you not believe without a reason even if that reason is "I don't have any reason to believe"

But everyone has a reason of some sort.....

I have reasons to not believe in Islam or Bigfoot, I have reasons to believe in God

I'm curious if you reason is simply "Because I haven't seen evidence enough to make me believe."

For example, if you don't believe in unicorns, what is your reason for not believing in unicorns, specific reason, if you would?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm curious if you reason is simply "Because I haven't seen evidence enough to make me believe."

For example, if you don't believe in unicorns, what is your reason for not believing in unicorns, specific reason, if you would?

I think unicorns may have been an adaptation of rhinos (it would make logical sense with the horn on their noses) so technically they do exist..

But seriously....there would be fossils or bones of some sort, as far as I am aware none of been found (I can't put this argument on God because he is spirit in nature)

They logically make no sense....with a God if he does indeed exist, logically he is answering the why, science answers the what, how, where and when etc.

There is no evidence for them, no sightings, no bones as above, no writings about them except from a fictional basis (of course I could be wrong here). While you can dispute the authenticity of them, God does have the Bible, people writings about Him, early church fathers etc, some of the history geographically can be proven etc. so it's the difference between having something (God) even if that something is debated and having nothing...

I've never felt a unicorn, never seen one, one has never helped me in any way shape or form (ie no personal experience)...I have personal experience with God.

I can look at creation and see that there must be some sort of creator, the complexity of us as humans (I've mentioned the brain before), the beauty of nature, how things fit together (I'm a scientist, I love nature and how things work.) The wonders of how a child forms in the womb etc. apart from seeing a similarity to rhinos and where the idea may have come from, I can't do that with unicorns. I can't look at the beauty of something and say yep that is here because a unicorn exists.

So in short...evidence, logic, personal experience, nature/creation, archaeology, history etc

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What are your reasons for not believing in Islam?
Or what are you reasons for not believing in Bigfoot? Or anything else you don't believe in that doesn't have definitive evidence to the contrary?

You don't need a reason "not to believe". You need a reason "to believe".

Yeah, I don't agree with this. As if not believing in something somehow gets a pass from the standards of rationality that apply to beliefs in general; short of special pleading, I don't see how we justify this. Negative beliefs require evidence and justification, else they are not rationally held- just like positive beliefs. The difference between theism and atheism in this respect, of course, is that while theism is incoherent and unsupported by (any) evidence and is thus not rationally justifiable, atheism does admit of proper warrant. But if one is an atheist because, say, they were raised that way, then this is no more rational than the theist who believes in God because the Bible tells them so.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I think unicorns may have been an adaptation of rhinos (it would make logical sense with the horn on their noses) so technically they do exist..

But seriously....there would be fossils or bones of some sort, as far as I am aware none of been found (I can't put this argument on God because he is spirit in nature)

Yet I hear as an argument for god, that we don't knwo what's out there, we don't have 100% knowledge.. so there's no reason NOT to assume there are unicorn bones, and we just haven't found them.. it's as rational for the argument that we just haven't found proof of god... "yet"

They logically make no sense....with a God if he does indeed exist, logically he is answering the why, science answers the what, how, where and when etc.

God has no explanatory power.. You're answering a question with a mystery that has no predictive ability at all, no insight, no answers in the least..
You're answering with "Mysterious ways" and "God did it.." and "Don't question god's plan" It is not an answer in the least. Answers explain. God just covers a lack on answers with a blanket of diversion.

There is no evidence for them, no sightings, no bones as above, no writings about them except from a fictional basis (of course I could be wrong here). While you can dispute the authenticity of them, God does have the Bible, people writings about Him, early church fathers etc, some of the history geographically can be proven etc. so it's the difference between having something (God) even if that something is debated and having nothing...

And how can you tell which of thr writings about them are fiction, and which aren't? How can you take an ancient book about unicorns, that doesn't state that it's fiction, or allegory, or literal, and tell which parts are real and which aren't?
And Homer's Ithaca has historically accurate places.. does that make it more probabe that it's non-fiction?

I've never felt a unicorn, never seen one, one has never helped me in any way shape or form (ie no personal experience)...I have personal experience with God.

And you are infallable, or can somehow verify that it's not false assertion, wishful thinking, or simply an error?
Can you use your personal experience in a way that would be predictive of future outcomes, or show that the ways he helped you were not the effects of your own actions and work, which you are attributing to him?

I can look at creation and see that there must be some sort of creator, the complexity of us as humans (I've mentioned the brain before), the beauty of nature, how things fit together (I'm a scientist, I love nature and how things work.) The wonders of how a child forms in the womb etc. apart from seeing a similarity to rhinos and where the idea may have come from, I can't do that with unicorns. I can't look at the beauty of something and say yep that is here because a unicorn exists.

So in short...evidence, logic, personal experience, nature/creation, archaeology, history etc

when you look at a tree, how can you tell YOUR god made it, and not Odin, or if it was made from the flesh of Ymir, or any other number of deities?
And nature IS beautiful, and fits together wonderfully.. by why not attribute that to science, physics, chemistry, gravity? Why do you need an omnipresent father figure above that?

And is there anything you have causing you to believe in a creator when you look at everything, other than your assertion, that that's the ONLY way you can possibly envision it??

I don't want you to think I'm in anyway looking down on you, or picking on your beliefs, but I simply don't see the world as you do... and I don't understand why just saying "I don't know" isn't good enough for some people. And I don't understand how people can take an objective look at their beliefs and not say "ok.. admittedly, I have nothing backing this, but it just makes me feel good."

Because I think if more people were able to do that with their beliefs, there wouldn't be AS much fighting against education, science, human rights... No forcing religions on others. It would just be a bit more "live and let live" from all..
Not that I'm saying you're not "live and let live" I'm merely speaking of religion in general.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah, I don't agree with this. As if not believing in something somehow gets a pass from the standards of rationality that apply to beliefs in general; short of special pleading, I don't see how we justify this. Negative beliefs require evidence and justification, else they are not rationally held- just like positive beliefs. The difference between theism and atheism in this respect, of course, is that while theism is incoherent and unsupported by (any) evidence and is thus not rationally justifiable, atheism does admit of proper warrant. But if one is an atheist because, say, they were raised that way, then this is no more rational than the theist who believes in God because the Bible tells them so.

Lack of beliefs rather than negative beliefs do not require evidence.

I don't have to have a "reason" to "not believe in god". If the evidence is not compelling enough for me to believe it then the default position is to not believe it.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that "I believe there is no god" which is a positive (or negative as you put it) assertion which is not the position I hold. It is a position of doubt based in agnostic reasoning.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sorry I don't see your point, I think you do need reasons for both...why would you not believe without a reason even if that reason is "I don't have any reason to believe"

But everyone has a reason of some sort.....

I have reasons to not believe in Islam or Bigfoot, I have reasons to believe in God

The default position is a lack of belief. Its not the belief in the negative.

Q#1- Do you believe in god?
No.

Q#2- Do you believe god doesn't exist?
no.

Both can be true at the same time. I have not seen compelling evidence in favor of a god existing nor have I heard a compelling argument. Ergo I do not believe in god. There is no specific evidence based reason that I have to doubt for doubting is a default position all on its own.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I sense blades of grass in the near future...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lack of beliefs rather than negative beliefs do not require evidence.

I don't have to have a "reason" to "not believe in god". If the evidence is not compelling enough for me to believe it then the default position is to not believe it.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that "I believe there is no god" which is a positive (or negative as you put it) assertion which is not the position I hold. It is a position of doubt based in agnostic reasoning.

Well, but then why equate it (suspension of belief in either the existence or nonexistence of God) to disbelief in unicorns and Bigfoot? Surely you are not agnostic towards the existence of unicorns- I mean, they are fictional, after all, we know they don't exist since we invented them.

At the very least, this is misleading.

 

[Mycroft]

The default position is a lack of belief. Its not the belief in the negative.

Q#1- Do you believe in god?
No.

Q#2- Do you believe god doesn't exist?
no.

Both can be true at the same time. I have not seen compelling evidence in favor of a god existing nor have I heard a compelling argument. Ergo I do not believe in god. There is no specific evidence based reason that I have to doubt for doubting is a default position all on its own.

Or (for fun) we can ping-pong it up and down the astraction ladder like so:

1) do you believe in god?

2) do you believe in a creator of the heavens and the earth?

3) do you believe in an intelligent designer?

4) do you believe in an intelligent creature which some may ascribe the word 'god'?

3) do you believe in an intelligent designer?

2) do you believe in a creator of life on earth?

1) do you believe in aliens?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, but then why equate it (suspension of belief in either the existence or nonexistence of God) to disbelief in unicorns and Bigfoot? Surely you are not agnostic towards the existence of unicorns- I mean, they are fictional, after all, we know they don't exist since we invented them.

At the very least, this is misleading.

Not necessarily. For example I am fairly stern in my stance as an Atheist. I don't shy away from that fact. Though I cannot prove god doesn't exist. I cannot prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Hell I would argue there is more evidence in favor of bigfoot than god.

And in certain cases such as Christianity, Islam and other specific religions I would go so far as to see them as obviously false just as much so as unicorns or bigfoot.

However in respects to the claim of a deistic god where there is no intervention with us today and it is totally impossible to prove or disprove then I am forced to keep an agnostic and "lack of belief" stance. The vague premise doesn't allot me the ability to take information and clues found in the context, history and logical arguments of specific religions and god concepts.

Make no mistake that I BELIEVE that the Christian god, Islamic god, Jewish god, Hindu gods, Scientology gods, Mormon god, Greek Gods, Egyptian gods, Norse Gods and the flying spaghetti monster do not exist. This just as much so as bigfoot and unicorns. And more or less for the same reasons.

However I would have to put the deistic god in par with the multiverse theory. I suppose out of all that we "know" there it is impossible to deny the possibility of it existing but at the same time I cannot give any reliable credit or faith to the idea. I do not 'believe" in the multiverse but I certainly believe its possible. Why? Because it fits in what we know to be true but doesn't necessarily have evidence for or against it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Or (for fun) we can ping-pong it up and down the astraction ladder like so:

1) do you believe in god?

2) do you believe in a creator of the heavens and the earth?

3) do you believe in an intelligent designer?

4) do you believe in an intelligent creature which some may ascribe the word 'god'?

3) do you believe in an intelligent designer?

2) do you believe in a creator of life on earth?

1) do you believe in aliens?

Typically the more specific a claim is the easier it is to be sure it isn't true. The "god" concept in the vaguest of senses is by definition impossible to know if it is true or untrue. Ergo the agnostic atheist stance upon the generalized concept of god and why the default position is the only stance I can logically take.

 

[Mycroft]

Typically the more specific a claim is the easier it is to be sure it isn't true. The "god" concept in the vaguest of senses is by definition impossible to know if it is true or untrue. Ergo the agnostic atheist stance upon the generalized concept of god and why the default position is the only stance I can logically take.

Quite. The abstraction exercise confirms as much. How can we know if god is an alien or if an alien is god? How can we know if either exist at all? We cannot. But we know that it is likely that there is an intelligence out there and possible that it is more intelligent and more advanced than we and possible that it has visited us and therefore possible that it was once mistaken as a god (another ladder, the possibility ladder).

Personally, however, I hold such concepts in abeyance on the alien front and lean toward rejection on the god front.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I don't want you to think I'm in anyway looking down on you, or picking on your beliefs, but I simply don't see the world as you do... and I don't understand why just saying "I don't know" isn't good enough for some people. And I don't understand how people can take an objective look at their beliefs and not say "ok.. admittedly, I have nothing backing this, but it just makes me feel good."

Because I think if more people were able to do that with their beliefs, there wouldn't be AS much fighting against education, science, human rights... No forcing religions on others. It would just be a bit more "live and let live" from all..
Not that I'm saying you're not "live and let live" I'm merely speaking of religion in general.

It's ok I'm not one of those believers who takes offence when people state the opposite point of view. I wouldn't be married to an atheist if I did. I agree with you...I think many believers have blind faith...nothing would sway them in their belief even if God himself was to tell them. There is absolutely nothing with saying "I don't know". I don't know which, if any "religion" is true...I have absolutely know idea. I accept that there very may well be no God, but even though I have actually tried to not believe, my brain isn't wired that way. God to me is a clear as my husband is....maybe that's a mental thing as opposed to a spiritual one....who knows.

You are never going to be able to prove God exists 100% just as you can never prove that God doesn't exist 100% (yes the same can be said for unicorns!)...it's about faith and what makes people lead a good fulfilling life.

Which is why I don't get around telling people they are going to hell...I don't know that for sure. No one can know 100% that God exists. It wouldn't be faith if that was the case.

I get just as frustrated with religion and some believers as atheist do. One church I went to, there is a young lad about 18 never had a girlfriend, has no understanding if what "love" is, yet constantly posts articles saying how a believer shouldn't marry a non believer (like I did). That is not his right to do.

I do disagree with your last point, if religion didn't exists and we all agreed on the existence or non existence of God, we would still have problems.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Typically the more specific a claim is the easier it is to be sure it isn't true. The "god" concept in the vaguest of senses is by definition impossible to know if it is true or untrue. Ergo the agnostic atheist stance upon the generalized concept of god and why the default position is the only stance I can logically take.

If I said to you "the sky is NOT blue" would you expect me to provide a reason for that? Maybe it's my scientific mind but "because I just don't" has never been a good enough answer to me. It is just as illogical and irrational as someone who as blind faith and fails to see that you can't prove the existence of God 100%.

I don't know why some things are the way they are and I don't know why God does or doesn't do things when he can. That said, if you painted a picture "ie created something" no one would argue that it was completely upto you how you did it, what colours you used, what's type of painting it was etc, but yet no one is allowing God the same curtesy.

If God exists and he is our creator, why can't he choose what he does and doesn't do with that creation.

I don't understand why my husband likes marmite...I can't stand the stuff
I don't understand why my neighbour is a JW..
I don't understand why people decorate their houses a certain way...

BUT it's their life, their property, their creations, their choices. All I do is give God that same curtesy. I don't expect to understand everything about him.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I said to you "the sky is NOT blue" would you expect me to provide a reason for that? Maybe it's my scientific mind but "because I just don't" has never been a good enough answer to me. It is just as illogical and irrational as someone who as blind faith and fails to see that you can't prove the existence of God 100%.

Your response here doesn't seem to make much logical sense unless your falling into the exact same misunderstanding of atheism.

Do you per chance think that atheism is the belief there is no god? And do you need a reason to "doubt" if there is lack of credible evidence for a claim?

Burden of proof is the reason why I don't have to provide any evidence for my doubt in god's existence. I don't have to provide any evidence that proves god doesn't exist to doubt him. However to "believe" or make positive claims about something I must have evidence.

Do you understand the difference now?

I don't know why some things are the way they are and I don't know why God does or doesn't do things when he can. That said, if you painted a picture "ie created something" no one would argue that it was completely upto you how you did it, what colours you used, what's type of painting it was etc, but yet no one is allowing God the same curtesy.

If God exists and he is our creator, why can't he choose what he does and doesn't do with that creation.

I don't understand why my husband likes marmite...I can't stand the stuff
I don't understand why my neighbour is a JW..
I don't understand why people decorate their houses a certain way...

BUT it's their life, their property, their creations, their choices. All I do is give God that same curtesy. I don't expect to understand everything about him.

I honestly don't know what you are getting at with this bit. Can you re-tie this in with the point your trying to make?

Also woot 2000th post.

 

[Mycroft]

If I said to you "the sky is NOT blue" would you expect me to provide a reason for that?

Of course. Particularly given the fact that the sky is not blue.

Say to a child: Thy sky is in no way blue, little one?

They will immediately ask: so why does it look blue? If you say 'I don't know' you do what religion effectively does: arrest development.

But if you explain; The atmosphere is the mixture of gas, water vapour, plus many small solid particles, like dust, soot and ashes, pollen, and salt from the oceans. Then they will know: The sky is not blue, but it looks blue because of X reason.

All claims require reasons or evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more the necessity for evidence there is.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Of course. Particularly given the fact that the sky is not blue.

Say to a child: Thy sky is in no way blue, little one?

They will immediately ask: so why does it look blue? If you say 'I don't know' you do what religion effectively does: arrest development.

But if you explain; The atmosphere is the mixture of gas, water vapour, plus many small solid particles, like dust, soot and ashes, pollen, and salt from the oceans. Then they will know: The sky is not blue, but it looks blue because of X reason.

All claims require reasons or evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more the necessity for evidence there is.

I agree so why doesn't the lack of belief in God need proof? It's still a claim? It doesn't have to be agreed by the general population, but personally you will still have a reason to make such a claim.

Put it this way...all claims of belief are based on choice. There are some things which are facts but even some facts people argue for, but whatever belief you choose to take, there will be a reason for it.

If I choose to not believe in God (I doubt this is ever going to happen), it would have been after research and logical deductions etc and I will have reasons for rejecting my belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree so why doesn't the lack of belief in God need proof? It's still a claim? It doesn't have to be agreed by the general population, but personally you will still have a reason to make such a claim.

Put it this way...all claims of belief are based on choice. There are some things which are facts but even some facts people argue for, but whatever belief you choose to take, there will be a reason for it.

If I choose to not believe in God (I doubt this is ever going to happen), it would have been after research and logical deductions etc and I will have reasons for rejecting my belief.

To answer the bold.
No it is not a claim. Ergo it needs not an explanation. The lack of proof in the claim (god) means that they have not met their burden of proof.

Also I didn't "choose" to not believe in god. I simply realized one day that I did not. It wasn't a conscious decision I made. It was a self revelation. I often wonder if it is literally impossible for some people to be atheists and others impossible to avoid it.