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

[Truth_Faith13]

I often wonder if it is literally impossible for some people to be atheists and others impossible to avoid it.

Interesting...I think you are probably right there!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

There are many competing and often mutually exclusive claims floating around out there. Many of them have no evidence for or against them. There are three possible approaches we can take:

- accept all of them as true. This creates logical problems, since if you accept mutually exclusive ideas as true simultaneously, your belief system will contain internal contradictions.

- accept only some of them as true. This also creates logical problems, since without evidence, we don't have any rational way to decide which claims to accept.

- accept none of them as true. This is the only option that is logically consistent.

 

[Falvlun]

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 think it's a difference based upon wishful thinking. No matter how many semantic games you play, you have a position. And you should be able to defend it. If you can't, then your position isn't worth a hill of beans.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think it's a difference based upon wishful thinking. No matter how many semantic games you play, you have a position. And you should be able to defend it. If you can't, then your position isn't worth a hill of beans.

Well when the views are so vastly different and rely on vastly different reasons for the belief, it's might just be best to try not to defend. Like I would not use an ontological argument to explain why I believe in God.

 

[Falvlun]

Interesting. My journey to an uncertain life happened a bit differently. It was a specific epiphany, shortly after I married. I decided that new data would always be sacred to me and that my Current Truth would have to conform itself. It relieved my anxiety. I had no responsibility to protect the truth. My only job was to watch it change however it pleased.

I've been ambiguous ever since.

Sounds like a good philosophy to me.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

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 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.

But if there was a debate on the existence of God....one side believes, one side no belief....you would have to give reasons for you not believing? If someone said to you why don't you believe? I can't imagine you would answer "I just don't".

 

[outhouse]

El and Yahweh were combined sometime before 800BC only by certain groups not all Israelites.

Most of the compilation was done with the monotheistic reforms of King Josiah after 622 BC when the OT legends went through major redactions with a now governement backed loyalty to Yahweh and him alone.

still waiting for a reply.


Not only that we klnow the Canaanite culture used all these deities in use today, but worshipped them differently. Most people view Canaanite deities as mythology, and I bet, you would claim their other deities are mythological in nature.

 

[outhouse]

No one believes in all deities as a general statement


The only difference is that we discount different deities, with me discounting them all. YOU all but one.


Your more on my side then not.



This places the burden on those who believe, not the other way around.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

But if there was a debate on the existence of God....one side believes, one side no belief....you would have to give reasons for you not believing? If someone said to you why don't you believe? I can't imagine you would answer "I just don't".

I haven't been given enough reason to believe is a valid reason..
A claim holds the burden of proof. The claim is "there is a god"
To not believe this claim only requires not being given enough resin our evidence to sport the claim.

"there IS no god" is also a claim.it also requires some reason out evidence to back it up, however as a null claim, the evidence for it is based more on logic and rejecting counter claim evidence.

Denying one or both of these claims does not obligate you to hold the opposing clam

I don't believe in a god, I see no reason to, however, I an open to any contrary evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if there was a debate on the existence of God....one side believes, one side no belief....you would have to give reasons for you not believing? If someone said to you why don't you believe? I can't imagine you would answer "I just don't".

What's wrong with "I'm not convinced"?

 

[Falvlun]

What's wrong with "I'm not convinced"?

Should you not be able to explain why you are not convinced?

I mean, if we are talking about evolution, and someone says "Well, I'm not convinced", have they not taken a position that deserves explanation?

EDIT:
To clarify, saying "I am not convinced" is the same as saying "None of your evidence or rationale has met my criteria for acceptance." This is a claim-- the claim that evidence is lacking, that the reasons offered are not convincing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should you not be able to explain why you are not convinced?

I mean, if we are talking about evolution, and someone says "Well, I'm not convinced", have they not taken a position that deserves explanation?

EDIT:
To clarify, saying "I am not convinced" is the same as saying "None of your evidence or rationale has met my criteria for acceptance." This is a claim-- the claim that evidence is lacking, that the reasons offered are not convincing.

A person could think that, but "I am not convinced" can also mean "I'm not sure whether your evidence or rationale meets my criteria for acceptance." Uncertainty doesn't require an explanation... though it does invite further discussion, and at a certain point once all the evidence and issues have been explored in depth it might be untenable to remain unsure.

Of course, a person can go beyond this and put forward the claim that the evidence provided is poor. When this occurs, I agree that this is a claim of its own that should be substantiated.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally cannot believe in a god, to do so imprisons my whole life, I cannot be anything but a free sprit, I don't want some big daddy looking over my shoulder 24/7, I have grown up and no longer need that.

 

[Falvlun]

A person could think that, but "I am not convinced" can also mean "I'm not sure whether your evidence or rationale meets my criteria for acceptance." Uncertainty doesn't require an explanation... though it does invite further discussion, and at a certain point once all the evidence and issues have been explored in depth it might be untenable to remain unsure.

Of course, a person can go beyond this and put forward the claim that the evidence provided is poor. When this occurs, I agree that this is a claim of its own that should be substantiated.

But it wasn't "I am uncertain whether theists have met the burden of proof or not". It was pretty clearly "Theists haven't met the burden of proof."

Do we agree that this is a claim in its own right?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

What's wrong with "I'm not convinced"?

Ah "I'm not convinced" is different to "I just don't"....one infers that you have looked at the "evidence" or lack their of and made a decision, the other infers you have made a decision out of thin air.

I think people are mixing things up slightly... "Proof" is different to "a reason". I agree their isn't 100% proof on either side of the equation. No one can prove the existence or not of God. However I do expect people to give a reason why they don't believe. Even if that reason is "not enough evidence", "looking at the claims, I'm not convinced their is a God" are all fine as they indicate a thought process and a decision. If someone who believed said "have you thought about x claim/evidence", they would be able to give a counter argument eg God is loving...but there is suffering in the world

Saying "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason" suggests no thought process, no research and even if there was 100% proof they wouldn't have looked at it. Here someone who truly says they have no reason, could not give a counter argument because they wouldn't have gone through the thought process.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

But it wasn't "I am uncertain whether theists have met the burden of proof or not". It was pretty clearly "Theists haven't met the burden of proof."

Do we agree that this is a claim in its own right?

And what would you require as evidence to the claim
"No theist has met the burden of proof that there is a god to me..."
..other than just the statement.

the amount of evidence required is based off the claim..
If I claim I'm happy, because an invisible pixie is patting my bottom in a soothing manner" I might need evidence.
If I/m only claiming, "I feel happy" then how much evidence do you REALLY need, for the claim that I am happy to meet it's burden of proof???

What is your expected level of burden of proof to me stating my opinion that no one has to date, convinced me of something???

 

[Thief]

I personally cannot believe in a god, to do so imprisons my whole life, I cannot be anything but a free sprit, I don't want some big daddy looking over my shoulder 24/7, I have grown up and no longer need that.

Do you believe in an afterlife....your present free spirit......intact?

 

[Falvlun]

And what would you require as evidence to the claim
"No theist has met the burden of proof that there is a god to me..."
..other than just the statement.

the amount of evidence required is based off the claim..
If I claim I'm happy, because an invisible pixie is patting my bottom in a soothing manner" I might need evidence.
If I/m only claiming, "I feel happy" then how much evidence do you REALLY need, for the claim that I am happy to meet it's burden of proof???

What is your expected level of burden of proof to me stating my opinion that no one has to date, convinced me of something???

Apply the same reasoning to any other question in your life.

Merely stating that someone has not met the burden of proof is completely meaningless unless you can explain why the burden hasn't been met-- what is wrong with the reasons/evidence given so far, and what reasons/evidence you would require. You can't just invoke "burden of proof hasn't been met!" and expect everyone to agree with your assessment.

Imagine if all a Creationist needed to say was "Scientists haven't met the burden of proof for evolution... therefore, I do not need to make any argument."

"Burden of proof" is not a defense. It is not a get-out-of-supporting-your-own-position free card.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Apply the same reasoning to any other question in your life.

I do.

Merely stating that someone has not met the burden of proof is completely meaningless unless you can explain why the burden hasn't been met-- what is wrong with the reasons/evidence given so far, and what reasons/evidence you would require. You can't just invoke "burden of proof hasn't been met!" and expect everyone to agree with your assessment.

Are you saying me saying I';m not convinced is not enough, unless I can recall every single claim about every single version of every single god I've heard about?

Imagine if all a Creationist needed to say was "Scientists haven't met the burden of proof for evolution... therefore, I do not need to make any argument."

they do.
They also play around with what constitutes a "claim" and ignore the fact that the amount of evidence required is based on the claim itself, and the likeliness of it being real.

This is where intellectual honesty comes in.
There are people that can deny fossils while looking at them.
That can completely ignore all scientific data whatsoever, in favor of what they want. And they do.
Creationists can completely ignore all evidence that they are shown, because they want to..
..and at that point, it's simply a matter of being honest with yourself. If they want to 'know" that there was an ark that carried 2-7 of every species, and evolution never happened, fine. But when they are presented evidence to the contrary, you can see if they ignore it, or disprove it..
I don't expect a creationist to explain "what is wrong with the reasons/evidence given so far," without even giving them a point to refute, or pointing out a specific reason/piece of evidence that I'm thinking of.

It SOUNDS like you're saying "you haven't been convinced??? Explain what's wrong with every argument out there, or you can't say burden of proof!!!" and I really hope I'm reading that wrong.

I can absolutely say I haven't been convinced.
I can absolutely say every "logical" claim I've heard has failed to sway me, that I hear a lot of false attribution, incredulity, cherry picking, false dichotomies whenever I'm given someone's reasons that I should believe in their god.

"Burden of proof" is not a defense. It is not a get-out-of-supporting-your-own-position free card.

If someone were to claim to me, that they believe in god, that's ALL the evidence I need for them to support that claim, that THEY believe in god.

If someone claims god is real, and interacts with the material world, I want evidence of the interaction.

If someone claims I'm going to be tortured eternally if I don't vote the way they want, or pray to a specific icon, or anything like that, I'd like some actual evidence hat such a torture place even exists, and that how they say you get there is correct.

If I claim evolution happened, I should be able to give some evidence, in at least peer reviewed research, by myself or others, that supports that.

If someone gives me a specific argument, or reasoning, then I should be allowed to look into it, and take time to think about it, and either refute it, accept it as some degree of compelling, or accept it as something I don't know much about.

But to say "you haven't been convinced? Prove it" sounds, absurd to me.

 

[ChristineES]

I think it is prudent to separate why others don't believe in God from why I do believe in God. People who believe in God or disbelieve in God or doubt God will have their own reasons or may not have a reason at all, just simply believe or disbelieve in God. Someone else's disbelief in God should not really affect me in the slightest, just as my belief in God should not affect someone who doesn't.

Truthfully, I have no reason to why I believe in God, I just do. I feel as though most people might be the same if they were to think about it. But I wouldn't know for sure other's reasons.