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

[Creature]

I have no reason to why I believe in God, I just do.

Well at least you're honest about it...

 

[ChristineES]

Well at least you're honest about it...

I'm pretty sure you know that isn't what I meant. :cover:

Welcome to the RF.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

Nope.

I am saying that the claim that theists have not provided evidence of the existence of God (or some other specific claim regarding God) is a claim itself. This is the claim you make when you say "I am not convinced".

I don't care why you were not convinced. I want you to know why you are not convinced, so that you can articulate it to yourself. I always cringe when I read some variation of "You haven't proved your belief, so I don't have to provide any reasons for my position." That's such a lazy, and ultimately dangerous, way of choosing what you do and don't believe.

All positions should have supporting reasons and evidences, even if your position is "I don't think X is correct."

Hiding behind the skirts of "burden of proof" is running away from your own responsibilities to your own position.

Anyone can claim that "the other side" has the burden of proof, and hasn't met it. Just claiming such doesn't automatically make the claim true... or reasonable to accept. I don't understand why so many people don't realize this.

Note:
I do believe that most people, like yourself, do indeed have reasons for their non-belief, for not being convinced. You even mentioned some in your post-- that many theist arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. I don't understand why so many atheists ignore these reasons, in favor of the "burden of proof" or the "I haven't made a claim" argument. What I am trying to do is to eradicate the concept that the atheist doesn't need reasons for their non-belief; that they are essentially entitled to reject all arguments for the existence of God and still maintain that they have made no claims, and therefore, need not defend them.

 

[Nakosis]

Thoughts? Ideas?

To support the authority of scientific thinking.

Acceptance of the supernatural kind of undermines the authority of the scientific method.

This idea of disbelief need not be justified is a little silly. Why disbelieve in something when there is no justification for not believing. Then again there is no requirement for anyone to justify their disbelief anymore than there is a requirement to justify a belief.

The need is there I suppose if someone wants to covert you to their way of thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You even mentioned some in your post-- that many theist arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. I don't understand why so many atheists ignore these reasons, in favor of the "burden of proof" or the "I haven't made a claim" argument.

When an argument relies on logical fallacies, this doesn't mean that the conclusion is false; it just means that the argument isn't a good reason to accept the conclusion as true. It doesn't say anything about whether the conclusion actually is true or false.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Note:
I do believe that most people, like yourself, do indeed have reasons for their non-belief, for not being convinced. You even mentioned some in your post-- that many theist arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. I don't understand why so many atheists ignore these reasons, in favor of the "burden of proof" or the "I haven't made a claim" argument. What I am trying to do is to eradicate the concept that the atheist doesn't need reasons for their non-belief; that they are essentially entitled to reject all arguments for the existence of God and still maintain that they have made no claims, and therefore, need not defend them.

My problem with your argument is simple, it's not specific.
If you give me a certain topic, we could discuss, but simply staying "prove theists haven't meet their burden of proof" is so broad..

Its like, I had someone once ask me to define specifically what god's I don't believe in, and define that god characteristics..

Well..crap.
Do I now list every possible characteristic, for every possible god that someone could possible claim??

Just saying "prove theists haven't meet their burden" is similar.. Would I have to remember every claim I've been told, and recount it accurately, plus why it failed to sway me?

I'm fine with you not accepting the burden of proof argument, but you really have to follow it up with..something.

"why doesn't the watchmaker argument work for you".."what about cosmological argument" etc.

otherwise, let me just ask this..

what would an acceptable answer be for you, to "how have they not met burden of proof" without being more specific about even which god you're talking about?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

The root of your opinion is the ignorance of the argument and reality of the stance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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 reason do I not believe?

There has been no evidence to give me reason to assume there is a god. Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? Or are you trying to ask me for a specific action that has happened that would make me not believe? Its kind of the point of atheism and the lack of a belief in god is that NOTHING has happened to convince me there is a god.

It seems far more likely that it was created by humans especially seeing the evolution of religion throughout the ages.

 

[Thief]

What reason do I not believe?

There has been no evidence to give me reason to assume there is a god. Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? Or are you trying to ask me for a specific action that has happened that would make me not believe? Its kind of the point of atheism and the lack of a belief in god is that NOTHING has happened to convince me there is a god.

It seems far more likely that it was created by humans especially seeing the evolution of religion throughout the ages.

BANG!....(big bang)

To support your post you need to argue that substance is not only 'self' generating and reproductive.....
It cannot take motion unto itself by it's own volition.

Something dead just moves and multiplies?

or perhaps you can demonstrate the rock has life in it as you pound it unto your head?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

BANG!....(big bang)

To support your post you need to argue that substance is not only 'self' generating and reproductive.....
It cannot take motion unto itself by it's own volition.

Something dead just moves and multiplies?

or perhaps you can demonstrate the rock has life in it as you pound it unto your head?

Wrong.
To support his post, he has to explain that he hasn't been convinced.
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer to a question.

If I ask you if you know how to drive a car, and you state you do, I don't need you to write a dissertation in combustion principals to verify you know how to drive.

or, in other words, if you state creation is how we came to be, do I require you to give the exact order the chemicals came together when god combined then before I accept that its what you believe

 

[Monk Of Reason]

BANG!....(big bang)

To support your post you need to argue that substance is not only 'self' generating and reproductive.....
It cannot take motion unto itself by it's own volition.

Something dead just moves and multiplies?

or perhaps you can demonstrate the rock has life in it as you pound it unto your head?

I've been through this several times with you and I'm getting really bored of going through the same fallacies and arguments from ignorance. Can you argue something new?

For "substance" generating and reproducing without "life" and the line between "life" and "non-life" I would simply direct you to an abiogenisis wiki but I've sent you there before.

And the big bang is not innately evidence of god or a creator.

 

[Thief]

I've been through this several times with you and I'm getting really bored of going through the same fallacies and arguments from ignorance. Can you argue something new?

For "substance" generating and reproducing without "life" and the line between "life" and "non-life" I would simply direct you to an abiogenisis wiki but I've sent you there before.

And the big bang is not innately evidence of god or a creator.

And I would direct you to the big bang where the chemistry you lean to doesn't yet exist.

Spirit first....then substance.
THEN God moves to place spirit IN substance....life as we know it.

Cause and effect.
Can't have one without the other.
Science relies on it.
No experiment is valid if you separate the two.

 

[Thief]

Wrong.
To support his post, he has to explain that he hasn't been convinced.
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer to a question.

If I ask you if you know how to drive a car, and you state you do, I don't need you to write a dissertation in combustion principals to verify you know how to drive.

or, in other words, if you state creation is how we came to be, do I require you to give the exact order the chemicals came together when god combined then before I accept that its what you believe

I don't know is the answer?

Maybe I won't ask you any questions.

Hydrogen first.
The heavier elements came later.
Molecules formed in conditions suited for the blend.

Spirit first.....then the bang.
Let there be light (fusion)
Then earth....then life....

 

[Truth_Faith13]

What reason do I not believe?

There has been no evidence to give me reason to assume there is a god. Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? Or are you trying to ask me for a specific action that has happened that would make me not believe? Its kind of the point of atheism and the lack of a belief in god is that NOTHING has happened to convince me there is a god.

It seems far more likely that it was created by humans especially seeing the evolution of religion throughout the ages.

The bolded are all reasons why you don't believe, yes thank you that is what I meant!

 

[Willamena]

Spirit first....then substance.
THEN God moves to place spirit IN substance....life as we know it.

If "God" is nature, then yes.

The nature of hydrogen, the nature of carbon.

 

[Falvlun]

When an argument relies on logical fallacies, this doesn't mean that the conclusion is false; it just means that the argument isn't a good reason to accept the conclusion as true. It doesn't say anything about whether the conclusion actually is true or false.

So, like I said, it's a reason to support the claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

I'm not asking for much, guys.

 

[Kielbasa]

Well at least you're honest about it...

Honesty is always a good policy. Logic is worth a lot less to some people, sadly.

 

[Falvlun]

My problem with your argument is simple, it's not specific.
If you give me a certain topic, we could discuss, but simply staying "prove theists haven't meet their burden of proof" is so broad..

Its like, I had someone once ask me to define specifically what god's I don't believe in, and define that god characteristics..

Well..crap.

Do I now list every possible characteristic, for every possible god that someone could possible claim??

Your claim wasn't specific. You made a generalized claim about theists. If you are able to make a general claim, then I guess that means you need to have general reasons to support it.

If you wanted to talk about a specific god concept, then you should have said "People who believe in this specific god concept have not met their burden of proof", instead of talking about theists in general.

Just saying "prove theists haven't meet their burden" is similar.. Would I have to remember every claim I've been told, and recount it accurately, plus why it failed to sway me?

If someone asks you to support your claim, that doesn't mean you must be able to regurgitate every single argument and reason. Why do you think this is
an all or nothing game? You should be able to provide the main reasons that support your claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

I'm fine with you not accepting the burden of proof argument, but you really have to follow it up with..something.

"why doesn't the watchmaker argument work for you".."what about cosmological argument" etc.

otherwise, let me just ask this..

what would an acceptable answer be for you, to "how have they not met burden of proof" without being more specific about even which god you're talking about?

Why? You are the one who has claimed that the theists have not met the burden of proof. It is not my job to tell you what your claim means, or provide you with your claim's details.

What did you mean when you said that? Why should I accept your assessment? What reasons do you have for making such a claim?

(Note: I'm not talking about proof. Proof is for math. I am talking about reason and evidence. If you make a claim-- and you have by claiming that theists have not met the burden of proof-- then you should have some reason or evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, well, then you haven't met your own burden of proof. Right?)

 

[Falvlun]

The root of your opinion is the ignorance of the argument and reality of the stance.

The argument that doubt doesn't require any justification is not a good one, and I simply cannot fathom why it is so popular among atheists.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Your claim wasn't specific. You made a generalized claim about theists. If you are able to make a general claim, then I guess that means you need to have general reasons to support it.

And I stated earlier
"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."
That was my generalized reason that support it.
But that's not good enough,apparently.

If you wanted to talk about a specific god concept, then you should have said "People who believe in this specific god concept have not met their burden of proof", instead of talking about theists in general.

And so far, no theist has convinced me of their god claims, either due to lacking reason, using false dichotomies, false attribution etc.
When I say no theist has convinced me so far, SHOULD I have to claim specifically which god concepts they've offered me?
If you were to ask that as a second question, what gods have people tried to tell me about, then maybe... But when I make the claim that no theist has convinced me, then what reason would I have to specify, more than "all theists that have spoken to me".

Do I really have to add "no theist has met their burden of proof TO ME" for the sentence to be understandable?
Obviously some theists have met a burden of proof to some people, because there are theists... but they have not done it to me.
So I ask your advice.. if someone asks me why I dno't believe in god.. without specifying any more than that.. should I then have to follow your advice, and start naming off the specific god concepts that haven't met their burden of proof?

If someone asks you to support your claim, that doesn't mean you must be able to regurgitate every single argument and reason. Why do you think this is
an all or nothing game? You should be able to provide the main reasons that support your claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

I honestly think you're just messing with me now.
If I claim no body has convinced me of a god... and you tell me to support my claim..
How would you like me to support it.. What is the minimum level of evidence you would require for me to convince you that I'm not convinced of something.

Why? You are the one who has claimed that the theists have not met the burden of proof. It is not my job to tell you what your claim means, or provide you with your claim's details.

What did you mean when you said that? Why should I accept your assessment? What reasons do you have for making such a claim?

(Note: I'm not talking about proof. Proof is for math. I am talking about reason and evidence. If you make a claim-- and you have by claiming that theists have not met the burden of proof-- then you should have some reason or evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, well, then you haven't met your own burden of proof. Right?)

No, The amount of evidence required for a claim, is based of the claim itself.
If I tell you no theist has met enough of a burden of proof to convince me to believe in a god.. and you want me to support my claim, then all I can say is my claim is supported by the fact that I don't believe in a god.

Obviously, me saying "I have not been convinced" is not enough evidence for you to accept my claim that I haven't been convinced.
And you've refused to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of my non-belief.

So, now, you can go ahead and reject my claim that I've never had a theist meet their burden of proof enough to satisfy me that there's a god.

I really don't care.