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

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

If you mean doubt about "God's" existence, isn't his invisibility reason enough?

I doubt virtually everything. It's just the way I live. So I'm not sure what the argument is here and so thought I would stick my nose into it -- since I get a cheap thrill out of having it whacked.

 

[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.

To help this discussion out, I ask one thing.
Please quote my post, and the general statement I made that you're referring to, so I know exactly what wording I used in the quote you are referring to.

 

[Falvlun]

I must admit, that's the closest argument been made which has made some sense to me and I can understand it.

Woohoo!

The one thing I would say, is, could this not be down to humans again? If every human had accepted Christ and not rejected Him (remember people rejected him to his face!) if every human had read the Bible and translated it error free, over 2000years, surely the whole planet would have heard the gospel? In fact, I don't know of many people who wouldn't have heard of it, even with history as it is and how it happened, they just choose not to believe because of their culture (man made) or parents (man made). There may be some distant tribes who haven't heard but since apparently all tribes have now been identified, assuming God is real, surely it would have been the Christians duty to take them the gospel? If people haven't due to lack of faith, surely that's down to humans, not God?

This makes the assumption that people should automatically accept the Gospel when they hear it. Is this a reasonable assumption? It also assumes that merely hearing the Gospel gives a person a good enough chance of accepting salvation.

Imagine that it turns out that Islam was the correct religion. You have heard of Islam, right? You have heard some of their basic tenets. Do you think that you had just as much a chance as someone growing up in Saudi Arabia to have come to the conclusion that Islam was the correct religion? Do you think that if a Muslim person talked with you about becoming a Muslim, you would easily be able to convert? Would you feel that, simply because you know about Islam, that you have been given a sufficiently fair chance at accepting it?

I suspect not. So why do you expect someone who belongs to a "distant tribe" to accept Christianity, simply because a missionary might have told them the Gospel?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that this is "down to humans, not God". Well, yes: it is about humans, and that's the point. It's pretty much human nature to accept the beliefs in which we are raised, and which permeate our culture. Those are the beliefs that we are generally going to find most comfortable or credible.

God knows that. So why would he come up with a plan of salvation that required people to accept it, when he knew that people wouldn't have an equal opportunity of accepting it?

Or, to include your objection: Why would God create a plan of salvation that depended upon other humans to ensure the salvation of other humans? I mean, it's not really fair that Ahmad didn't get the same chance at salvation as Christopher simply because Ahmad's parents were Muslim, and Christopher's were Christian.

 

[Falvlun]

To help this discussion out, I ask one thing.
Please quote my post, and the general statement I made that you're referring to, so I know exactly what wording I used in the quote you are referring to.

Sure thing. I've had to refer to it a couple times too to make sure I'm keeping things straight.

Here it is:

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???

You seemed to express incredulity that you should have to provide a reason for your doubt.

This line of argument started earlier, however, with Monk of Reason's quote:

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?

He is claiming that he is not required to provide any reason or evidence for his doubt due to the "burden of proof".

It is possible that my responses to you have incorrectly assumed that you hold this same stance.

 

[Falvlun]

If you mean doubt about "God's" existence, isn't his invisibility reason enough?

I doubt virtually everything. It's just the way I live. So I'm not sure what the argument is here and so thought I would stick my nose into it -- since I get a cheap thrill out of having it whacked.

My argument is with those who claim that theists have not met the burden of proof, and therefore, they are not required to have or provide any reason to support their own disbelief.

My contention is that the claim "Theists have not met their burden of proof" is itself a claim that comes with its own burden of proof.

My ulterior motive is to get atheists to stop using the silly burden of proof argument all together.

Basically, my position is that if you have a position, then it is your responsibility to support it, period. It doesn't matter what Joe over there is doing about his beliefs.

My ulterior motive to my ulterior motive is to break the concept that people who have rejected theism have no position (the ever-popular "I merely lack a belief" atheism).

 

[Awkward Fingers]

It is possible that my responses to you have incorrectly assumed that you hold this same stance.

just in case, I'll state my opinion.
No theist has met their burden of proof to me, to convince me there is a god.

I don't know how much evidence you require from me to back a claim that is an opinion.

I offered some, you continued asking.
I asked for insight on what you wanted, you decided you didn't need to answer.

I have never had someone push "back up your claim": on an opinion as much as you have, so admittedly, I'm out of my depths because I don't know what you want,. and you won't tell me.

Usually, the requirement for me to verify that "I haven't been convinced yet" is me stating I haven;'t been convinced yet.

I'm not stating no theist anywhere has ever met their burden of proof to anyone..
I'm stating no theist has met their burden of proof TO ME, to convince me that there is a god.

That is a claim, based off my personal experience, and it is an opinion. It is not a fact based claim.

I'm not claiming there is no god, because I haven't been convinced.
I'm not claiming people that believe in god are wrong, because I haven't been convinced.

I'm claiming no one has convinced me, and that is the reason that I personally don't believe.

So no, I really don't have to be any more specific than that.. My claim is backed up by my statement, because it is an opinion.

As you said before, a creationist COULD use the same statement. and that would be fine.. it is a claim based on an opinion.

If I then gave the creationist an argument AFTER that, and showed them specific data about DNA, or fossils, and they disagreed, I could then ask more pointed specific questions about why they deny that evidence.. But just the claim that "so far, I don't believe" doesn't require following evidence to back it up.

it is not a claim about existence or not, it is a claim about opinion and personal belief.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

You misunderstand me: I have never put any criteria on the reasons you need to have for your doubt. I'm merely asking that a) you do have reasons and b) you don't claim that you do not need any reasons.

I acknowledged the reason that you provided. Here is what I said about it:

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.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You seemed to express incredulity that you should have to provide a reason for your doubt.

Honestly, I am incredulous.
If someone's claim is that something exists, and is real, then that claim needs evidence,. or reasoning IF it is being used to persuade someone else.

If someone's claim is that something does NOT exist, then they need to at the least, disprove, or cast doubt on any evidence to the contrary.

If someone's claim is their personal feeling, or opinion.. then the evidence required is them verifying that that is their opinion.

If I ask someone if they believe in something, anything, and they say "no" I can't ask them to prove why they don't believe.. What I can do, is offer arguments to persuade, and they can accept the arguments, or deny them. If they deny them, I can ask why.
Someone's statement that they don't believe is not a claim made to explain reality, or made to persuade another towards their belief. It is a claim of opinion.
Evidence required to prove personal belief is simply stating your belief.

And yes, I know "proof" is math, but I use it incorrectly like this a lot. If it hits the point where my meaning becomes lost, I'll try to avoid using it ni the future.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Or, let me word it this way..

If someone tells me "I believe in god"
My responce is "ok."

If they say "I believe in god, and you need to too!"
Then they're trying to persuade me, and I need evidence.

If I say "I don't believe in god"
I don't feel I need evidence, unless asked a more specific question, because my "claim" is simply a statement about my opinions.

If I say "I don't believe in god, and you can't either"
Then I am attempting to persuade, and need to back up my argument with more, because it is no longer a personal opinion, it is now me attempting to change someone else's view on how the world works.

 

[Thief]

Or, let me word it this way..

If someone tells me "I believe in god"
My responce is "ok."

If they say "I believe in god, and you need to too!"
Then they're trying to persuade me, and I need evidence.

If I say "I don't believe in god"
I don't feel I need evidence, unless asked a more specific question, because my "claim" is simply a statement about my opinions.

If I say "I don't believe in god, and you can't either"
Then I am attempting to persuade, and need to back up my argument with more, because it is no longer a personal opinion, it is now me attempting to change someone else's view on how the world works.

This would be a demonstration of word play.....
skipping from belief to opinion and back to belief with the word need in between.

Evidence?...not from science.....won't happen.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, and no repeatable experiment.
No proof.
This is theology.
You just have to think about it.

Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it.

You can't separate Cause and effect.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This would be a demonstration of word play.....
skipping from belief to opinion and back to belief with the word need in between.

Evidence?...not from science.....won't happen.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, and no repeatable experiment.
No proof.
This is theology.
You just have to think about it.

Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it.

You can't separate Cause and effect.

...maybe you should read it again.

lets try this way...

"I do, or don't believe in god"
..fine, no evidence needed. That is your opinion.

"I do or don't believe in god, and you need to believe the same way I do"
..fine, then it's a persuasive claim, and you need either evidence, or a refutation of any contrary evidence.

Where is my word play?

Example in action.

"Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it"

ok, if that is only your belief, and you're not trying to convince me of that, fine.
You believe that, and I disagree.

"Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it"

If you want me to believe that, then it's a persuasive claim, and I need some evidence to accept your claim, and believe it.

 

[Thief]

...maybe you should read it again.

lets try this way...

"I do, or don't believe in god"
..fine, no evidence needed. That is your opinion.

"I do or don't believe in god, and you need to believe the same way I do"
..fine, then it's a persuasive claim, and you need either evidence, or a refutation of any contrary evidence.

Where is my word play?

Example in action.

"Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it"

ok, if that is only your belief, and you're not trying to convince me of that, fine.
You believe that, and I disagree.

"Evidence as in cause and effect?
The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.
You just have to think about it"

If you want me to believe that, then it's a persuasive claim, and I need some evidence to accept your claim, and believe it.

You either 'need' to say it is so....or you don't.
You have no emotional need...so you don't.

My 'claim' is not emotional......it is logic.

You need to separate cause and effect...to stand your ground.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You either 'need' to say it is so....or you don't.
You have no emotional need...so you don't.

This isn't talking about some drive, or desire type of "need"..
..This is "when do you need to use evidence to back up a statement or claim."

My 'claim' is not emotional......it is logic.

It doesn't matter if it's emotional, logical, random, or chocolate pudding.
It matters if it's a statement of your opinion, or if you're stating it to persuade me to believe as you do.

If it's simply your opinion, then ok. That's your opinion...
if you're making a claim meant to cause me to believe in, or follow your belief, then it needs evidence.

You need to separate cause and effect...to stand your ground.

No, if your claim was a persuasive attempt, all I have to do, is explain why I don't accept your claim.
Which is a completely separate conversation that what i am saying.

Right now I am only talking about when you need evidence or logic to back up what you say.

 

[Alceste]

In response to the OP, I don't "choose" to believe anything, ever. I am persuaded by the evidence. No evidence + no chance of anyone, ever persuading me of anything without a great deal of evidence = no belief in invisible, ineffable creatures of any kind. Pretty simple equation.

No amount of sophistry anyone could possibly come up with will ever persuade me of a single thing. My mind absorbs only evidence, not opinions, and with that evidence draws its own conclusions.

If you believe in a creator god, then this is the mind she gave me, and many others as well. Best make peace with that.

 

[Thief]

This isn't talking about some drive, or desire type of "need"..
..This is "when do you need to use evidence to back up a statement or claim."




It doesn't matter if it's emotional, logical, random, or chocolate pudding.
It matters if it's a statement of your opinion, or if you're stating it to persuade me to believe as you do.

If it's simply your opinion, then ok. That's your opinion...
if you're making a claim meant to cause me to believe in, or follow your belief, then it needs evidence.




No, if your claim was a persuasive attempt, all I have to do, is explain why I don't accept your claim.
Which is a completely separate conversation that what i am saying.

Right now I am only talking about when you need evidence or logic to back up what you say.

Are hedging to a complaint of proselytizing or just attempting denial of ...
cause and effect?

 

[Thief]

In response to the OP, I don't "choose" to believe anything, ever. I am persuaded by the evidence. No evidence + no chance of anyone, ever persuading me of anything without a great deal of evidence = no belief in invisible, ineffable creatures of any kind. Pretty simple equation.

No amount of sophistry anyone could possibly come up with will ever persuade me of a single thing. My mind absorbs only evidence, not opinions, and with that evidence draws its own conclusions.

If you believe in a creator god, then this is the mind she gave me, and many others as well. Best make peace with that.

And shall go together ...quietly into that chaos?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Are hedging to a complaint of proselytizing or just attempting denial of ...
cause and effect?

yeah...
I've tried to explain my stance 3 different ways, and you and I are still not even talking about the same topic..

All i'm talking about, is when evidence is needed.
Not "what evidence", not "give me examples of evidence" not "what is YOUR evidence"
None of those are my topic.
Mine is

WHEN should you back your claim with evidence.
that's all.



I'm just going to step out now, because I don't think we can get past miscommunication.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The bottom line is God can't match the kind of truth that the sun or the rain brings. Undisputed and acknowledged, it's funny then on how God in all his power and majesty, just cannot equate the simple truths the sun and rain brings.

 

[shawn001]

lets not forget rainbows.

 

[Thief]

yeah...
I've tried to explain my stance 3 different ways, and you and I are still not even talking about the same topic..

All i'm talking about, is when evidence is needed.
Not "what evidence", not "give me examples of evidence" not "what is YOUR evidence"
None of those are my topic.
Mine is

WHEN should you back your claim with evidence.
that's all.



I'm just going to step out now, because I don't think we can get past miscommunication.

Farewell.....but if you return.....
I will still be cornerstoned upon cause and effect.