Why don't you believe in a god

[A Christian Sceptic]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

[slingblade]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.

[tkingdoll]

It's a stupid idea, that's why. A really, really stupid idea, right up there with Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Puff the Magic Dragon and Zeus and Hera.

Why believe one dumb wishful thinking idea and not the others? If I believe in god then there is not a single compelling reason not to believe in fairies as well. It's all silly reasoning based on fear of death and the unknown. I don't need any crutches, so I don't need to believe in magical creators.

Let me turn it back to you: why do you believe in the Christian god and not the gods of the Ancient Greeks?

[kmortis]

Actually, I generally put it as: there has been, at this point, no evidence for a deity that does not have a naturalistic conclusion. Could there be one, yes; just just that there's no necessity for one to exist. The Universe is a complex enough of a place without a deity, no need to complicate it further.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.

[slingblade]

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.


I got tired of talking to the ceiling and expecting an answer.

[kmortis]

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.

I dunno, if there is a creator, it would seem that the evidence would call their intelligence into serious question. Sex and urination through the same orifice?

[hgc]

Because it's the default position

... or, to put it another way ...

Why should I?

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's a stupid idea, that's why. A really, really stupid idea, right up there with Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Puff the Magic Dragon and Zeus and Hera.

Why believe one dumb wishful thinking idea and not the others? If I believe in god then there is not a single compelling reason not to believe in fairies as well.

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

[cyborg]

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

First define "intelligence".

[kmortis]

First define "intelligence".

Jesus, man. He's already on the hook to define a god, now you want him to define "intelligence"? You're cruel.

[tkingdoll]

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

It's wishful thinking because it avoids the oh-so-uncomfortable question "what is the meaning of life?". Or more specifically, it removes the extremely uncomfortable notion that there isn't a meaning of life and we're just pooping, eating, killing machines like all the other animals. We just make cool tools.

It's wishful thinking because it makes us the special pet creation of a higher intelligence instead of an accidental gloop of stuff.

You didn't answer my question.

[TX50]

It's a bronze age superstition. Most of us don't live in the bronze age any
more.

[cyborg]

Jesus, man. He's already on the hook to define a god, now you want him to define "intelligence"? You're cruel.

Logic is cruel.

[Fnord]

Actually, I generally put it as: there has been, at this point, no evidence for a deity that does not have a naturalistic conclusion. Could there be one, yes; just just that there's no necessity for one to exist. The Universe is a complex enough of a place without a deity, no need to complicate it further.


Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

[the PC apeman]

Not only is there no evidence for a god, there is no need for a god.

[Tricky]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.
I was fortunate enough that my experience with religion was not as horrible as Slingblades, but I too was a former believer. I gradually stopped believing in God because not one thing that God was supposed to do every happened. In fact, the world behaved exactly as you would expect it to behave if there weren't any sort of loving Father.

[Autolite]

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

Science can't prove or disprove a god exists because god doesn't exist. Science can't prove or disprove leprechauns exist because leprechauns don't exist. The same can be said for everything that doesn't exist...

[tuc0]

What is this "god" I keep hearing about?

[Zarathustra]

I would have surmised that a being omniscient enough to create, maintain, organize and govern the actions of each and every particle and its infinitesimal sub-particles of the entire universe at every given moment in time, would, in his magnificent immutableness of Alpha and Omega, bestow upon we, his finest creations, mere man, a language which would not, when spelled backwards, reveal his name to be a creature which widdles and poops on the living room carpet.

[Tricky]

I would have surmised that a being omniscient enough to create, maintain, organize and govern the actions of each and every particle and its infinitesimal sub-particles of the entire universe at every given moment in time, would, in his magnificent immutableness of Alpha and Omega, bestow upon we, his finest creations, mere man, a language which would not, when spelled backwards, reveal his name to be a creature which widdles and poops on the living room carpet.
Are you having that problem with your hawhay too?

[kilgore_trout]

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence".


I'm not sure what else you're really looking for... but yea, as long as we're not talking in terms of religion, and just off of a "what if there is something out there", then there does have to remain that possibility.

Of course there's also a problem as to what exactly there is to look for in an "intelligent creator". There's no way to observe or measure the impact of this being if there is no real definition of what should and could be observed or measured. So if there was such an "intelligent creator", how could we ever know?

In terms of why "I" don't believe in a traditional religious God I would go with religion's biggest weakness, lack of evidence, is it's greatest strength, faith.

[Furi]

I have never had the need for one, so I never invented or adopted one.

[CapelDodger]

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

As a Christian, your god isn't mean or uncaring or even particularly bloodthirsty. What do you prefer - the world with your god, or exactly the same world without? That's the choice you have. You've no evidence one way or the other as to which is true, and that's where the suspicion of wishful thinking comes from.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there's no reason to. If gods hadn't been imagined before now there's nothing in the world we observe that would suggest their existence. Dark Matter and Dark Energy yes, gods no. The whole god-concept is on the permanent defensive. Check out how many gods have fallen by the wayside over the last few thousand years. There's no reason to think your Christian god is any more meaningful.

Psychology and anthropology explain belief in gods, which is something worth studying and understanding because it has had an enormous impact on history and tells us a lot about how the human mind works. As a man once said, the proper study of man is man himself.

[Bluefire]

First off is of course the general "burden of proof" question. Eg. It is not up to us to disprove gods existence, but for the claimant to prove that he exists.
Rephrased: until there is satisfactory evidence, "unbelief" is the default position. (Just as it is with the magic teapot claimed to be orbiting Saturn)

As for specific proof against a god, there is of course no direct proof of or against him (just as there is no direct proof against the FSM or the invisible unicorn), but there is circumstantial evidence.

These circumstantial evidence are really in the categories of evidence against specific claims by the religious, and of the psychology of humans.

For example, good arguments can be made against any claim of necessity of a supreme being (this is the first category). Also there is ample evidence that human beings psychologically make up gods, when they lack particular understanding and/or answers (or for comfort). Eg. look at the historical gods of thunder etc.

There is also extensive scientific evidence explaining the various religious emotional experiences people are reporting as to having convinced them. (Eg. sleep paralysis research, the helmet inducing "religious" experiences in controlled conditions etc.)

So to summarize:
- There is NO positive evidence of god.
- For the other phenomenas that there are evidence of, NO god is needed as an explanation. (And actually, I would argue that for arguments of design, creation etc. god is not even helpful)

This may not be 100% proof of gods nonesxistence, but it is enough to conclude that given the information we have, belief in god is unsupported and irrational.

To be more personally honest of my belief, and the thread-titles question. The reason I don't believe is purely because of a lack of positive evidence for gods existence. If I was god, and I in any way cared about my existence being accepted I would have made it painfully obvious. Hell, I would be the prankster type that layed out the dinosaur bones in the earth to form the text: "I put these here to fool you" and other similar things :).

[Bluefire]

Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

Nonbelief in god is only "faith" in the same way that nonbelief in Santa is "faith". Would you equate belief in santa and nonbelief in santa?

[danielk]

Why should I believe in god? I never did. My model of the world might not be complete, but it's a hell of a lot more consistent than it would be with a god added to the mix.

I think you'll have a hard time to convince someone who didn't grew up in a culture where god belief was the default. Also, the classic stereotype that people are atheist because of bad experiences with religion doesn't work.

[CapelDodger]

What is this "god" I keep hearing about?

A new Fragrance pour l'homme. You get a lot of this stuff in the run-up to Winter Solstice (or "Christmas" as it's known in the marketing world).

[Foster Zygote]

I was fortunate enough that my experience with religion was not as horrible as Slingblades, but I too was a former believer. I gradually stopped believing in God because not one thing that God was supposed to do every happened. In fact, the world behaved exactly as you would expect it to behave if there weren't any sort of loving Father.

That's pretty much how it happened with me. Oh, and uh... God never gave me a pony.

[CapelDodger]

Logic is cruel.

I prefer to regard it as disinterested, but inexorable.

Go with the flow of logic and you've no problem. Apart from the problems logic dictates you've got, of course, and logic can minimise those. Faith? Not so much. Maintaining it becomes a problem in itself - and let's face it, we've all got enough practical problems to be getting on with.

[danielk]

I do, however, believe that GOD (http://live.gnome.org/OnlineDesktop) will turn out to be pretty cool.


(No, it isn't a backronym.)

[Silly Green Monkey]

It seems I am not alone in giving up after pouring out my worship and hearing nothing in return.

[Madalch]

1) I never saw any reason to.
2) My Christian friends and neighbors used very stupid arguments to try to convince me to believe in God.
3) People who believed in God couldn't get their stories straight- they were always contradicting each other and what the Bible said.

[Fnord]

Nonbelief in god is only "faith" in the same way that nonbelief in Santa is "faith". Would you equate belief in santa and nonbelief in santa?

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion. And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

[articulett]

I dunno, if there is a creator, it would seem that the evidence would call their intelligence into serious question. Sex and urination through the same orifice?

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Plus, this website told me: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

[Furi]

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Well you XX types did get dealt a better genetic hand, our gonads ended up on the outside, and don't get me started on facial or arse hair.

[sol invictus]

I have no need for such a hypothesis.

[volatile]

Might I suggest the conversation would be more fruitful if you told us why you do believe in a God?

[IMST]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

[JoeEllison]

My mom told me when I was a little kid that stories involving talking animals and magic were all MAKE BELIEVE. There's no reason to change my mind on that one.

[Furi]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

At least pastafarianism and the pelagasian (have I spelled that right) are a hell* of a lot more interesting

*using hell in a nordic mythology way :p

[Silentknight]

I would ask that ACS write down all the reasons why he doesn't believe in the gods of other religions. Chances are that those are the same reasons why atheists don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god.

Also, an intelligent creator is not necessarily a god. A god by definition is a worshiped being. An intelligent creator could be anything from an alien lifeform, to any tool-making species, to one of us.

[JonM1121]

I have to not believe in God for work. I do counter-missionary work for the Chinese government.

[kmortis]

I have to not believe in God for work. I do counter-missionary work for the Chinese government.

You ministrate to counters? In case the laminate is verklempt and needs a touch of cheering up?

[Hokulele]

Why don't you believe in a god


Because it doesn't gain me anything.

[kmortis]

Because it doesn't gain me anything.

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.

[Big Les]

I sometimes wish I could believe in god. Maybe this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,950,Believe-in-God-Spray,As-Seen-on-TV) will help me?

[ChaoticLimbs]

I should think that there actually IS evidence that gods do not exist. For one, so far every event that's been documented has been found to obey natural laws of cause and effect. It would be nearly impossible for an acting deity to manipulate matter or energy without leaving some forensic trail which would reveal the interference. In studying interactions of matter and energy, and in studying archeology, paleontology, and astronomy, every time we find a cause and effect relationship that makes sense, it is evidence that no god interfered with that particular event.
Therefore, eventually over time we will build an inventory of known events, and if they continue to make sense (show evidence of non-interference), then that evidence would at least suggest that gods are not an actor in our universe.

[Hokulele]

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.


Then I would have to pay taxes on the gift. :cool:

[JoeEllison]

Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

Wrong, and very weak. But, whatever lets you live with your silly little superstition. *shrugs*

[kmortis]

Then I would have to pay taxes on the gift. :cool:

Only if you report it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No evidence.

~~ Paul

[Hokulele]

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.


Actually, this leads to an interesting thought, why just believe in a god? Why not believe in a whole bunch of them? What is the logical process that substantiates monotheism?

Meh, I should get back to cooking dinner and maybe have a glass of wine to help.

[CapelDodger]

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion.

A nonsensical assertion can be ignored. What assertions do you have faith in?

And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

It requires the faith of a believer in a divine creator for the assertion even to be made. Nobody asserted the non-existence of a divine creator before somebody asserted its existence.

There's no good reason to think that your assertion of the existence of a god - which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not originate with you, it's something you're passing on - isn't vacuous.

You'll argue forever that I can't prove it's vacuous, but frankly I don't give a toss. I don't have faith that I don't, but I don't.

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

You know as well as I do that "faith" doesn't apply to Saint Nick. Obvious nonsense. You clearly understand where I'm coming from, and yet you have this fenced-off area defended by "faith".

I need no more faith to disbelieve in your god, or any god, or anything supernatural, than I do to disbelieve in Saint Nick. Only belief demands faith, and only believers see it where it doesn't exist.

[CapelDodger]

I should think that there actually IS evidence that gods do not exist.

Conclusive evidence for any gods that have been too well specified. And there's the rub. A lesson has been learnt. Sophistiicated modern gods are mysterious, unknowable, and to cap it all, ineffable.

[Bikewer]

Paul C. made the most concise comment.

In addition to there being no evidence to support belief in a god, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that human beings are predisposed to invent such beings.

I like the parsimony argument as well....What's simpler? The notion that there is a vast eternal "void" which has built in the energetic potential to cause "bang" events, or an eternal complex being complex and intelligent enough to create universes from scratch?

[GeeMack]

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.


So according to your logic: "Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance [sic] of [anything particular thing], then [that thing] must exist." It must be quite a burden believing in the existence of a virtually limitless number of things, all those things for which there is no evidence to disprove their existence. Or do you wallow in the hypocrisy of picking and choosing particular things to which you apply this line of reasoning? (And therefore, of course, completely negating the possibility that your notion is reasonable.)

[Smackety]

Because no meaningful definition of "God" can stand up to scrutiny.

[Mobyseven]

No evidence.

~~ Paul

Ditto.

[tsg]

Define "god".

[alfaniner]

There is no such thing as "evidence against". There is only "evidence for". Where is it?

[fuelair]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

There is no evidence against same - though, having said that, I personally regard the existence of evil as that evidence. The problem - on your end - is that it is your job to provide evidence of it's existence rather than mine to provide the negative (one example, impossible to examine every case, yada, yada, yada).
The faith of one person or billions of people is proof of nothing except that they have a belief. Philosophical arguments in support of same are simply words - not evidence (words are wonderful and can be used for much good or evil - but they cannot prove or disprove physical facts/physical presence).

This is at least a second thread from you on this topic. What is your point?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Might I suggest the conversation would be more fruitful if you told us why you do believe in a God?

I don't think there would be enough space for me to write all the reasons.

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

I miss relatives who have died.

I've seen prayers answered.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)

[Hokulele]

I don't think there would be enough space for me to write all the reasons.

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

I miss relatives who have died.

I've seen prayers answered.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)


Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

Unless you tell me one of those is the god beyond everything - the intelligent creator - it seems irrelevant to me one way or another. If I felt their existence mattered to me I'd probably spend the rest of my life trying to find them. It might be interesting if they existed (for all I know they could), they might be fun to think about, but really they don't have any implications one way or another for my life.

As for Greek Mythology - I don't think there is a supreme, supreme god. Chaos comes close, but not quite. I'm personally not interested in anything that could be considered a sub-god or less of a god than the main one.

Here's a great website though: http://www.the-pantheon.com/

[A Christian Sceptic]

At least pastafarianism and the pelagasian (have I spelled that right) are a hell* of a lot more interesting

*using hell in a nordic mythology way :p


I think you mean Pelagianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

[cyborg]

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

Balanced to achieve what?

I miss relatives who have died.

The configuration of atoms you recognised as "relative" have been realigned. Their patterns are lost in chaos.

I've seen prayers answered.

I've seen dreams crushed.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I think humans are stupid.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with.

You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines.

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I sometimes wish I could believe in god. Maybe this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,950,Believe-in-God-Spray,As-Seen-on-TV) will help me?

Great. Now I find out about that stuff.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?

How do you mean by applies to athiests?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:



Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.



Balanced to achieve what?



The configuration of atoms you recognised as "relative" have been realigned. Their patterns are lost in chaos.



I've seen dreams crushed.



I think humans are stupid.



You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines.

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.

So is that why you don't believe in god - or is that some sort of attempt at making me not believe?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This is at least a second thread from you on this topic. What is your point?

Just wanted to know. That's all. This is the religion section, isn't it? These are post about religious things that I'm interested in. Since it appears most of the people here are athiests I thought these posts were quite relevant.

[Hokulele]

How do you mean by applies to athiests?


Well, let's take the comment about missing relatives. You mentioned that this is one reason why you believe in a god (which is fair enough). Since I do not believe in a god, do you think that I do not miss my relatives who have died? Or that I maybe have a different idea of what death means?

I do not mean this as criticism of your belief, but rather as a means to figure out why you believe as you do, and maybe help you understand why I believe the way I do.

[cyborg]

So is that why you don't believe in god

No - I don't believe in X. The letters you have chosen to replace X with are arbitrary.

- or is that some sort of attempt at making me not believe?

Order of the day - there seems little point in communicating without the potential for beliefs to shift - even those considered unshiftable.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, let's take the comment about missing relatives. You mentioned that this is one reason why you believe in a god (which is fair enough). Since I do not believe in a god, do you think that I do not miss my relatives who have died? Or that I maybe have a different idea of what death means?.

Of course I think you still miss them, and of course you might have a different ideadof what death is. As far as I can tell grief and missing dead relatives is common in all cultures that have ever been around since recorded history. How grief is expressed has been different through cultures, but grief itself is still there.

If you're wondering if I think you could have each of the items on my list and be an athiest - the answer is yes. But the question was why I believe, and those are some reasons. I've got lots more, but really don't know what else that would be usefull for.

I do appreciate your question though, and if you have any more feel free to ask.

[A Christian Sceptic]

No - I don't believe in X. The letters you have chosen to replace X with are arbitrary.



Order of the day - there seems little point in communicating without the potential for beliefs to shift - even those considered unshiftable.

You started that post with:
Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:

I was trying to figure out what your post was for. A list of your reasons for not believing or what?

[cyborg]

A list of your reasons for not believing or what?

Counterpoints. Why I don't believe doesn't require a list - it can expand to one at will.

Dance around the X if you choose.

[tsg]

Still waiting for a definition of "god" I'm supposed to be arguing against.


But not holding my breath.

[X]

No - I don't believe in X.

:mad:

(hooray for out-of-context quoting :p)



To answer the OP:
Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.
Truth be told, I stopped believing in the Christian God of the Bible many years ago. I tried substituting for it with "there is something, but we can't say what, how, how many, why or when. The I read the God Delusion, and discovered that atheism was, in fact, a valid option. Up until then, everyone around me believed, to vrying degrees of literalness, so the possiblity of not believing in something never even occured to me. It's a great burden off my mind to realize that my logical conclusions don't have to be surrendered to support a popular viewpoint.
And it all boils down to a decided lack of that "extraordinary evidence".

[Hokulele]

Of course I think you still miss them, and of course you might have a different ideadof what death is. As far as I can tell grief and missing dead relatives is common in all cultures that have ever been around since recorded history. How grief is expressed has been different through cultures, but grief itself is still there.

If you're wondering if I think you could have each of the items on my list and be an athiest - the answer is yes. But the question was why I believe, and those are some reasons. I've got lots more, but really don't know what else that would be usefull for.

I do appreciate your question though, and if you have any more feel free to ask.


Thanks, I was trying to work the discussion towards the cultural implications of your original question. For full disclosure, my mother is first generation Japanese, and I live in Hawai'i, so it would be valid to say that I do not believe in a god since I was not raised to do so, where you may have been raised to believe in a god. Beyond culture, there have been studies in belief on a neurological basis that you may find interesting. I would recommend reading V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain for a neat look at some of the research that has been done in this. He is Indian (as you might be able to tell from his name ;)), and he does a very good job of refraining from making any judgements on the existence (or non-existence) of god(s). You would probably enjoy the book if you are interested in why people behave the way they do.

[Tricky]

Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?
Actually, with a minor rewording, that one applies to atheists too. I've had deep and sincere wishes for things that later actually happened. This is the essence of a "prayer being answered".

[Diagoras]

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.
What do you mean by "intricate"? To me, what is truly amazing is that all the phenomena around us emerge from simple mathematical laws. I find it far more awe-inspiring to think that we humans are the product of the natural laws of matter and energy, than to think that we're only here because some god or gods or goddess or whatever decided to cook up a batch of humans and see what happens.
I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.
Preciously balanced how? We happen to inhabit a tiny rock which just so happens to be the only place we know of that is remotely habitable for multicellular life forms. The vast majority of the cosmos is vacuum, absolute nothingness, interspersed with clouds of gas and dust and the occasional star.

Remember, the life you see around you is not here because the environment was created especially for it. It is here because, through the process of Darwinian natural selection, it has adapted to the environment around it. You should not be surprised to find yourself in an environment where you can breathe the air and drink the water—if you couldn't, you wouldn't be here.
I miss relatives who have died.
I miss people who have died too. But you have to deal with the fact that they're gone. Believing in God because you miss relatives who have died is sort of like believing you're going to win the lottery because you miss all the money you lost at the casino, or believing that you're in perfect health because you felt bad when the doctor told you you had cancer. Life isn't fair, and one of the ways it isn't fair is that people's existences come to an end. Part of maturity is learning to look the unpleasant aspects of existence like death and pain and sadness in the face and deal with them realistically, instead of retreating to fantasy or trying not to think about them.

I've seen prayers answered.
I've seen prayers not answered. The prayers of the 9/11 victims, for example. How many people do you think prayed not to die that day? And yet, God did not answer their prayers. So this whole prayer thing is a hit-and-miss thing, kind of like making a wish when you see a shooting star or before blowing out the candles on a birthday cake. In fact, it would be surprising if those wishes never came true. The question is, do they come true more often than they would by chance? And there just isn't any evidence that wishing on a shooting star or birthday candles or any of the gods and goddesses of the world's religions actually increases the likelihood of having your wish fulfilled. I would love to be shown otherwise.

By the way, why do you think God answers prayers? Is he like a personal servant to you, who also happens to be an inconceivable infinite transcendental entity? That concept makes no sense to me, and strikes me as extremely arrogant.

I think flowers are beautiful.
Me too. What does that have to do with God? Do you think everything would be ugly if some magic dude in the sky didn't specifically create it to be beautiful? That is, if you found out there was no God, would things cease to have beauty to you? Can things not just be beautiful on their own?

And surely the ugliness of rotting meat, dog feces and Sylvia Browne would be reason to disbelieve in a God, right? Or does that logic only work one way, the way that happens to line up with what you already believe?

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)
And I have not been blessed that way. I often feel alone and loveless, for no logical reason that I can come up with. Guess your God doesn't give a crap about my love life, only yours, huh? Why can't you see your amazing wife as amazing in and of herself rather than only amazing because God decided she would be amazing? Doesn't it give her more worth and value to regard her as someone whose amazingness comes from herself, rather than only being able to derive her amazingness from something exterior to her?

[Hokulele]

Actually, with a minor rewording, that one applies to atheists too. I've had deep and sincere wishes for things that later actually happened. This is the essence of a "prayer being answered".


Ah, so you were the one buying up copies of "The Secret".







(For those of you who do not spend much time in Community, Tricky and I make a habit of taking the mickey out of each other. It is all in good fun.)

[Diagoras]

Ignore this post.

[kmortis]

Ignore this post.

no

[-Fran-]

And I have not been blessed that way. I often feel alone and loveless, for no logical reason that I can come up with. Guess your God doesn't give a crap about my love life, only yours, huh? Why can't you see your amazing wife as amazing in and of herself rather than only amazing because God decided she would be amazing? Doesn't it give her more worth and value to regard her as someone whose amazingness comes from herself, rather than only being able to derive her amazingness from something exterior to her?

Not to mention that it seems to me he is putting both himself and his wife down by saying it like that. He can not see he has qualities in himself that another person can love without being influenced by magic powers? And his wife's love is a thing that was given to him by god? :boggled:

[kmortis]

Ah, so you were the one buying up copies of "The Secret".







(For those of you who do not spend much time in Community, Tricky and I make a habit of taking the mickey out of each other. It is all in good fun.)

Hok, just a point of etiquette. Don't explain jokes unless someone explicitly asks. Makes you sound like a boudin-eating Hawaiian.

[molly]

I think it's like one of those Magic Eye posters. I can never see anything in them, even when the person standing next to me points and says "Oooh, a bunny!"

I know other people have felt God's grace and love in watching the Northern Lights, or holding a newborn baby, or recovering from a serious illness (hopefully not all at the same time). But it didn't do it for me. Don't know why.

[Autolite]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

[-Fran-]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

:D

[A Christian Sceptic]

What do you mean by "intricate"? To me, what is truly amazing is that all the phenomena around us emerge from simple mathematical laws.


If you find math stuff interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio - It's fascinating.



Preciously balanced how? We happen to inhabit a tiny rock which just so happens to be the only place we know of that is remotely habitable for multicellular life forms. The vast majority of the cosmos is vacuum, absolute nothingness, interspersed with clouds of gas and dust and the occasional star.


I believe in him for that too.


Remember, the life you see around you is not here because the environment was created especially for it. It is here because, through the process of Darwinian natural selection, it has adapted to the environment around it. You should not be surprised to find yourself in an environment where you can breathe the air and drink the water—if you couldn't, you wouldn't be here.


and don't forget about Genetic Drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
That was probably pretty important too.

And yes I also think God was pretty important. But really, how he did it isn't that important to me except it's fascinating.


I miss people who have died too. But you have to deal with the fact that they're gone.


By simply saying "They're gone."? That's dealing with it?


I've seen prayers not answered.


Me too.


So this whole prayer thing is a hit-and-miss thing, kind of like making a wish when you see a shooting star or before blowing out the candles on a birthday cake.


I once prayed to see a shooting star and immediately me and the group of people I was with saw one. That was pretty cool. But really, my answered prayers are my answered prayers not yours, and my unanswered prayers are my unanswered prayers not yours. And I still believe in God because of both.


By the way, why do you think God answers prayers? Is he like a personal servant to you, who also happens to be an inconceivable infinite transcendental entity? That concept makes no sense to me, and strikes me as extremely arrogant.


Beats me why he answers prayers. I do know that most of my prayers aren't requests. I definitely don't consider him a personal wish giver.


And surely the ugliness of rotting meat, dog feces and Sylvia Browne would be reason to disbelieve in a God, right? Or does that logic only work one way, the way that happens to line up with what you already believe?


Well since those things exist and I believe in God I'd have to say "no - not for me".

I hope you understand those reasons are reasons I believe in a god in general - not reasons I ever came into the belief of God or even specifically why I believe in Christianity.

I could go on and on about other reasons I believe, but I'm not sure why that would be helpful for any of this discussion. I'm interested in finding out why you don't believe. that's the point of this thread.

[nescafe]

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.
<nitpick> Newton and Leibnitz both died childless.
So did Stalin and Hitler. Find a better definition of irrelevant. </nitpick>

[cyborg]

Newton and Leibnitz both died childless. So did Stalin and Hitler. Find a better definition of irrelevant.

Context:

"You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines."

They are irrelevant. The machine does not care about anything else.

[danielk]

Nope, Cyborg. Humanity added the element of culture to the equation. Adds the memes to the genes.

[cyborg]

I don't think the atoms care.

(At the risk of invoking, "how much does a meme weight?")

[danielk]

Of course they care. Ideas have consequences in the real world. Also, fundamentally, both genes and memes are just carriers of information. A human being is built according to its genetic code, just like a grand bridge is built according to the plans the architect came up with. In both cases atoms are moved around.

[Lonewulf]

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion. And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

Fnord, I still see you're posting.

Care to answer to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100807&page=4) thread?

You left rather abruptly and you aren't responding to PMs, so I figured you were MIA, KIA, or WIA in your Christmas War. Seems like you aren't...

[This Guy]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

I used to believe there was a God. Then I studied what I thought was His book and learned that if that was his book, he wasn't much of a god.

Once I determined to my satisfaction, that the god of the bible could not be real, I considered if there could be another God, or creator.

I decided that it really didn't matter, because if there was, it appears he/she isn't active in the world today, but appears to have started things off and stepped away.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

when i was 9 and in catholic school, i liked how hot this nun looked with her straight long hair always down.........
sorry what was your question again?

[Big Les]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

The one good line from Highlander "Endgame" (that's #4 out of 5 for those of you keeping count of how many "only one"s there actually can be... Watch the anime version though, it rock.

Anyway, back to the topic...

I don't believe in god mainly because I was never brought up to, I guess. I would like to think that I would have come to the same conclusion if I had been, but I can't know that. I was an active disbeliever before I reassessed this disbelief with critical thought, and came to much the same conclusions that in all likelihood, that it's an emotional crutch for many, and a way to power for some, all with no basis in reality or evidence.

[sol invictus]

Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.


That's way, way, way, way too many. There are only about 10^80.

[Lord Emsworth]

The notion of "God" is largely unintelligible to me. And it doesn't really get any better if antropomorphism after anthropomorphism is removed.

[Furi]

I think you mean Pelagianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

nope I actually meant pelasgian with the myths describing how the different peoples and religions where formed withinin the hellenic sphere

[Undesired Walrus]

I've seen prayers answered.


I prayed for my father to live. He didn't.

Why should God exist when he answers your prayers but not mine?

[Herzblut]

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.


For me, the "evidence" argument is worthless. I would even believe in something that's against all evidence if I feel for it, e.g. in critical phases of my live.

My lack of god believe is neither related to my scientific background. Science does not recommend nor advice against any belief, science is agnostic.

It is probably related to my view of the world as a huge self-organizing system. Self-organization is superior to any kind of central administration. That refers to political/economical systems as well as to biological ones. Organized insects, like ants, are self-organized in a way that there is no such thing as a central control instance in an ant state. There is just a set of primitive rules ants follow to build a system of amazingly high intelligence, for instance in terms of cargo transportation. I see nothing that leads towards any kind of centricity as suggested by monotheism.

Furthermore, but that might be an obsolete argument by now, I dislike referring to a catch-all answer "God did it" in case of outstanding answers to complex problems. I like to resolve those problems. Look, the idea of man we had a few centuries ago was basically that of a simple puppet, inspired only by God. Well, are we? Not a all! A human, especially its brain, is the most complex metabolism imaginable. Man is worth by itself, not by devine assistence.

Having said that, I admit I am not just a "cultural" but also a "moral christian". The teachings of Jesus fit my humanistic stance pretty well. From the paragraph before it's clear that I don't mind if Jesus were "just" another human being, quite the opposite is the case.

I also respect the social and personal role of religious faith. Freedom of religion is a human right, any attempt to withdraw it has to be combated by all means.

I hope I made myself understandable.

Herzblut

[T'ai Chi]

Organized insects, like ants, are self-organized in a way that there is no such thing as a central control instance in an ant state. There is just a set of primitive rules ants follow to build a system of amazingly high intelligence, for instance in terms of cargo transportation. I see nothing that leads towards any kind of centricity as suggested by monotheism.


If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.


I also respect the social and personal role of religious belief. Freedom of religion is a human right, any attempt to withdraw it has to be combated by all means.


I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene', many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.

[Herzblut]

If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.

She's called "queen", but is she? For me, she's the same slave to reproduction as any ant is. Genetic reproduction is the goal, anything else is tools to support it.


I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene',

That's the meaning of "human right", a right given to anybody based merely on being human.

many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.
I think your image of atheism is biased towards US circumstances. The European situation is different.

Herzblut

[Temporal Renegade]

I have several, some of which are shared with my esteemed fellow posters; but, let me ask a question, if I may:

Why do I 'need' a God?

[Temporal Renegade]

when i was 9 and in catholic school, i liked how hot this nun looked with her straight long hair always down.........
sorry what was your question again?

Ah, yes...Sister Mary Hot-Cha-Cha...wasn't she cloistered at St. Jezebel's School for Wayward Girls at one time?

:D

[T'ai Chi]

She's called "queen", but is she? For me, she's the same slave to reproduction as any ant is. Genetic reproduction is the goal, anything else is tools to support it.


Well she may be, to you, as Lyekis has 'interesting' ideas about marriage, but that doesn't make them so in reality. If one believes they are controlled by their genes, or memes, or whatever, they are welcome to believe that though.

If genetic reproduction is the goal in life, heck, why do things that don't support genetic reproduction at all?


I think your image of atheism is biased towards US circumstances. The European situation is different.


Well I was speaking about the world, so that doesn't change anything I said.

[Lonewulf]

I don't believe in a God for multiple reasons.

Reason one: No evidence for God. None at all.

Reason two: I can pick any religion, and they all have equal validity. I can be Hindu, Scientologist, Mormon, Catholic, or Santa Clause. The only difference that it possibly makes is what kind of paintings I put up, or what woo I spout; you can't say that about anything else, including economics, politics, or science. See if believing in a flat earth or a round earth are equally valid, and compare it to believing in Hindu gods or believing in Christianity.

Reason Two is true primarily for Reason One. In short: Not enough evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and nothing has ever been provided that is satisfactory except to the minds of the same kind of people that believe in Astrology, Psychics, and similar bunkum. It's all the same; stuff that's promised that gives no positive results.

I've talked with Christians about why they believe. They cite as their reasons for belief usually either because the Bible says it's right (argument by Authority), or explain that there was some event that happened to them that they couldn't explain through "natural" means; their life was saved, something strange happened, etc.

One strange event is not evidence enough, no matter what people claim. Sure, you can say it's "evidence for them", but everything is evidence to someone; that doesn't make the evidence valid. Does a train not hitting you really prove the existence of the afterlife, the soul, Heaven and Hell, God, angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, and all of the claims thereof?

[Lonewulf]

If genetic reproduction is the goal in life, heck, why do things that don't support genetic reproduction at all?
?

What?

[Herzblut]

Well she may be, to you, as Lyekis has 'interesting' ideas about marriage, but that doesn't make them so in reality.

Right. It's a (good) model of an aspect of nature, which is the best we can get in any case.


If one believes they are controlled by their genes, or memes, or whatever, they are welcome to believe that though.

I was talking about ants here, not humans. Reducing us to reproduction would be insane.

Herzblut

[kmortis]

Reason two: I can pick any religion, and they all have equal validity. I can be Hindu, Scientologist, Mormon, Catholic, or Santa Clause.

If you did, would that make you a Clausian? :p

[Lonewulf]

If you did, would that make you a Clausian? :p

Evidence?*






*That's a Clausian. A "Santa Clausian" has gifts.

[jjramsey]

Why I don't believe in God?

First off, I notice that events in the present day and recent past are pretty readily explained without recourse to the supernatural (which includes God, angels, etc.). There are some apparent outliers, but all of these so far can be grouped into three categories:

accounts of the supernatural that have been outright debunked
accounts that can be explained as a byproduct of confirmation bias, exaggeration, outright trickery, or other natural explanation
accounts that are infeasible to verify because, for example, they happen someplace that is expensive to access, like Africa, or the details of the account are sketchy enough that finding the actual people supposedly mentioned in the account is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Generally, the more impressive an account of the supernatural is, the more problematic it is to verify.

Ok, then, any good evidence of the supernatural is going to have to come from stories of the less recent past. The accounts of the Bible are an example. The Bible's credibility, though, just isn't that good, since its authors have made several errors that indicate either credulity or a willingness to fabricate. We again, then, have accounts of the supernatural that can be categorized under points 2 and 3 of the list above.

[Skeptic Guy]

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Plus, this website told me: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

For me, this is the concept for my "unbelief". Personally, I think it is the same as science's reaction to something like cold fusion. It's a really interesting idea but there's no evidence for it and until there is, I'm not buying it.

I know that a lot of people consider science and Christianity mutually exclusive, but I don't agree. Christianity makes a lot of claims for its gods for which there is no evidence, so at what point do you abandon the theory and move on?

But again, just my idea and I love my Christian brothers and sisters.

[Fiona]

I am with the "why would I?" camp.

What I do find interesting is this kind of view, from T'ai Chi
I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene', many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.

A right is, as Herzblut said, something automatic on the basis we are human. It has nothing at all to do with whether the majority of people are religious or not.
The claim that the majority of people are religious most of the time is likely to be true, but it is not certainly so. Cultural participation in socially cohesive ritual, sometimes accompanied by sanctions against dissent, does not necessarily show most people believe all or any of what is professed. I think there is some evidence to show that is not in fact how it is. For example many many people who say they are Roman Catholic quite clearly do not follow that church's teaching on contraception. They behaved very like other denominations and also like atheists once the opportunity for contraception was there. Are they in fact religious? If so how to explain that and other similar behaviour? I accept this is not a simple matter but I do not think the assertion is self evidently true, and I get a bit tired of it being brought out in support of claims that religion is in some sense a "natural" state. The "god gene" referred to may exist. But I don't have it. Some genes only manifest in some people, as I understand it, but if that is the situation then it cannot be comforting to know that one's faith is dependent on a genetic make up that is not universal. Or can it? I do not understand the religious mindset, so maybe this is how god sorts the sheep from the goats? Seems a bit unfair to me if we accept the story of the afterlife which includes eternal hell, but I suppose you could argue since god knows in advance either way this is just a different way of achieving his rather nasty purpose.

[soylent]

1. Distinct absence of any kind of evidence.

2. If there is/are deity(ies) I have no idea what they want or how they reason. There's no particular reason to assume that they care what I do or that any kind of action I can take is more likely to be useful.

3. There's no circumstance under which I could accept morals I don't agree with, without convincing evidence that they are more effective. I have no trouble pointing out deity imposed morals as imoral if I find them to be such; I don't see how religion in principle could be a useful guide for morals.

4. If a deity's purpose for me is one I don't agree with(e.g. spend every waking moment adulating god under threat of eternal damnation), it will not be a purpose I embrace. I fail to see how a deity could be a useful source of meaning or purpose in life.

5. I'm satisfied with "I don't know" as the provisionary answer to why there exists anything at all. If you insist on a first cause and that god must be this first cause; I will just point out that there's no particular reason to stop there. Accepting your argument that everything has a first cause I'm not going to grant god immunity. If you feel the need to terminate this chain of causes somewhere it may as well be the Universe. There are lots of options that do not invoke a god and I'm unwilling to spin the roulette will and put faith in any one of them.

[nescafe]

"You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines."

They are irrelevant. The machine does not care about anything else.
Technically, "the machine" does not care at all.
At the level of genes, relevant and irrelevant are not even in context, because there is no intentionality involved -- to think otherwise is to commit the grievous sin of anthropomorphization of atoms and molecules. At that level there are only things interacting with other things.
(At the risk of invoking, "how much does a meme weight?")
The same as a bit. ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

nope I actually meant pelasgian with the myths describing how the different peoples and religions where formed withinin the hellenic sphere

Thanks for clarifying. I tried different spellings (except for that one apparently) and couldin't find anything else. That is an interesting subject.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I prayed for my father to live. He didn't.

Why should God exist when he answers your prayers but not mine?

I'm talking about some reasons I believe not why he exists or doesn't exist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Define "god".
Absolutely, but I've given up on this request. You shall not receive a coherent answer.

~~ Paul

[A Christian Sceptic]

I hope I made myself understandable.

Herzblut

I understood. Thanks for answering.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Define "god".

First define "define"? :D

[Hokulele]

Hok, just a point of etiquette. Don't explain jokes unless someone explicitly asks. Makes you sound like a boudin-eating Hawaiian.


I am a boudin-eating Hawai'ian. Besides, if I hadn't explained myself, people in this sub-forum would think that I am a mean-spirited hag just lying in wait to tromp all over Tricky any time he opens his mouth (figuratively speaking).


Oh, wait . . .

[Diagoras]

If you find math stuff interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio - It's fascinating.
Fascinating, yes. Reason to believe in a God, no.
By simply saying "They're gone."? That's dealing with it?
No, obviously that's not the whole mourning process. But part of dealing with it is accepting the fact that death is the end, that the dead are dead and they're not off in happy Candy-Cane Cloud Land waiting for you. Again, part of maturity is learning to deal with reality the way it is instead of believing in fantasies so you don't feel so bad. Pretending you don't have cancer isn't really dealing with the cancer, pretending people in the third world all have plenty of food isn't really dealing with famine, and pretending your dead relatives are off in some fantasy land isn't really dealing with the reality of death.

I once prayed to see a shooting star and immediately me and the group of people I was with saw one. That was pretty cool. But really, my answered prayers are my answered prayers not yours, and my unanswered prayers are my unanswered prayers not yours. And I still believe in God because of both.
How is that a reason for believing in God though? I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove? It proves you can wish for stuff and sometimes get what you want. Which totally contradicts what you say...here:

Beats me why he answers prayers. I do know that most of my prayers aren't requests. I definitely don't consider him a personal wish giver.
Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?
I hope you understand those reasons are reasons I believe in a god in general - not reasons I ever came into the belief of God or even specifically why I believe in Christianity.

I could go on and on about other reasons I believe, but I'm not sure why that would be helpful for any of this discussion. I'm interested in finding out why you don't believe. that's the point of this thread.
Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me. Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.

[Lonewulf]

No, obviously that's not the whole mourning process. But part of dealing with it is accepting the fact that death is the end, that the dead are dead and they're not off in happy Candy-Cane Cloud Land waiting for you. Again, part of maturity is learning to deal with reality the way it is instead of believing in fantasies so you don't feel so bad. Pretending you don't have cancer isn't really dealing with the cancer, pretending people in the third world all have plenty of food isn't really dealing with famine, and pretending your dead relatives are off in some fantasy land isn't really dealing with the reality of death.

How is that a reason for believing in God though? I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove? It proves you can wish for stuff and sometimes get what you want. Which totally contradicts what you say...here:

Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?

Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me. Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.
+1

I bet most of your good points will go ignored by the religious, though. No matter the logic you use, they always make their Saving Throw Vs. Logical Argument. Comes with immunity. :/

[A Christian Sceptic]

Fascinating, yes. Reason to believe in a God, no.


I agree. But it is fascinating.



I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove?


It doesn't prove anything. I never said it did. I said that's a reason I believe.


Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?


Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.


Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me.

That's fine.


Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I've never argued his existence. It can't be done either way.


I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.

Good. At least your open to the possibility.

[Moochie]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

The OP appears to ask, "Why don't you believe in a god" -- I say "appears" because there's no question mark.

My answer is that I've never been presented with any compelling evidence that such a thing exists. That's all.


M.

[Lonewulf]

Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.
The funny thing about that was that Douglas Adams was an atheist, and friend of Richard Dawkins.

In fact, Dawkins even said that Adams helped him in his "conversion" to atheism. ;)

[fuelair]

Just wanted to know. That's all. This is the religion section, isn't it? These are post about religious things that I'm interested in. Since it appears most of the people here are athiests I thought these posts were quite relevant.Not arguing that - pointing out that both threads are on exactly the same topic - just different titles. That begins (especially if any more show up) to look like spamming as opposed to just asking.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The funny thing about that was that Douglas Adams was an atheist, and friend of Richard Dawkins.

In fact, Dawkins even said that Adams helped him in his "conversion" to atheism. ;)

Yep. I know. His books are funny.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not arguing that - pointing out that both threads are on exactly the same topic - just different titles. That begins (especially if any more show up) to look like spamming as opposed to just asking.

OK - well the first one I limited to science. This second one I wanted any reason. Sorry for the confusion. It's probably the missing ? that's causing it.

[DoubtingStephen]

Your question assumes that I do not believe in any God, but for me at least, this is not exactly correct. Certainly I do not believe in the amusingly paradoxical and obviously anthropomorphic Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy of Christian, Hebrew and Islamic theology. This ancient invention is laughable while also being worthy of scorn, so I do chip in and try to do my part.

Actually the Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible Pink Elephant named Pinky that lives underneath the olive tree in my front yard here in California. This is the absolute truth, and it is a well known fact because it has been revealed on this web site (http://godhatesfundamentalists.com/).

Now you might wonder, how can Doubting Stephen prove the existence of Pinky. Well, since Pinky is invisible it is rather difficult to directly observe Her. However when we examine her website it is obvious that these pages featuring video, news, and links to other websites that mock and ridicule a certain popular religion could not have just appeared spontaneously, therefore it is obvious that an Intelligent Designer, or at least a Sarcastic Designer, was required as the Creator of this and other related domains.

It is a matter of faith that it is Pinky, and not some imaginary yet uneaten pasta meal, that has created the entire Universe and the website linked above using nothing but Invisible Pink Elephant excretions and maybe a copy of Dreamweaver.

Once you have accepted Pinky into your life as your Personal Pachyderm you will be liberated from ancient and primitive superstitious cults that call for barbaric actions like genocide, infanticide, and anti-gay amendments.

So act today, accept Pinky, and you will be born again, possibly as a more festive and fashion conscious being, but certainly in the spirit of having lots of fun making fun of stupid religions.

[billydkid]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.The word or name "God" means nothing unless you ascribe to it some attributes - any attributes of any kind. Otherwise it is just a word that means nothing in particular.

[blobru]

I don't believe in God because my belief is irrelevant.

On the off chance that it's not, God knows what He can do.

[Diagoras]

It doesn't prove anything. I never said it did. I said that's a reason I believe.
How is it a reason to believe though? If prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, just like wishing on wishbones or shooting stars, that seems to me like a reason to think there's no God there. Not a proof of the absence of God, but it is one reason to disbelieve, right?
Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.
Truly a genius...

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" —Douglas Adams
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." —Douglas Adams
Good. At least your open to the possibility.
Are you open to the possibility that God doesn't exist?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Your question assumes that I do not believe in any God, but for me at least, this is not exactly correct. Certainly I do not believe in the amusingly paradoxical and obviously anthropomorphic Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy of Christian, Hebrew and Islamic theology. This ancient invention is laughable while also being worthy of scorn, so I do chip in and try to do my part.

Actually the Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible Pink Elephant named Pinky that lives underneath the olive tree in my front yard here in California. This is the absolute truth, and it is a well known fact because it has been revealed on this web site (http://godhatesfundamentalists.com/).

Now you might wonder, how can Doubting Stephen prove the existence of Pinky. Well, since Pinky is invisible it is rather difficult to directly observe Her. However when we examine her website it is obvious that these pages featuring video, news, and links to other websites that mock and ridicule a certain popular religion could not have just appeared spontaneously, therefore it is obvious that an Intelligent Designer, or at least a Sarcastic Designer, was required as the Creator of this and other related domains.

It is a matter of faith that it is Pinky, and not some imaginary yet uneaten pasta meal, that has created the entire Universe and the website linked above using nothing but Invisible Pink Elephant excretions and maybe a copy of Dreamweaver.

Once you have accepted Pinky into your life as your Personal Pachyderm you will be liberated from ancient and primitive superstitious cults that call for barbaric actions like genocide, infanticide, and anti-gay amendments.

So act today, accept Pinky, and you will be born again, possibly as a more festive and fashion conscious being, but certainly in the spirit of having lots of fun making fun of stupid religions.

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

[A Christian Sceptic]

How is it a reason to believe though? If prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, just like wishing on wishbones or shooting stars, that seems to me like a reason to think there's no God there. Not a proof of the absence of God, but it is one reason to disbelieve, right?


It's a reason many people have for disbelieving.

I also believe in God because of the Big Bang.

I also believe in God because of evolution.

I also believe in God because there's evil.

I also believe in God because there's good.


Are you open to the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Of course. But in this life I could never say I know he doesn't exist. I've never found a way to prove he doesn't. At the most I'd simply say "I don't know". But in all honesty - if all I had was to choose whether he did or didn't exist without any other factors (and no one lives in such an environment) - I'd assume he did exist. And yes - at that point it would probably be just wishful thinking. So I'd be a Diest at that stage I suppose. But once you decide there really might be a God then comes the hard part. Because if he exists there are many hard questions that appear and I'd want to figure out - like what is he like, is anything required of me, is it even possible to know much more about him, should I ever stop trying to learn more about him?

[Lonewulf]

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

And thank God I'm an atheist. :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

And thank God I'm an atheist. :)

Yeah - that Pinky sure wouldn't like either of us much.

[T'ai Chi]

...I get a bit tired of it being brought out in support of claims that religion is in some sense a "natural" state.


Well, "natural" is not the word I used. I did say that freedom of religion is probably born into us.

But in any case, looking at history and present day, it certainly seems abundant. Perhaps there is some evolutionary advantage to theism and atheism in general got selected out of the picture long ago?

[DoubtingStephen]

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

Pinky respects your avoidance of a Fundamentalist view, I suspect. And I hope it was clear that my earlier post in this thread was aimed only at one of the religions that are currently doing so much harm to human society, not at you at all.

[cyborg]

I also believe in God because of the Big Bang.

I also believe in God because of evolution.

I also believe in God because there's evil.

I also believe in God because there's good

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

[Hindmost]

The violence in all aspects of nature points to evolution and certainly a lack of intelligence in the design.

The poor design of the earth in general...who needs earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and tsumamis that randomly kill people independent of their religious beliefs.

The conflict of science and any religious text. i.e. If the bible were correct on creation of the universe and gave a timetable that was reasonable along with explanations that were plausible would give some indication of a super being.

Having studied the origin of certain religions also helped turn me into an atheist...so much of it is just a power play to control the sheeple. (and it works)

The absolute willingness of so many christians to throw 2/3rds of the worlds population in hell was always something I found horrible as well.

glenn

[A Christian Sceptic]

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

Yes that would be true too. Someone wanted some reasons so I posted some reasons. I tried to think of a few examples from different categories like the natural (pretty much everything), the supernatural (answered prayers), and intangible things (beauty, love). Those are all reasons I believe.

[CapelDodger]

First define "define"? :D

What do you mean by "first"?

[kmortis]

I am a boudin-eating Hawai'ian. Besides, if I hadn't explained myself, people in this sub-forum would think that I am a mean-spirited hag just lying in wait to tromp all over Tricky any time he opens his mouth (figuratively speaking).


Oh, wait . . .

Hold on, let me fix that for you.

But it's ok, we all do it. It's a right of passage around here. In the Words of the Profit "you're nobody till everybody in this town thinks you're a bastard."

[CapelDodger]

I know other people have felt God's grace and love in watching the Northern Lights, or holding a newborn baby, or recovering from a serious illness (hopefully not all at the same time). But it didn't do it for me. Don't know why.

Nothing does it for me either, and it's not for lack of feeling. I think it needs the god-germ to be already present, but I can't see a practical way to test that hypothesis. It would require a pool of subjects who had grown to maturity without being exposed to a god-concept at all and then seeing if the idea sprang spontaneously to any minds when presented with some such wonder.

Perhaps one far off day ...

It is, of course, possible for people to be exposed to the god-idea and not buy it for a moment. There are plenty of examples of us :).

(And welcome :).)

[CapelDodger]

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

:D

Snappy!

As an aside, and by distant recall, formal logic owes a lot to an 18thCE Anglican bishop (name escapes me) who expected to use it proving the existence of the Anglican god. Being an honest scientist he never claimed success.

[Silentknight]

I would like to point out that just because I do not believe in any God or gods does not mean I'm closed off to the possibility that there is something more out there, perhaps even beyond human comprehension. In fact, I would grant you that there is. After all, we have only explored an infinitesimal fraction of a percent of the universe, so it stands to reason that there is plenty that we do not know about and lack the capacity to explain.

However, that does not mean that God exists, let alone that we should regard the unknown as supernatural. Should we one day discover the existence of a supremely powerful entity, I believe the best approach would be to learn as much as we can about it, or possibly from it; not to get on our knees and start sending prayers and sacrifices. A god is only a god if it is worshiped. It is extremely improbable that anything we find out there would ever match the profile of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal war deity of Hebrew mythology, let alone legitimize any one religion.

[CapelDodger]

Yes that would be true too. Someone wanted some reasons so I posted some reasons. I tried to think of a few examples from different categories like the natural (pretty much everything), the supernatural (answered prayers), and intangible things (beauty, love). Those are all reasons I believe.

From an outsider's perspective, these appear to be conjured-up confirmations of a belief already held. They're not reasons to believe. "Answered" prayers conform to the laws of chance; there's no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural. The natural world, by definition, can do without a supernatural being. Intangible things are (again by definition) subjective, and the human mind is a thing of nature.

The reason I don't believe - and I'm not alone in this - is that I never started and have never been presented with any persuasive reason to.

If I'm not being too forward in asking, when did you start believing?

[CapelDodger]

However, that does not mean that God exists, let alone that we should regard the unknown as supernatural. Should we one day discover the existence of a supremely powerful entity, I believe the best approach would be to learn as much as we can about it, or possibly from it; not to get on our knees and start sending prayers and sacrifices. A god is only a god if it is worshiped. It is extremely improbable that anything we find out there would ever match the profile of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal war deity of Hebrew mythology, let alone legitimize any one religion.

That's hard to argue with, and the field is even bigger. It's extremely improbable that Homo is the only genus with a religious sense that the Universe would spawn. The variation in human religions is nothing compared to what xeno-anthropologists have/have had/will have to play with.

[A Christian Sceptic]

From an outsider's perspective, these appear to be conjured-up confirmations of a belief already held. They're not reasons to believe. "Answered" prayers conform to the laws of chance; there's no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural. The natural world, by definition, can do without a supernatural being. Intangible things are (again by definition) subjective, and the human mind is a thing of nature.


I understand. And I understand that these aren't reasons for you to believe. For all I know these are not even good reasons. But it's true these are why I believe.


The reason I don't believe - and I'm not alone in this - is that I never started and have never been presented with any persuasive reason to.


Makes sense to me.


If I'm not being too forward in asking, when did you start believing?

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so. I still can't believe it though. :)

As for becoming a Christian - that happened later - during the summer after that. That happened for much more personal reasons - but I'll just say I took Jesus up on one of his challenges (well - actually invitations, but at the time I looked at it as a challenge.) I doubt that will make any sense to someone who doesn't even believe in god at all.

[Foster Zygote]

If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.
That's the problem with ignoring anyone who ever disagrees with you. You fail to learn a lot of interesting things.

The "queen" of an ant colony is simply the reproductive organ of the colony. In the event that a queen dies the ants will respond by changing the environmental conditions of certain eggs, then feed the hatched larvae on a special diet so that they will develop into breeding females. Queens do have some influence on the behavior of the colony through the same chemical means as any other member of the colony. But she is not the "brain" or "central nervous system" of the colony. When a queen dies some of the workers will go about replacing her, but the great majority of the other ants will continue their housekeeping and gathering duties uninterrupted.

[CapelDodger]

Well, "natural" is not the word I used. I did say that freedom of religion is probably born into us.

Where do you summon this stuff up from? What's born into us are the desire to conform and distrust of those that don't. Freedom not to conform has been fought for, long and bloodily, against our innate tendencies. WTF do you think our history is about? The fight's over for us, and I take my hat off to the people that fought it on my behalf.

But in any case, looking at history and present day, it certainly seems abundant. Perhaps there is some evolutionary advantage to theism and atheism in general got selected out of the picture long ago?

Atheism can hand theism its ass any day. I'd relish a full-on War On Islam - a matter of weeks, and I want the CruiseCam video of the Grand Mosque's last moments as my screensaver. Just to keep it properly secular we can take out the Vatican as well (after a thorough sacking, of course).

You're sitting at a frickin' computer typing out "atheism in general got selected out". I think you've missed the bigger picture.

[volatile]

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so.

Who says that? Who says that the organisation of the cell is "accidental"? Not a single scientist, that's for sure.

The whole point (and the magical, atheistic beauty) of evolution is that it isn't accidental. Your entire belief system is based on this facile and adolescent misunderstanding of evolutionary biology?

[articulett]

Where do you summon this stuff up from? What's born into us are the desire to conform and distrust of those that don't. Freedom not to conform has been fought for, long and bloodily, against our innate tendencies. WTF do you think our history is about? The fight's over for us, and I take my hat off to the people that fought it on my behalf.



Atheism can hand theism its ass any day. I'd relish a full-on War On Islam - a matter of weeks, and I want the CruiseCam video of the Grand Mosque's last moments as my screensaver. Just to keep it properly secular we can take out the Vatican as well (after a thorough sacking, of course).

You're sitting at a frickin' computer typing out "atheism in general got selected out". I think you've missed the bigger picture.

He has the big picture on "ignore" just like he has most of the people on JREF. It takes a lot of selective attention and self righteous blather to keep some delusions alive. So long as you keep facts and evidence at bay, you can remain clueless for a lifetime! Yee Haw! T'ai Chi keeps the dream alive for another self-important year.

[dacium2007]

Here are the main reasons I do not believe in god/creator:

The theory of evolution has given logical and rational answers to all of the following questions:
-Purpose of life (none- just to naturally propagate gene's)
-Reason for there existing a life-death cycle (efficient way to passes genetic mutation to a complete new individual by forcing individual to grow from single gene)
-Consciousness (the brain is a highly complicated chemical arrangement, that does not need any special explanation to the point where I can be 100% certain there is no consciousness or 'life after death' once the brain is destroyed).

Astronomoy/physics and other sciences have give us extremely good knowledge of the universe, the way stars and planets formed etc. all the way back to the big bang. If anything the only thing any creator could have done, is set the variables of the universe and started the big bang. But since we are living in a universe with these variables and there was a big bang, this a circular reasoning to suppose someone thus created it. It happened because if it didn't we wouldn't exist to question it. Thus there is no reason to believe a creator started it, even if there was you would have to explain the creator and the creators universe etc.

[CapelDodger]

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so. I still can't believe it though. :)

As for becoming a Christian - that happened later - during the summer after that. That happened for much more personal reasons - but I'll just say I took Jesus up on one of his challenges (well - actually invitations, but at the time I looked at it as a challenge.) I doubt that will make any sense to someone who doesn't even believe in god at all.

It makes sense to me; I lack belief, but I don't lack empathy :). I was even a teenager once, seeking meaning.

The summer Jesus experience suggests to me that you grew up in a Christian environment before your epiphany, you just didn't take it seriously before. When you started seeking meaning that's naturally where you went first.

What I wonder is why now, at 33, you're asking people about their disbelief. As I recall, that's a difficult age :).

[CapelDodger]

He has the big picture on "ignore" just like he has most of the people on JREF. It takes a lot of selective attention and self righteous blather to keep some delusions alive. So long as you keep facts and evidence at bay, you can remain clueless for a lifetime! Yee Haw! T'ai Chi keeps the dream alive for another self-important year.

That dream will die with T'ai Chi.

Heaven forfend that be soon, but (taking into account the big picture) selection pressure doesn't augur well. Reality bites ass when not paid proper attention.

[CapelDodger]

-Purpose of life (none- just to naturally propagate gene's)

Quite. Life is what propagates, and existing life is what has propagated so far. No purpose, just an effect, an emergent property of the physical Universe.

[Mobyseven]

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

In bastardised logical notation...

Bxy: I believe in x because of y
g: God

(∀x)(Bgx)


Now, that's snappy!

[jjramsey]

Here are the main reasons I do not believe in god/creator:

The theory of evolution has given logical and rational answers to all of the following questions:
-Purpose of life (none- just to naturally propagate gene's)
-Reason for there existing a life-death cycle (efficient way to passes genetic mutation to a complete new individual by forcing individual to grow from single gene)
-Consciousness (the brain is a highly complicated chemical arrangement, that does not need any special explanation to the point where I can be 100% certain there is no consciousness or 'life after death' once the brain is destroyed).

Errm, at least two of these are pretty disputable. The theory of evolution does not on its own indicate that life has no purpose. It's a scientific theory, so it deals with "is" not "ought," (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html) and purpose is very much about "ought." The theory of evolution is also not what would lead to a conclusion that there is no life after death. That conclusion comes from observations that changes to the brain cause changes to changes to personality, cognitive function and so on. The arguments that lead us to conclude that our minds are the byproducts of our brains could be applied just as readily to an artificially intelligent computer that was not the product of evolution at all. As for the middle point, it more or less holds for complex multi-celled lifeforms where horizontal gene transfer would be impractical, but individuals do not grow from single genes.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Who says that? Who says that the organisation of the cell is "accidental"? Not a single scientist, that's for sure.

The whole point (and the magical, atheistic beauty) of evolution is that it isn't accidental. Your entire belief system is based on this facile and adolescent misunderstanding of evolutionary biology?

1) At the time the discussions I was having were with other high school kids. And yes, many were thinking it was all an accident.

2) The leading theory at the time as presented in biology class (very briefly) was that possibly it started with a lightning strike on primordial sludge. Everything just lined up perfectly at the time to have the right combinations of chemicals and the right type of electrical strike to start this thing called life rolling.

Regardless, at the time, that was my understanding and that was my conclusion. Now I understand it wasn't an accident.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It makes sense to me; I lack belief, but I don't lack empathy :). I was even a teenager once, seeking meaning.

The summer Jesus experience suggests to me that you grew up in a Christian environment before your epiphany, you just didn't take it seriously before. When you started seeking meaning that's naturally where you went first.


Partially true. At the time I tossed everything I knew out the door and started from scratch. But, yes, as with everyone here, you start with where you can. I've always compared my beliefs with other peoples and I'm constantly tossing out and rearranging them. So far, though, my belief in Jesus has not changed, but my opinions and other understandings have.


What I wonder is why now, at 33, you're asking people about their disbelief. As I recall, that's a difficult age :).

Oh - I'm always asking people what they believe in order to learn.

With the following exceptions:

I try to never talk about religion, politics or The Great Pumpkin with -
1) Family members (my wife of course is excluded from this exception)
2) Friends
3) Co-workers
4) Other Christians.

[danielk]

I try to never talk about religion, politics or The Great Pumpkin with -
2) Friends
Ow. That's a sad thought.
4) Other Christians.
Now you got me hooked. You can't discuss religion with other Christians?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Now you got me hooked. You can't discuss religion with other Christians?

You think Athiests have alot of opinions of why there isn't a God. Wait until you become a believer. I'm sure you know how many opinions there are about those type of things. But honestly, I like to learn what other Christians think, but I'll make up my own mind. Unfortunately, so far it's not usually in line with the majority. I'm probably not a good example of a typical Christian. :(

[-Fran-]

Now you got me hooked. You can't discuss religion with other Christians?

Well, you can of course, but it actually makes sense that it is probably a troublesome thing to do, unless you are in a sect and only talk to other sect members, since many Christians seems very sure about that their version is the absolute truth, and any other Christian with another version is no better than an atheist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do I not believe in gods, (besides the obvious, there is no evidence gods exist and there is overwhelming evidence humans made up the idea of gods):

Empirically, god beliefs, religions, and rituals all fall into the same categories. One god belief is, on its face, no better, no worse than any other god belief. One ritual is no more likely to get results than another ritual. One religion over time has not shown itself to be above the fray and superior to any other religion. These things are all equally based in superstitious human nature.

Believers are all over the map, literally and figuratively. Rituals range from benign to incredibly bizarre and not so benign. The largest religions such as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is based on a bunch of writings which show clear evidence of being simply made up by the people who believed it. In fact, anthropologists can trace many of the stories back to pre-Biblical, pre-Torah mythology. The writers obviously had no clue the rest of the world even existed, no clue about the germ theory, no clue even that the Moon was reflecting light from the Sun rather than emitting light. This is evidence of man, not evidence of gods.

The believers in Biblical and related religions think only their version is correct. The fact the versions directly contradict other versions and contain many contradictions even within the texts is brushed off with various rationalizations. The fact skeptics in particular dismiss almost all if not all god beliefs except their own is not seen as a problem. There is always some way to rationalize it. The idea of following the evidence instead of fitting the evidence to the belief is just discarded in this one construction of their world.

This is the age of science. We can discover the origin and relationship of things in the Universe from careful observation. Yet knowing most god beliefs are clearly false as the evidence shows, knowing modern religious texts are full of as much myth as ancient religious texts, so many people still cling to these unsupportable beliefs. You can see that there is no Pele controlling volcano eruptions, no Zeus controlling lightning, no Adam and Eve, no talking serpents, no worldwide flood. Yet you just can't let go of those god beliefs.

People will eventually outgrow these superstitious explanations for the natural Universe. In most modern countries, atheism grows as people become more aware of science and the success of determining the nature of the Universe by careful observation rather than by clinging to superstitious beliefs. For reasons I think may have a lot to do with successful marketing, the US lags behind in this trend. I can't see how, with the successes of scientific inquiry, the human population won't eventually recognize Pele and Zeus are on par with all the other god beliefs. They are all myths.

I'm sorry if that insults those of you who still maintain your god beliefs. I can't put it in any gentler terms.

[articulett]

Abiogenesis wasn't planned, if that's what you mean by accident... but it was a series of events and experiments and natural laws that incrementally begat what we would come to recognize as the first life forms... it took eons... billions of years... and they didn't get to the good stuff until really recently... but we are just a speck in the universe in a speck of time... even if some of the life forms on our planet think of themselves as the reason the universe exists. Humans think they're special because they can think... --and that makes them feel special. But to imagine it as part of some divine plan just seems childish and self-important to me.

We live in a time when we can finally know some of the coolest stuff that no humans have ever known before. And we can also know that it's true. We can never know that about an invisible entity or any wisdom passed on by gurus and speakers for the "divine".

[articulett]

You think Athiests have alot of opinions of why there isn't a God. Wait until you become a believer. I'm sure you know how many opinions there are about those type of things. But honestly, I like to learn what other Christians think, but I'll make up my own mind. Unfortunately, so far it's not usually in line with the majority. I'm probably not a good example of a typical Christian. :(

I don't think many atheists become believers. I think the opposite is much more common. And I think the main reason atheists don't believe is because all the arguments sound subjective... like known ways people fool themselves. Plus, no evidence for any real god... lots of evidence that most are made up. Since you can't tell the made up ones from the real ones... it's the same as them all being made up unless you are going to play mental games with yourself.

All gods CAN be imaginary... but not all gods CAN be real.

[tsg]

Why is it the believers, without exception, always dodge this question:

What is it you mean by "god"?

[tsg]

First define "define"? :D

I'll accept that request, tongue in cheek though it may be:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define

Any one of those will do.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why is it the believers, without exception, always dodge this question:

What is it you mean by "god"?

I suspect it’s because it reveals that the act of believing is kind of ridiculous when there’s a definition to believe in; it sort of illuminates the process by which you constantly have to create an avatar (a god) in your mind, in order to then have something to believe in. And of course, in order to keep this manifestation going – i.e. refusing to recognize that the map really isn’t the territory – strong belief is touted as a virtue. Go figure! Kind of like “fingers in ears, screaming na na na can’t hear”, and the louder the better!

Reality does not require a belief in reality; belief is redundant; reality simply is (even that is saying too much). Now, when one subscribes the same or greater properties to god as with reality, being aware of this potential problem of constantly creating mind-made avatars, then how on earth can one still take belief seriously? The act of believing in a god becomes the ultimate act of self-indulgence in one’s own grandest fantasy, which are probably the very same fantasies many sages throughout time have tried to make people wake up from. Or in Campbell’s words: transcending duality rather than rediscovering duality all the time.

[volatile]

Regardless, at the time, that was my understanding and that was my conclusion. Now I understand it wasn't an accident.

Right... so now your understanding is better, why have you not, to paraphrase the KJV, set aside childish things? You believed in God because you didn't understand the science behind abiogenesis and evolution. Fair enough.

But now you do understand, what's keeping you tethered to your childish misunderstanding?

[Darth Rotor]

Not only is there no evidence for a god, there is no need for a god.
Perhaps for you.

For others, there apparently is.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

I Apply the same reasoning to gods as I do for psychics, pixies and alien abduction stories. That's why I do not believe gods exist.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm talking about some reasons I believe not why he exists or doesn't exist.

Ok, and I asked you a question. Let me clarify it. Why should you believe in a God when he answers your prayers but not mine?

[Fiona]

Well, "natural" is not the word I used. I did say that freedom of religion is probably born into us.

But in any case, looking at history and present day, it certainly seems abundant. Perhaps there is some evolutionary advantage to theism and atheism in general got selected out of the picture long ago?

I do not understand how you can say that "freedom of religion (or anything else) is born in" Surely freedom is a social construct? It depends on a concensus on the rights of individuals which is granted and upheld by a group? I may be misunderstanding you but as it stands you statement is meaningless to me, sorry.

If, for the sake of argument, I accept that evolution has any relevance here then you seem to me to be contradicting yourself. You argue that most people in history were religious ( I have already said I am not wholly convinced by that, but leave that aside). You say further that is is very abundant now: and it is. But at least in europe it is not so obviously abundant as it used to be


“Britons back Christian society”? BBC poll, November 2005
67% described themselves as Christian, fewer than in the 2001 census, and more (22%) as having no faith.
Fewer than 50% of 18-34-year-olds called themselves Christians and more 18-24-year-olds (43%) described themselves as having no faith than as Christian (41%).

The questions in the 2001 census were new and in england and wales they did not distinguish between religion of upbringing and current religion. That distinction was made in the Scottish census and the incidence of religion was lower in Scotland, perhaps in consequence. Much of the existing belief is cultural

YouGov survey, December 2004
35% British adults do not believe in God and 21% don't know.
73% do not pray regularly.
28% do not believe in life after death and 29% don't know.
21% consider Christmas mainly as a religious festival, while 38% consider it mainly as a holiday and 28% as an opportunity to meet friends and family.

Perhaps it is theism that is dying out ?

[Mobyseven]

Perhaps for you.

For others, there apparently is.

DR

It's not a personal judgement matter, actually. The question is, "Is god necessary to explain anything about the universe?" The answer is, "No."

Unless we're going to start arguing solipsism, there's no, "God is necessary in my universe, but not necessary in yours," type middle ground.

[Ladewig]

Other people have already listed most of the reasons I don't believe.

Depending on who I is asking, I sometimes answer the question by saying, "the reason I don't believe is the same reason that Pharaoh didn't believe: God hardened my heart and thus prevents my belief in Him." To phrase it in a less facetious manner, I have intellectual reasoning abilities. If I have this trait as the result of a Creator, then it strikes me as rather absurd that He would expect me to ignore this trait and believe in Him when there is virtually no evidence in favor of the God hypothesis.

I am open-minded to admit that if I were given conclusive evidence, then I would then believe. Although I would still reserve the right to worship or not worship such a divine being.

[Ladewig]

I'm personally not interested in anything that could be considered a sub-god or less of a god than the main one.

Why not. If there were a demi-God that could assure you of eternal life in a heavenly setting, could answer your prayers, and demanded very little, why would you not be interested?

[the PC apeman]

It's not a personal judgement matter, actually. The question is, "Is god necessary to explain anything about the universe?" The answer is, "No."

Unless we're going to start arguing solipsism, there's no, "God is necessary in my universe, but not necessary in yours," type middle ground.Yes. Thank you.

That, Darth, and I was responding to the question "Why don't you [meaning me] believe in a god."

Sheesh.

[Hindmost]

Why is it the believers, without exception, always dodge this question:

What is it you mean by "god"?


Fear of being smiten...

glenn:boxedin:

[A Christian Sceptic]

Right... so now your understanding is better, why have you not, to paraphrase the KJV, set aside childish things? You believed in God because you didn't understand the science behind abiogenesis and evolution. Fair enough.

But now you do understand, what's keeping you tethered to your childish misunderstanding?

Because nothing's shown me it's childish. I've learned more about science and all that's shown me is how amazing all of creation is that he made and how he did it.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Ok, and I asked you a question. Let me clarify it. Why should you believe in a God when he answers your prayers but not mine?

Because prayers (answered or unanswered) are not the only reason I believe in God.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why not. If there were a demi-God that could assure you of eternal life in a heavenly setting, could answer your prayers, and demanded very little, why would you not be interested?

Well - if those are the only things are important to you than go ahead. I personally only want to go to the being who would have created the demi-god. But that's just me.

[volatile]

Because nothing's shown me it's childish. I've learned more about science and all that's shown me is how amazing all of creation is that he made and how he did it.

Hold on, hold on.

Earlier on you said you believed in God because you didn't believe life could come about "by accident", as you believed the theory of evolution claimed. You then said you subsequently learned, correctly, that the theory of evolution doesn't posit "accident", and indeed the very opposite, for the development of life.

But now you're saying that finding out that what you believed originally was 100% wrong actually reinforced the conclusions you came to in the first place?

You believed in God because you thought that life can't come about by accident, and only a God hypothesis answers that. You subsequently found out that, in fact, the scientific and materialistic view of the world says the same thing, that life doesn't come about by accident, and yet you still believe (and believe more strongly?) that God created life?

Excuse me for being confused. Normally, when it is shown that the reasons for a belief I hold actually demonstrate the opposite of what I thought they did, it tends to change my original belief...

ETA: In light of this bizarre thought-process, whereby being shown to be wrong reinforces your original belief, and because you call yourself "Christian Sceptic", could you please tell us what it would take to convince you that God doesn't exist? What evidence would change your mind?

[articulett]

Because nothing's shown me it's childish. I've learned more about science and all that's shown me is how amazing all of creation is that he made and how he did it.

So your god created life... he planned for the eventuality of humans by tweaking things on occasion as part of his plan... or he set it all in motion knowing that humans and their various belief systems or lack thereof would be an eventual result... and he made things all pretty and vast and scary and dangerous and wasteful specifically for humans on this little speck of a planet in his gigantic universe because he wanted to make something that could appreciate his magicness?-- The way he can be completely immaterial and still bring about material things and tweak the laws of physics at will but not in a way that his stupid creations could ever detect because of his magicness?

So your god is conscious without a brain and he's in charge of everything and he did it all for some reason or plan that you have somehow stumbled onto and been informed of. Right? Have I described the god you believe in pretty accurately. He's an invisible superman who created the universe and cares very much about this little speck in this speck of time... in fact it was his whole reason for creating the universe...

[volatile]

Because prayers (answered or unanswered) are not the only reason I believe in God.

Irrelevant; answer the question. And in any case, it was right there in your primary lists of reasons! When asked to justify your belief, it's no good to say "God answers prayers", and then when pushed on the inefficacy of prayer to then claim that prayer granting isn't a cornerstone of your theology!

For the record, can you state the principal reasons you believe in the Christian God. Please provide the most convincing reasons you have for holding the beliefs you do.

[Moochie]

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, (and all the other "omnis") being create this planet and then plonk the cancer of humanity on it? Doesn't make any sense at all -- it had to be an accident.

M.

[Lonewulf]

When asked to justify your belief, it's no good to say "God answers prayers", and then when pushed on the inefficacy of prayer to then claim that prayer granting isn't a cornerstone of your theology!
This is AKA "back pedalling".

[Ladewig]

Well - if those are the only things are important to you than go ahead. I personally only want to go to the being who would have created the demi-god. But that's just me.

I am having a hard time understanding your answer. Can you be more specific?

[thaiboxerken]

I also believe in God because of the Big Bang.

I also believe in God because of evolution.

I also believe in God because there's evil.

I also believe in God because there's good.




In other words, you believe for any and any excuse you can think of. Have any non-fallacious reasons for believing?

[FFed]

I see no reason to believe in a god. In fact I get angry very easily when christians tell me about how much god loves me and everyone. My father suffered for years before he died. He was in extreme pain and it was certainly no way to live life. Any loving god that would torture someone like that and allow it to continue, is the definition of evil.

[mayday]

It seems I am not alone in giving up after pouring out my worship and hearing nothing in return.

I don't know. I got in the mood to go to the Pentecostal church. I went twice in one Sunday, after that I started to have extra money in my bank account and wasnt worrying as much.

I didn't even give them any money.

Same thing happened when I was donating money to James Robison to dig wells for those poor children in Africa--I started having extra money coming in.

Intellectually I can't really believe in a god, but spiritually I feel like something created us, I think it was aliens. But there was something that created aliens. Everything has a creatorm it just isn't who or what we think it is.

Actually, I could tell you why the elite want you to keep being lulled into complacency by the belief there will be a Rapture, but that is another topic.

[mayday]

I see no reason to believe in a god. In fact I get angry very easily when christians tell me about how much god loves me and everyone. My father suffered for years before he died. He was in extreme pain and it was certainly no way to live life. Any loving god that would torture someone like that and allow it to continue, is the definition of evil.

That's what I say when I see abused children.

[Lonewulf]

Intellectually I can't really believe in a god, but spiritually I feel like something created us[...]
You probably felt something emotionally, but pardon me if I'm skeptical that you felt it "spiritually".

You also seem to be intellectually giving credence to your emotional feelings.

I think it was aliens.
Evidence would be nice...

But there was something that created aliens. Everything has a creatorm it just isn't who or what we think it is.

Sure. I do believe that we have a creator.

As the great Carl Sagan said, we are the stars, and they are us. We are star dust, given a breath of life from abiogenesis and prehistoric conditions on the Earth.

We are complex helium and hydrogen atoms, after a long time of becoming dense and developing more complicated molecules, given the ability to live.

If there is anything that deserves credit, it's the stars.

A long time ago, people worshiped the sun as a god. For their time, they were right to do so. Life on earth would be non-existent without the sun, nor without the earth itself (which was also worshiped as a god or goddess). However, they were wrong in being monotheistic about sun-gods. There are many suns, billions upon billions upon billions. If there is anything to worship, it's them.

Though I kinda doubt the stars care much if you worship them. They may be responsible for our creation, but they're not very bright. Uh, intellectually I mean.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Earlier on you said you believed in God because you didn't believe life could come about "by accident", as you believed the theory of evolution claimed. You then said you subsequently learned, correctly, that the theory of evolution doesn't posit "accident", and indeed the very opposite, for the development of life.

I thought people were pointing out that evolution essentially doesn't teach things happen as an accident. I agree. I also agree god doesn't create as an accident. I've learned better about evolution and I've learned more about the limitations of science - that's all.


ETA: In light of this bizarre thought-process, whereby being shown to be wrong reinforces your original belief, and because you call yourself "Christian Sceptic", could you please tell us what it would take to convince you that God doesn't exist? What evidence would change your mind?

I don't think I could ever believe he doesn't exist. All I could do is say "I don't know if he exists." That's why I'm wondering what could cause people to say he doesn't.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So your god is conscious without a brain and he's in charge of everything and he did it all for some reason or plan that you have somehow stumbled onto and been informed of. Right? Have I described the god you believe in pretty accurately. He's an invisible superman who created the universe and cares very much about this little speck in this speck of time... in fact it was his whole reason for creating the universe...

I think if humans weren't here he'd still love the universe if that's what you're asking. But it's not really clear what you're saying. Sorry.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I am having a hard time understanding your answer. Can you be more specific?

Well if I'm going to bother with any god it's going to for the biggest. That's all. Why bother for anything less, I suppose is how I feel.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Irrelevant; answer the question. And in any case, it was right there in your primary lists of reasons! When asked to justify your belief, it's no good to say "God answers prayers", and then when pushed on the inefficacy of prayer to then claim that prayer granting isn't a cornerstone of your theology!

For the record, can you state the principal reasons you believe in the Christian God. Please provide the most convincing reasons you have for holding the beliefs you do.

Well - I've never said anything I've posted is a primary thing or a corenerstone of anything. I don't think anyone has a single reason for any believe - everyone has a bunch of reasons for and against and whatever outweighs the other is apparently the direction they go. You have more reasons to disbelieve then believe and I have more to believe then disbelieve. I don't think either way is wrong as long as that's what you actually believe.

[volatile]

I thought people were pointing out that evolution essentially doesn't teach things happen as an accident. I agree. I also agree god doesn't create as an accident. I've learned better about evolution and I've learned more about the limitations of science - that's all.

Sorry - you've lost me.

Earlier on, you said that thinking that life could not happen "by accident" (as you thought evolutionary theory posits) is what made you believe in God. When you found out that evolutionary theory actually posits a method for life to emerge that is resolutely not accidental, rather than making you doubt your original conclusions, it actually reinforced them?

You went from "Life can't happen by accident as evolution says, so God did it" to "Evolution allows life to happen without resorting to accidents, so God did it". It's bonkers. You got the same conclusion from two utterly contradictory starting points! :confused:

I don't think I could ever believe he doesn't exist. All I could do is say "I don't know if he exists." That's why I'm wondering what could cause people to say he doesn't.

Well, that's where your problem starts. Your belief is utterly unfalsifiable, as demonstrated above. Two opposite suppositions gave you identical conclusions.

[volatile]

Well - I've never said anything I've posted is a primary thing or a corenerstone of anything. I don't think anyone has a single reason for any believe - everyone has a bunch of reasons for and against and whatever outweighs the other is apparently the direction they go. You have more reasons to disbelieve then believe and I have more to believe then disbelieve. I don't think either way is wrong as long as that's what you actually believe.

Now look here, CS. You asked us why we don't believe, as if God is so manifestly self-evident that to not believe in him is surprising. That's the tenor of your OP.

All we're asking is for you to tell us exactly what it is we're missing. What is it that makes you so baffled that we don't believe in your God?

When asked that question earlier, you said "prayer". When pushed on that, you said "Well, ummm, not prayer really". So, let's state this again, simply, else this thread will die and none of us will have learned anything.

Please give the major reasons for your belief in the Christian God.

You asked why we don't believe. Tell us why you do.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Earlier on, you said that thinking that life could not happen "by accident" (as you thought evolutionary theory posits) is what made you believe in God.


That is what happened. Someone asked when I first believed. I had 16 years of life that led to that point. I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen. Is a wrong understanding the wrong way to come to belief? All I've learned since is that science doesn't tell me one way or another, but examing creation only reinforces my awe for him. But, really how can there be a wrong way to believe anything? I doubt you'd say there is a wrong way to disbelieve. People asked how it happened and so I told them.



You went from "Life can't happen by accident as evolution says, so God did it" to "Evolution allows life to happen without resorting to accidents, so God did it". It's bonkers. You got the same conclusion from two utterly contradictory starting points! :confused:


I don't know really what else to say. I guess I see evolution more as a tool than a cause. But that's probably inaccuratlt described as well.

[volatile]

That is what happened. Someone asked when I first believed. I had 16 years of life that led to that point. I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen. Is a wrong understanding the wrong way to come to belief? All I've learned since is that science doesn't tell me one way or another, but examing creation only reinforces my awe for him. But, really how can there be a wrong way to believe anything? I doubt you'd say there is a wrong way to disbelieve. People asked how it happened and so I told them.

I don't know really what else to say. I guess I see evolution more as a tool than a cause. But that's probably inaccuratlt described as well.

I'm not criticising your initial thought process, I'm critiquing the way you form ideas, so as to demonstrate how (IMHO) they are built on very, very shaky ground.

All I'm asking you to do, I guess, is to take a step back from the theistic blanket you're wrapped in and start being truly sceptical about what and how you think about the world.You're a "sceptic", right? In what other endeavour would learning your original reasons for thinking something was utterly wrong not have an effect on your conclusions? On what other issue would you be able to draw an identical conclusion from two completely contradictory pieces of evidence?

You asked "How can there be a wrong way to believe something?". I think it's wrong to believe something without evidence, and especially wrong to carry on believing something when it is shown one's original reasons are outfight false. I also think it's wrong to believe something so utterly that nothing can ever convince you that you might be wrong. If you're getting the same conclusion, i.e that God exists, from two completely opposite pieces of evidence (that evolution is, or isn't accidental), then there's something problematic about your reasoning processes.

There are a number of formal terms for the fallacies you're demonstrating, particularly Affirming the Consequent and Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning). You're also engaging in confirmation bias, but that's often a feature of those two fallacies anyway. Look them up - reading about formal logic might help where you're going wrong.

[volatile]

As an addendum - what you've suggested so far, CS, are not prima facie reasons to believe in (a) God. What they are, are reasons you seek to back up your pre-existing belief. That's why you're able to take anything and everything as "proof" of God, and are able to use contradictory statements to reach the same conclusion.

All you're doing is coming up with the belief first, then seeking for ways to justify that, with some shoe-horning if necessary. Does that make sense?

[Ladewig]

There are two other reasons for me.

Unlike Young Earth Creationists, I understand that an immense amount of evolution can occur in tens of millions of years. Therefore, I do not see a God as being necessary to account for the diversity of natural life.

Unlike many fundamentalists, I can look at a remarkable coincidence and say "that is a surprising but explainable event."

[Ladewig]

I don't think I could ever believe he doesn't exist. All I could do is say "I don't know if he exists." That's why I'm wondering what could cause people to say he doesn't.

The answer to your question is "the same reasons you don't believe in unicorns, fairies, or a china teacup orbiting Saturn."

[A Christian Sceptic]

All I do in life is as I learn new things (and this includes having good and bad experiences in life) I weigh those things against what I already believe and adjust my beliefs accordingly. I think everyone who is honest with themselves would say they do this or something similar too.

So with God it doesn't matter the path I took to get to that point - it's where I go from there. As I learn things I weigh it against what I believe about him (that includes his existence but also the characteristics I believe he has). The process for me at least is like a pendulum swinging back and forth between belief and unbelief. I understand more about evolution and then I weigh it against my currently held belief. Something bad happens in life and I weigh that experience, a prayer goes unanswered and I weigh that against my belief. etc. But so far it's only made him bigger to me, not smaller.

I do this same process with anything another Christian tries to teach me or tells me I need to believe. So, it's not something I do just for belief in him. But also for my understanding about him.

For anything it goes something like this for me:
- I currently believe this about whatever
- So-and-so is telling I need to believe in this
- What are the reasons I should or shouldn't accept this, or even make a decision on this idea.
- If accepted I change my views a bit.

I think what you are wanting is for me to give you one giant reason why I believe in him. Since all I have is a bunch of smaller reasons for believe that outweigh a bunch of reasons not to whatever I list won't work for what you want. Maybe if I was one of those people who has one giant reason I could try - but I don't. Sorry about that.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The answer to your question is "the same reasons you don't believe in unicorns, fairies, or a china teacup orbiting Saturn."

well, to me the proper question is "why should I care if there is a unicron, fairies, or a china teacup orbiting Saturan?" If it matters to you then you'll try to find out whether or how to believe.

[Lonewulf]

well, to me the proper question is "why should I care if there is a unicron, fairies, or a china teacup orbiting Saturan?" If it matters to you then you'll try to find out whether or how to believe.

Using what criteria, precisely?

Personally, I like scientific criteria. Stuff like Occam's Razor... yeah, real useful. Keeps you away from that fictional make-up mumbo jumbo.

[Hindmost]

I thought people were pointing out that evolution essentially doesn't teach things happen as an accident. I agree. I also agree god doesn't create as an accident. I've learned better about evolution and I've learned more about the limitations of science - that's all.

I don't think I could ever believe he doesn't exist. All I could do is say "I don't know if he exists." That's why I'm wondering what could cause people to say he doesn't.

How do you resolve all the conflicts between science and religion. The fact that the bible's decription of creation and the scientific view are so incompatible. And how so many creation theories from all the religions on the planet are so disparate.

Religious leaders, with their ear to god, tortured Gallileo when he was correct. Extend that to witch burnings and many other very ungodlike acts--how do you accept that the church was divinely guided.

How come Christianity has so many diverse sects and each believe that the remaining 2/3rds of the population of the planet are doomed. Of course the pope recently indicated that catholocism is the only true religion anyhow and that limbo no longer exists, so we can delete quite a few more souls.

I couldn't handle the "don't question, just accept all of it on faith" line and quit all religion as it was based on man-made tenents that seemed to be based on controlling people and maintaining a power structure. I have seen nothing to change that over the years. I also don't see how believing in the three gods in the trinity is preferable to any other single deity or group of deities as there is no real reason to accept its origins as better than any other religion.

The most probable reason Christianity became so dominant was the promise of eternal life.

glenn

[Lonewulf]

Uh, Hindmost... I don't think Galileo was tortured. He was put under house arrest, but I don't think he was tortured.

I don't know about the "eternal life" thing. Egyptian mythology promised the whole eternal life thing, but not many cultures really latched onto that...

[volatile]

All I do in life is as I learn new things (and this includes having good and bad experiences in life) I weigh those things against what I already believe and adjust my beliefs accordingly. I think everyone who is honest with themselves would say they do this or something similar too.

But you didn't! You learnt something new, something oppositional to what you already knew, and yet your belief remained the same.

In the first, the complexity of life was such that you didn't think it could just happen "by accident", as evolutionary theory says. The naturalistic laws needed a supernatural guiding hand.

Then, when you learnt that evolutionary theory doesn't posit accident at all, but rather a very ordered and controlled process (absent of supernaturalism), you then said "Hey! Isn't nature wonderful and ordered in and of itself! God must have done it". You've taken nature not having enough order and nature being perfectly ordered as evidence of the same thing...


So with God it doesn't matter the path I took to get to that point - it's where I go from there.

The path is very important, particularly if looking back at that path reveals that you've been moving on rails this whole time.

[Ladewig]

well, to me the proper question is "why should I care if there is a unicron, fairies, or a china teacup orbiting Saturan?" If it matters to you then you'll try to find out whether or how to believe.

Why should you care? Legend has it that a unicorn horn can neutralize poison, therefore it is of great value. Fairies can see the future and grant wishes. Aren't those reasons enough to find out whether and how to believe? You may think I am just trying to be a smart-ass, but I am not. I really don't see the difference between fairies and God.

Wanting something to exist and caring about its existence add no weight to the argument about whether or not it exists.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Then, when you learnt that evolutionary theory doesn't posit accident at all, but rather a very ordered and controlled process (absent of supernaturalism), you then said "Hey! Isn't nature wonderful and ordered in and of itself! God must have done it". You've taken nature not having enough order and nature being perfectly ordered as evidence of the same thing...

No - the first thing I asked is "Does this prove to me there is no God?" My Conclusion: It doesn't prove anything on his existence it just teaches me how what happened happened. Then I said: "Wow - pretty neat!"

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why should you care? Legend has it that a unicorn horn can neutralize poison, therefore it is of great value. Fairies can see the future and grant wishes. Aren't those reasons enough to find out whether and how to believe? You may think I am just trying to be a smart-ass, but I am not. I really don't see the difference between fairies and God.

Wanting something to exist and caring about its existence add no weight to the argument about whether or not it exists.

We are talking about whether you should try to find out - not whether it's even there. It might not be. The dragon might not be there, but if I thought there was a reason to search more I'd think of ways to. If I couldn't then, well, I couldn't. That's all.

[A Christian Sceptic]

How do you resolve all the conflicts between science and religion. The fact that the bible's decription of creation and the scientific view are so incompatible. And how so many creation theories from all the religions on the planet are so disparate.


The bibles not scientific literature.


Religious leaders, with their ear to god, tortured Gallileo when he was correct. Extend that to witch burnings and many other very ungodlike acts--how do you accept that the church was divinely guided.

?? - I've never said anything like that.


How come Christianity has so many diverse sects and each believe that the remaining 2/3rds of the population of the planet are doomed. Of course the pope recently indicated that catholocism is the only true religion anyhow and that limbo no longer exists, so we can delete quite a few more souls.


I didn't know each sect believes in that. They have many things in common, but I don't think this is one of them. I don't believe it. I think you're confusing me with another Christian. :)



I couldn't handle the "don't question, just accept all of it on faith" line and quit all religion as it was based on man-made tenents that seemed to be based on controlling people and maintaining a power structure. I have seen nothing to change that over the years. I also don't see how believing in the three gods in the trinity is preferable to any other single deity or group of deities as there is no real reason to accept its origins as better than any other religion.

The most probable reason Christianity became so dominant was the promise of eternal life.

glenn

Thanks for sharing.

[jjramsey]

I think what you are wanting is for me to give you one giant reason why I believe in him.

Not necessarily. The reasons for unbelief that I gave earlier in the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3246916#post3246916) are essentially the outline of a cumulative case built from a bunch of smaller points. I see no reason that you cannot attempt to do something similar. I suggest trying to lay out such an outline of a cumulative case yourself. You've already tried to lay out bits and pieces of your case, so you should at least be able to compose a post that puts those bits and pieces together.

[pgwenthold]

A Christian Sceptic: you have provided reasons why you believe, and think it was succintly summarized by "I believe because of X, where X is everything"

I'd like to know: is there anything that you could imagine that could be that would be a reason to NOT believe?

Because here's a problem I see. If you say something like, "if the laws of physics wouldn't exist, then my reason to believe in God wouldn't be," the problem is that, if the laws of physics wouldn't exist, you wouldn't be alive to not believe in god. Same for the whole "fine tuning" nonsense. Just because you are here because of fine tuning doesn't mean fine tuning was meant for you. It equally applies to cockroaches and the flu virus.

BTW, is there a reason why you have ignored tsg's question/request? Because I don't know how you can believe in something if you can't even say what that something is. What's this "god" thing you keep talking about (and why do you call it a "he"?)?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'd like to know: is there anything that you could imagine that could be that would be a reason to NOT believe?


Not yet. I was hoping people here would have some ideas. :eek:


BTW, is there a reason why you have ignored tsg's question/request? Because I don't know how you can believe in something if you can't even say what that something is. What's this "god" thing you keep talking about (and why do you call it a "he"?)?

I don't want to know why someone doesn't believe in my god or my idea of god - but just any god. The only qualifier I had was a god that's intelligent, not something like gravity or anything like that, but an intelligence. I couldn't find the quote where Richard Dawkins defined what he is arguing against - but his definition would probably work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think if humans weren't here he'd still love the universe if that's what you're asking. But it's not really clear what you're saying. Sorry.Gee, I kind of love the Universe too. But I can't see that I even like all the torturing of the human inhabitants going on on a certain planet in that Universe.

[Mobyseven]

I don't think I could ever believe he doesn't exist. All I could do is say "I don't know if he exists." That's why I'm wondering what could cause people to say he doesn't.

So you are in fact highly unskeptical in regards to your god beliefs. In no way am I suggesting that this means you are not a skeptical person in general, but for this specific belief you are being profoundly unskeptical.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I think what you are wanting is for me to give you one giant reason why I believe in him. Since all I have is a bunch of smaller reasons for believe that outweigh a bunch of reasons not to whatever I list won't work for what you want. Maybe if I was one of those people who has one giant reason I could try - but I don't. Sorry about that.I'd interpret this a little differently. I see this as you cannot articulate the reason you believe in a god because there is no reason to believe. You were indoctrinated somewhere along life's path and you cannot see that is the reason.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you are in fact highly unskeptical in regards to your god beliefs. In no way am I suggesting that this means you are not a skeptical person in general, but for this specific belief you are being profoundly unskeptical.

I'm not Omnipotent or Omniscient so I could never say "I know there is no God". I'm just being honest here. I want to know how I could ever say that.

[volatile]

No - the first thing I asked is "Does this prove to me there is no God?" My Conclusion: It doesn't prove anything on his existence it just teaches me how what happened happened. Then I said: "Wow - pretty neat!"

But it directly contradicted your first reason for believing. You used two opposite facts to reach one, identical conclusion.

How is that not problematic for you?

[CapelDodger]

You think Athiests have alot of opinions of why there isn't a God. Wait until you become a believer. I'm sure you know how many opinions there are about those type of things. But honestly, I like to learn what other Christians think, but I'll make up my own mind. Unfortunately, so far it's not usually in line with the majority. I'm probably not a good example of a typical Christian. :(

That would depend on one's definition of "Christian" :). To some "Christians" religion is a matter of dogma, ritual, tradition, and obsessively poking into other people's minds for fear of heresy. Not at all you, I think, not least because Jesus really doesn't feature much in the cold-charity "Christianity" of Catholics and Calvinists.

I get the impression you're far more towards the Quaker end of the spectrum, and a great deal more agreeable for it.

[volatile]

I'm not Omnipotent or Omniscient so I could never say "I know there is no God". I'm just being honest here. I want to know how I could ever say that.

You can't - but the alternatives "Christian God" and "No God" are not equally likely. Similarly, not being able to prove that God doesn't exist is not reason to believe in Him. For example see, yet again, unicorns - we can't prove unicorns or Santa Claus don't exist, but that doesn't mean we should assume that they do.

[schlitt]

What religion would you believe if you born in jordan?
Why would you be that religion?
How about if you born in India?
Why?

What is there to verify which religion is correct?
Is it possible they are all incorrect?

When were these religions invented?
What do you think the motivation was?
Fear of death?
Looking for a meaning?
Classic human invention of revenge for dealing with perceived bad people?

All of the above?

All these religions were made before modern science and the evidence for evolution. Assuming only one of them is correct, why do they all seem to follow the same theme that primitive minds who are unaware of evolution would see it necessary to invent to explain our world?

What way do we have to verify the accuracy or truth of a collection of books written by primitive people, with primitive explanations?

Why does god not reveal himself when asked?

What happens to people who were good people, suffer brain damage in an accident, and from then on cannot control their rage due to the brain damage?
Did their soul get damaged also?

If a baby dies at birth, but if that baby were to live, they would have been the next Hitler, is god aware of this?
Because the babies soul is evil, but it was just never given the chance to be evil, because it died young, does god send the baby to hell?

Why do we need to believe in a character with no evidence when we have no reason to other than the fear of death?

It always amazes me that christians and other religious folk look at the world and choose to see something they can attribute to a god having created. When i look at the world i see a state of affairs which is exactly how i would expect if it came about by randomness and natural laws without a purpose.
Think about how humans have been living up until modern science. Life expentancy was extremely low, death at childbirth was common, incurable disease, racism, classism, tribal warfare. I mean, we have only had toothpaste in recent years, in the past people would have to suffer rotten teeth as a part of life... such a trivial point but yet, if a god designed this place, why would he do things such as that? "i will make mankind have rotten teeth until the 20th century AD". None of it makes sense if it were to be designed by an intelligent being. Yet it makes perfect sense if things were to come about because of inevitability and randomness.
It would be very nice to believe there is some purpose, but why should there be?
We could just has easily have not been born, and it would not an ounce of diference. Was it bad when you did not exist? no, there was nothing... there will again be nothing for us and it will not matter in the slightest, because there will be nothing for it to matter to.

God = primitive imaginary concept to allay the fear of death. Until there is any verifiable reason to differentiate a religion from all the others with actual proof, there is no reason to blindly accept something so contrary to the logical conclusion of purposefulness that nature and our existence displays.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not Omnipotent or Omniscient so I could never say "I know there is no God". I'm just being honest here. I want to know how I could ever say that.

You'd have to be like (for instance) me, and not like yourself. Which is to say, you never could.

In a way we have different ideals of "knowing". I've no time for philosophical havering around "you can't disprove the supernatural" given how little time I have in total - three score years and ten, give or take. I'm prepared to be convinced and move on.

My driving interest is in understanding what is, has been, and is likely to happen. I know where the supernatural comes from - human imagination. I can understand the role it plays in people's lives. And I know it has no objective reality.

That's the way my mind works.

[Hindmost]

The bibles not scientific literature.

I never said it was...however, I really would like to hear how you resolve the bible--as the word of god--with all its inconsistancies with science. Of, if you want, why did god make the bible so obviously incompatible with science.


?? - I've never said anything like that. I didn't mean to indicate that you said this...sorry. However, again, the acts of the Christian churches over the centuries are inconsistant with science and reasonable god directed behavior--how do you specifically resolve this issues internally to call yourself a Christian? I personally found the church doctrine somewhat elitist and hostile to "outsiders" and that helped push me toward being an atheist. I was raised in the Catholic church.

I didn't know each sect believes in that. They have many things in common, but I don't think this is one of them. I don't believe it. I think you're confusing me with another Christian. :)


Thanks for sharing.

I don't mean to confuse you with another Christian...however, if you don't believe that Christians are the only people that are headed to heaven, then you are not following the bible or Christian doctrine...again...as a skeptic...how do you resolve these issues. A skeptic looks to the evidence. You seem to be going on faith...and that would make this whole thread moot.

glenn

[Mobyseven]

I'm not Omnipotent or Omniscient so I could never say "I know there is no God". I'm just being honest here. I want to know how I could ever say that.

How you could ever say that? I don't know - I'm not you. Besides which, don't be confused about how the term 'know' is used by people who don't believe in god - I personally shy away from using the term, because the way in which I'd use it would require significant definition and likely become the focus of debate. The key thing to remember is that I (and most others) are not saying that we are 100% certain that there is no god. There is almost certainly no god, and so it is not prudent to lend our belief to the (probably non-existant) entity. Also, and this is important, our condition of non-belief involves a falsifiable claim - should I (and others) be shown evidence for the existence of god, we would be willing to alter our beliefs in the face of new evidence.

It is your unwillingness to provide a condition under which your claim could be falsified that highlights the unskeptical nature of your belief in god.

[A Christian Sceptic]

How you could ever say that? I don't know - I'm not you. Besides which, don't be confused about how the term 'know' is used by people who don't believe in god - I personally shy away from using the term, because the way in which I'd use it would require significant definition and likely become the focus of debate. The key thing to remember is that I (and most others) are not saying that we are 100% certain that there is no god. There is almost certainly no god, and so it is not prudent to lend our belief to the (probably non-existant) entity. Also, and this is important, our condition of non-belief involves a falsifiable claim - should I (and others) be shown evidence for the existence of god, we would be willing to alter our beliefs in the face of new evidence.


Thank you for your honesty here.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I never said it was...however, I really would like to hear how you resolve the bible--as the word of god--with all its inconsistancies with science. Of, if you want, why did god make the bible so obviously incompatible with science.


The bible is about God (among other things) but not about science. I don't think that's ever been it's purpose. I don't really know why I should expect anything more from them.


I didn't mean to indicate that you said this...sorry. However, again, the acts of the Christian churches over the centuries are inconsistant with science and reasonable god directed behavior--how do you specifically resolve this issues internally to call yourself a Christian?


What issues? Bad behavior by people calling themselves Christians?



I don't mean to confuse you with another Christian...however, if you don't believe that Christians are the only people that are headed to heaven, then you are not following the bible or Christian doctrine...


For one - I don't believe everything anyone tells me. If I don't know or don't understand, I'm content not coming to a conclusion yet. But I also don't think I need to believe something that is contrary to everything I believe about God just because someone told me to.

And trust me, just because I can believe different things based on the bible doesn't mean it's possible to prove to someone who is a fellow believer - let alone someone who is not. So there's no point in going down a debate about Christian doctrines I believe or don't believe to someone who is not a Christian, let alone doesn't believe in God. No offense, intended, with this response by the way.

[pgwenthold]

I don't want to know why someone doesn't believe in my god or my idea of god - but just any god.


Probably for the same reason you don't believe in any deklinarklic.

[articulett]

Well, you have labeled yourself a Christian, so it would be normal to assume that means something to you and defines some degree of what you believe... you would probably agree that the bible is "inspired" by the god you believe, correct? You have reasons for labeling yourself a Christian-- you have a story you are seeking to confirm when you seek to "understand" god-- you have a god in mind that exists and cares whether you "believe in' him.

The rest of us are just curious. You can understand how someone could use similar arguments and evidence for demons or psychic powers or the facts that god is guiding them in a specific direction, right? But you can also understand how they can be wrong and drawing wrongful inferences based on their beliefs. Your screen name is an assertion that you believe in a certain version of god-- a god that exists outside of human imagination... a god that should be the same for every human... the same way that the earth is spherical for every human and DNA is in the cells of all living things whether they are aware of it or not--DNA they inherited from their parents. You believe in a god that should be as real as those kind of things given your level of belief. And you believed that Jesus was a real person who did at least some of the things that people have said he did in the texts written long after he died. There are no contemporary writings of Jesus from Jesus' time.

And yet you use evidence that is the same kind of evidence people use to fool themselves regarding assorted myths. That's what it looks like to skeptics. That's why it seems like your screen name is an oxymoron. Most skeptics reserve "believing in" things until the evidence accumulates so that our understanding is on solid ground with which to build more solid understanding...fill in details... or revise as necessary. Your whole belief is based on a story-- a myth... or that's what it looks like to us. It's hard for us not to conclude that you believe in your god the same way people came to believe in various gods and forces and notions in previous years that later were shown to be misinterpretations. We cannot learn more about why people have such beliefs if we presume that some of them might really be based on something... just like we couldn't learn about weather patterns, and drought resistance if we thought god was responsible for rain... or rain dances... or virgin sacrifices.

And the problem is that everyone who believes in a god--sounds like you... like known woo... they give us pause because we've seen the story play out a hundred different times for all sorts of woo-- supernatural claims-- we've seen the story play out in our own minds and seen exactly how confirmation bias can work from experience as most of us once were believers or at least tried to believe. To a skeptic your evidence isn't evidence for us to believe in your god or any god... and neither is personal feelings or faith or "signs"-- those are known ways people misinterpret reality. To us it sounds like you believe a story you were given and you've propped it up via some very common ways people prop up such beliefs--semantics, "signs", personal revelation, faith, coincidences, associating correlation with causation, arguments from ignorance, moving goal posts, and nebulous definitions. You sound like you believe because you want to believe--you think it's good for something or that god wants your belief or that god has chosen you for some task. Moreover, it sounds like you don't really necessarily know why you believe, but you want it to be logical or rational or right or true. You are afraid to be wrong. At least that is what it sounds like to most of us skeptics. We look at you and do not feel your reasons for believing make a god true... and we never hear of different types of reasons. They are ALL of this variety. Which makes me conclude that they always have been. The myths never were based on facts.

And if there is only one truth-- then I will wait until the evidence comes in. Evidence proving any supernatural claim can come in at any time. It's what the MDC is for. But the more we read people like you who believe without real evidence... and the more nobody comes close to passing the challenge-- the more we conclude that it's all tricks of the mind. How can we not? Aren't these observations evidence of that? How can something real and true and objective be detectable by only subjective means by people who have been indoctrinated to believe? That makes no sense at all. Has faith ever been shown to be an actual method of verifiable truths? When I read your words, I feel like I'm watching how someone spins a delusion for themselves. I would like some woo to be true--some god, some mystical divine really cool magic thing--but so far it's science and mortals and facts that bring the really awe inspiring knowledge. The rest seems to be propped up by people who will believe no matter what. They think that faith without real evidence is noble as they've been indoctrinated to think. You can't reason with faith. You cannot prove a proposition is false to someone who is afraid of such knowledge.

From a skeptics position I often think of what someone could say to make the hijackers think about what they were doing... how did they know "souls" were real? But the faithful have learned to feel defensive when asked such questions. And all faith looks like varying varieties of that kind of thinking to me--possibly to most skeptics-- Illogical, but unfixable. Theists wonder why we don't believe without wondering why they do... or if they could be wrong, it seems.

Randi's astrology demonstrations are very good ways of tricking people into tricking themselves and getting the message--otherwise people just seem to presume that they can't be fooled and that they are being skeptical. How would you change the beliefs of a cult member? How are your beliefs more amenable to correction? In the case of a cult member, isn't a lack of belief better than believing the wrong thing? I think that's true for all supernatural beliefs.

[Hindmost]

The bible is about God (among other things) but not about science. I don't think that's ever been it's purpose. I don't really know why I should expect anything more from them.

It is not that the bible is a science book, but that fact that the bible is very much incompatible with science. Why would god make the bible so completely wrong with respect to science...It would indicate god making mistakes or willful deception. (as a sidebar, I have never understood why and omnipotent being had to rest after creating the universe)

What issues? Bad behavior by people calling themselves Christians?

Christians have consistantly claimed moral superiority and yet the highest eschelons of the Christian ranks have committed horrible acts. If they truly have divine guidance, then the acts have been committed with god's approval. As a skeptic, how do you resolve this issue?

For the record, I don't believe being a theist or atheist has much to do with people committing bad acts. However, I have felt that theists will perform them in the name of their god too easily.

For one - I don't believe everything anyone tells me. If I don't know or don't understand, I'm content not coming to a conclusion yet. But I also don't think I need to believe something that is contrary to everything I believe about God just because someone told me to.

And trust me, just because I can believe different things based on the bible doesn't mean it's possible to prove to someone who is a fellow believer - let alone someone who is not. So there's no point in going down a debate about Christian doctrines I believe or don't believe to someone who is not a Christian, let alone doesn't believe in God. No offense, intended, with this response by the way.

No offense taken, however, I don't see why you can't debate someone who is not a Christian. One of the main reasons I left Christianity behind so many years ago was the fact that Christians believe they are the only people on the planet going to heaven. The bible clearly states this without any possibility of interpretation. As I was raised Catholic, I was told that only Catholics were chosen as well. Recently, the pope confirmed this. Obviously, this means 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the world's population is doomed. I would just like one Christian anywhere to actually state whether or not they hold this belief...and how they justify it.

glenn

[A Christian Sceptic]

Christians have consistantly claimed moral superiority and yet the highest eschelons of the Christian ranks have committed horrible acts. If they truly have divine guidance, then the acts have been committed with god's approval. As a skeptic, how do you resolve this issue?


I don't believe God approves of evil committed by anyone.


No offense taken, however, I don't see why you can't debate someone who is not a Christian. One of the main reasons I left Christianity behind so many years ago was the fact that Christians believe they are the only people on the planet going to heaven. The bible clearly states this without any possibility of interpretation.


Well - I interpret it differently.


As I was raised Catholic, I was told that only Catholics were chosen as well. Recently, the pope confirmed this. Obviously, this means 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the world's population is doomed. I would just like one Christian anywhere to actually state whether or not they hold this belief...and how they justify it.


I really understand where you are coming from. I do not hold this belief. I believe that God is the father of all, any punishment is done as a parent to a child, and he wants all his children back home with him. Sorry - I won't go any further in this direction with anyone.

[mayday]

The only rational stance on this debate is an agnostic one. Theists and atheists can argue until they are blue in the face but it isn't going to change a thing.

I'm not going to agonize and worry over whether there is a god or not. It is an utterly futile feat. I'm going to worry about something that makes sense.

[Tricky]

The only rational stance on this debate is an agnostic one. Theists and atheists can argue until they are blue in the face but it isn't going to change a thing.

I'm not going to agonize and worry over whether there is a god or not. It is an utterly futile feat. I'm going to worry about something that makes sense.
Virtually all of the atheists here are also agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive, but many people think all atheists actually deny the existence of a God or gods, when in reality, they simply withhold belief. Try asking a few of them what it would take to convince them there is a God. You'll find that most have an answer that is not "nothing would convince me."

[Roboramma]

Here's what it comes down to for me:

Say I told you there was a star, 100,000 light years away. That wouldn't be too extraordinary a claim, and you might say, "Okay, I can believe that". It's probably true that there are many stars that distance, +/- 1 light year, say.

Now, what if I told you there was a planet orbiting that star? Again, not all that surprising. I would say, "I think that's likely."

Okay, so, now we've got a star and a planet, and it's all good.

But at this point, tell me the properties of this planet. What's it composed of? How big is it? Is there life? Is there intelligent life? Does that intelligent life live on land? How many limbs does it have? How many teeth? How long would it take the average member of that species to find the solution to the equation 2x=8?
We can't answer any of those questions, but the more specific they become, the more likely that the answer is no.

Similarly, if I said, "there is a theory of quantum gravity that we will one day discover", you might agree. If, on the other hand I started giving you the specifics of that theory, you'd be right to be skeptical. If those specifics happened to be unfalsifiable, that wouldn't make you say, "well, I can't prove him wrong, so I figure he's probably right."

Now, the universe may or may not have a cause. I'm not that opposed to the idea that it was caused in some way. But to suggest that we can say anything specific about that cause - and intelligence is damn specific, is as ridiculous.

Has there ever been a time in history when people, without evidence, were able to learn something so specific about the universe and be right about it?
There have been plenty of times when they were wrong.

Every time we've been able to test such ideas, they've turned out to be false. Some ideas do turn out to be true in spite of their originators having had very little evidence - but those were very vague ideas. And, as I said, an intelligent creator is damn specific.

[Roboramma]

The only rational stance on this debate is an agnostic one. Theists and atheists can argue until they are blue in the face but it isn't going to change a thing.

I'm not going to agonize and worry over whether there is a god or not. It is an utterly futile feat. I'm going to worry about something that makes sense.
I say the same thing to people who expect the sun to still be there tomorrow.

As well as those who waste time trying to learn about our origins. I mean, what a waste of time when it's entirely possible that the universe came into existence ten minutes ago.

God may exist. But as unlikely as an infinitude of other unfalsifiable ideas that we never even consider. As an atheist I think only that it deserves no more time, no more resources, no more thought, no more fear than any of the rest of them.
(That doesn't mean none by the way - I enjoy reading the lord of the rings, I enjoy watching star wars, and I enjoy some religious poetry. But I think all are equally valuable.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't believe God approves of evil committed by anyone. ....Unless it is God doing the evil.

List of God's (and Jesus' and a few of God's other friends') cruelty in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)

[Kopji]

Skeptics can make rational judgments that are also informed by human feelings or emotions. "Agnostic" just does not seem like an honest description of my pov. If I felt 'maybe' God existed or 'maybe not', why not stay in the religion I was raised in?

For me, disbelief was a mixture of not only not believing any more, but knowing that remaining and 'pretending' to believe was somehow harmful. It included a simple conclusion that if God existed, God had no honor in the sense we think of honor.

People do horrific things in God's name and under his banner; yet there is only a supposed kindly and compassionate silence. A photo album of God would include a kindly God watching over the shoulder of the priests as they abused, God smiling while playing a harp on the hillside as his people went to battle in his name. Maybe even a photo of God at the birth of a diseased or deformed child, resting his hands on the baby's head in blessing.

If you read your Bible you will see that God's promises to do something about it have gone on for thousands of years.

To reject the silence and just give God the benefit of doubt that he is silent because he does not exist seems more rational, but it is a rationality not completely absent of emotion.

[Tricky]

Skeptics can make rational judgments that are also informed by human feelings or emotions. "Agnostic" just does not seem like an honest description of my pov. If I felt 'maybe' God
This is where I feel a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of "agnostic". The root and the meaning of the word are both "without knowledge". It just means you admit you don't "know" for sure. This doesn't mean it is a 50-50 chance. You may have examined a hundred different concepts of God and found each one lacking. You may have discovered that every single religious person you have known has irrational reasons for their belief. But you still don't "know". As long as you can admit, "but I might be wrong", then you are agnostic, even though your examination means that you feel very strongly in one direction.

You can be agnostic without being wishy-washy.

[Beerina]

But agnostics, away from a philosophical discussion, are functionally athiests in that they behave as if God doesn't exist.

I suppose that makes athiest, agnostics, and 90% of the religious people more or less the same.

:duck:

[Kopji]

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god...
m-w online

I see the semantics of 'believer' 'agnostic' and 'atheist' as being a little bit like a game of chess. We use them in different ways depending on what we want to achieve.

I do understand and am generally ok with the sometimes fuzzy definition of agnostic.

The impression I get from many believers is that they perceive the term agnostic as an admission of possible wrongness that they themselves are unwilling to admit due to emotional experience that has attained a status of knowledge; therefore they are more 'right'. A strictly 'rational' atheist claim is perceived as actually being irrational because there is no way to ever "know" there is no God.

I am just saying that I can claim to be an atheist with as much validity as a believer claims belief.

Yes we agree that an agnostic position can be a common ground, but I'm not convinced that it is a real place for a believer. If you can admit you might be wrong about the existence of God, what kind of believer is that?

[Fiona]

It is true the words are not used very accurately and this can lead to confusion. I am in truth an agnostic, in that I do not believe that the question of god's existence is answerable in any meaningful way. However I call myself atheist because that is how I deal with other things in my life. Where there is no evidence for a proposition and there cannot be any evidence then I reach a conclusion on what I can know. I do not refuse to come to a conclusion on the existence of other proposed entities like the unicorns mentioned before - the most likely thing is they do not exist and I act on that conclusion. It is not that I could not one day be confronted with a unicorn and change my mind: it is just I find no advantage in reserving my position when there is nothing whatsoever to lead me to uncertainty. So I don't