How Can Anyone NOT Believe in God?

[Jack Kieser]

I always love reading/participating in these kinds of discussions (that is, as long as it stays a discussion and doesn't turn into an attempt of conversion) because everyone interprets things in such a different fashion, and I enjoy hearing how different two people can see the same thing.

The Catholic Church, for instance (As AltF4 brought up). My grandparents, up until the day I left for college, tried getting me to be a Catholic, and as such I've seen a lot of bad things caused by the Church itself. People forcing their beliefs on others, for instance. I've seen a lot of people strong-armed into believing in God, and I think that's wrong... but I also find it interesting how members of various religious groups would find said 'strong-arm'ing a cause for celebration, for another person has been brought into God's loving embrace.

Personally, I don't believe in God for the simple fact that all of the scientific evidence has been to the contrary of God, but it's not like I have a 100% belief in his/her/its non-existence, either. As Richard Dawkins says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I just haven't seen it yet, although I know full well what it would take for me to change my mind: seeing God. (Not 'feeling', by the way. I mean visual confirmation of some sort, be it a physical manifestation or scientific confirmation of the complete breaking of laws of nature, etc.)

 

[adumbrodeus]

It absolutely is relevant to this thread, Adumbrodeus! That's exactly what this thread is about: Why I don't believe in god.

And that is one many reasons. Just because Catholicism is an easy target doesn't make it invalid. And furthermore, I am NOT trying to put together a definitive proof of the non-existence of god. Such a thing is impossible by design of theists. (After all, it would be a tragedy to be proven wrong, right?)

Would you feel better if I listed every major religion and showed fundamental inconsistencies with their belief systems? I very well may in a bit. Or how about EVERY religion? Even all the completely absurd native american belief systems.

Put them all together and what do you have? A complete proof of god's non-existence? No. But a compelling argument for it. One that I refuse to ignore.

Two major points here.


Firstly, was not really taking issue with the irrelevance of your test of religion. I was taking issue with you classifying Catholicism as evil. Catholicism's "goodness" or lack thereof as an organization is not a commentary on the validity of the Catholic belief system. It's simply an attack on said religion, especially when unqualified.







Second point (what you stated here is relevant to the thread, but it's in the quoted post, not the previous one)

Are you familiar with Fermat's Last Theorem? (I'm sure you are, this is just an illustration)

It worked in every single case it was presented, but until there was a solid proof for it, it was just a conjecture. The reason is that the theorem is "for all". If it didn't work in one case, then it is invalid, and to prove that it works in all cases, infinite tests must be done.



God is an existential issue, so to disprove God, you must again prove the negative "for all", in other words, all possible belief systems are invalid. Even positing every single belief system that exists would not be sufficient to disprove God, since it doesn't account for the infinite possible systems. The only way to prove the statement "God does not exist" is to use pre-existing principals and logic to positively prove.



You obviously understand this, because you stated basically this reason. So why am I bringing this up?

Because that specific reason for disbelieving in God is poor. A test of an individual religion (whether your conclusion is valid or not, and I'd be glad to debate you on that point) is totally illogical for concluding that all are invalid.


Not that your lack of belief in God is necessarily illogical. The obligation is on religion to prove the existence of God. So if an individual attempts to prove God through usage of any principal, including their own religion, it is perfectly acceptable as the "con" side in a debate to destroy their argument.

Properly quantified, saying a religion is incorrect to pre-emptively eliminate a competing argument you have encountered is valid as well. Just don't generalize from there.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed, I'm not sure if you understand my prerogative. When I point fingers and call "strong atheist!" I do so in a manner not unlike the Socratic Method. You're right, I don't have a stance. My intentions are obvious - I'm only trying to show the hypocrisy in atheistic arguments.

All in all, your post is more telling me what I'm doing wrong. Rather, I'd like to be shown how I'm wrong.

I really don't understand what you're asking of me. Can you give me an example of something, how someone would "tell" you what you're doing is wrong and how someone would "show" you what you're doing is wrong? The following is a foolish question, but, do you want me to draw a picture for you? *confused*

You SHOULD be.

There is no positive proof that either does not exist, but there is no evidence to the contrary.

However, there are obvious distinctions between degrees. One who holds that the tooth fairly is highly unlikely is closer to the atheist end then one who claims that he/she holds no opinion about whether or not the tooth fairy actually exists.

If you positively claim "the tooth fairy does not exist", you've fallen into strong atheism, and signifigantly weakened your argument.



It's signifigantly easier from a philosophical prospective to just attack arguments attempting to prove something anyway. Whenever you assert something it becomes far more difficult.

I think this is exactly snex's point, to show how the same argument delorted and many theists use for god can be applied in the same way to santa claus and the tooth fairy shows how ridiculous the argument stands (notice how I didn't say the entire idea of god is ridiculous, just this argument).

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think this is exactly snex's point, to show how the same argument delorted and many theists use for god can be applied in the same way to santa claus and the tooth fairy shows how ridiculous the argument stands (notice how I didn't say the entire idea of god is ridiculous, just this argument).

-blazed

I understand that.

However my point is that it's not unreasonable in EITHER case.

If the argument is not absurd when applied to the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, a mysterious teacup orbiting the earth, or an invisible pink Unicorn, then why is applying the argument to God any less valid?

The argument is not ridiculous except when something has been proven to not exist (good luck on that...) or has been proven to exist.


If something is not absurd, it's not a good Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[blazedaces]

I understand that.

However my point is that it's not unreasonable in EITHER case.

If the argument is not absurd when applied to the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, a mysterious teacup orbiting the earth, or an invisible pink Unicorn, then why is applying the argument to God any less valid?

The argument is not ridiculous except when something has been proven to not exist (good luck on that...) or has been proven to exist.


If something is not absurd, it's not a good Reductio ad absurdum.

My point isn't that the argument is wrong, again, it's that the argument is simply not a good one. It's one that relies on semantics. Here's another argument for God that is even worse and relies on semantics similarly: I define god as a coin on my desk. Since the coin is on my desk evident by how I can touch it, see it, feel it, hear it if I hit it against something else, even smell it, then God must exist.

If your belief in God is only as strong as your belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy your belief is simply not a very strong one. I honestly don't care to argue with you at this point about God since God is no longer even a deity, it's just (since Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy fall under the same definition) a conceptual entity.

This is where the idea of atheism comes from (or agnosticism or whatever in the world you feel like calling it). It's for a lot of people just throwing their hands up and saying "I don't care!". I don't care for this last latch of God in the same way I don't care about whether Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy actually exist...

To clear up one last thing before we move on, I'm not an atheist, I'm a deist.

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

My point isn't that the argument is wrong, again, it's that the argument is simply not a good one. It's one that relies on semantics. Here's another argument for God that is even worse and relies on semantics similarly: I define god as a coin on my desk. Since the coin is on my desk evident by how I can touch it, see it, feel it, hear it if I hit it against something else, even smell it, then God must exist.

Please tell me you haven't actually heard this one used.

 

[blazedaces]

Please tell me you haven't actually heard this one used.

No, obviously, but I use it every time an argument is presented in this nature. I hear arguments presented in this nature all the time. Instead of just saying "that argument doesn't actually say anything, you're just re-defining the original statement making your original point invalid" I use this example. People often understand examples better.

For some reason I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I've heard arguments poised in this nature quite often... There might even be a term for it in critical reasoning (a philosophy application).

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

that is not strong atheism at all. he did not make any claims about knowledge, nor did he claim to hold any beliefs. he said what he DOESNT believe, not what he DOES. you still cant seem to grasp the difference.

He "truly" believes God does not exist.

if i dont know that there is a god, then i cant very well believe in one, now can i? and if other people do claim to know there is a god, i can examine their arguments and show why they are unsound.

If people claim to know there isn't a god, I can do the same.

by your idiotic standard, you would have to claim to be agnostic about santa claus and the tooth fairy, since you dont KNOW that they dont exist.

Umm...so what?

Socrates would be ashamed.

 

[snex]

He "truly" believes God does not exist.

he did not say that, liar. stop lying about what people say.

If people claim to know there isn't a god, I can do the same.

NOBODY CLAIMS THAT YOU LIAR.

Umm...so what?

Socrates would be ashamed.

so youre a liar AND youre stupid if you are going to pretend that any otherwise fully functioning adult who actually believed in santa claus wouldnt deserve being laughed at. you would not engage such a person in a serious discussion about the existence of santa claus, you would call him an idiot and tell him to grow up.

 

[Deleted member]

he did not say that, liar. stop lying about what people say.

The day I finally convinced my self that I truly did not believe there is a God was the day I finally felt free. It's weird, but I feel as if I've become a better person since I became atheist.

I wonder if size 5 is big enough? I wonder how he convinced himself? That must have been a pretty *cough* sound argument!

so youre a liar AND youre stupid if you are going to pretend that any otherwise fully functioning adult who actually believed in santa claus wouldnt deserve being laughed at. you would not engage such a person in a serious discussion about the existence of santa claus, you would call him an idiot and tell him to grow up.

Since when is philosophical skepticism idiotic? Calm down friendo. You make yourself look stupid.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I wonder if size 5 is big enough? I wonder how he convinced himself? That must have been a pretty *cough* sound argument!

"truly did not believe there is a God" != "truly believes God does not exist."

How do you repeatedly manage to fallaciously equate not believing that God exists with believing that he does not exist. It's really hard for me to believe you're not doing this on purpose.

The former is simply NOT having a certain belief. You identify a belief you DON'T have.

The latter is actively having the OPPOSITE of that certain belief. You identify a belief you DO have.

 

[AltF4]

Philosophical skepticism IS stupid most of the time. Nobody stops to think about the possible nonexistence of oncoming traffic. Within the confines of a Philosophy 101 class, congrats. But in the real world, in to be a functioning human being, you need to form beliefs based upon "theoretically" incomplete information.

If I had a definitive and concrete disproof of god, I wouldn't be sitting and talking to any of you. I'd be out writing a book and making lots of money. But alas, I don't. I only have my incomplete knowledge and the beliefs I form from them.

And even though I've begun to enumerate the reasons why I'm an atheist, Del, you haven't responded to them. Isn't that what you wanted from the OP?

I'm putting myself on the spot. I'm telling you why I believe what I do. You tell me why it's unreasonable, unfounded, or irrational.

 

[Deleted member]

Well ****. Let me formally retract the first part of my last post. I'll leave it as an example of posting too quickly. You needn't correct me, I realized I made a mistake the minute I posted.

Alt - I'm formulating a post. When I have the time, I'll get to it.

 

[RBinator]

Why should I be any more opened to the possibility of God, then say the possible existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It could be argued that both of them were created for the sake of satire, but this brings me to another point. I believe the whole concept of God was thought up by humans to not only feel like they have answers that science doesn't yet have, but also to control the masses, usually through fear. Just because I believe that doesn't mean it's true. This may apply to some deities out there and not to others. Again, how can you truly disprove something without having to know everything that's out there?

Should I be opened to the possibility just because millions of people out there believe? Does millions of believers somehow mean there's some truth to it? How can millions of people not be wrong? Was the Earth flat because the majority thought it was? Maybe in their minds it was, but objective, it wasn't. Then again, this could lead to "doesn't everyone live in their own reality or parallel universe?" discussion, which I think would be better saved for another topic. Anyway, I know there are many arguments for how the universe that we know today couldn't have been random or a mistake, so that their must be a creator. Just because it's here doesn't mean someone had to make it. While that may not apply within the rules and laws of our universe, would it apply outside of it?

I think there's a possibly this all could have been random, not that I'm any expert on the Big Bang. I'm also aware that everything seems so perfectly designed and made that it couldn't possibly be random. However, I think many people think this because this is all we know. Of course it could be considered perfect if we don't know anything else. Also, our minds do have limits to what we can think of. For example, can you really think of a color that doesn't exist in reality? Also, we only have five senses, so there may really be a lot more around else that we don't know about because out senses may not detect it. That's also how I feel if God were to exist, that it would be outside our senses or something that science may not be able to detect for a long, long time, if ever.

With those thoughts added to the thread, are we still gonna get "atheists should really be agnostic" repeated?

 

[Wolfang]

The reason people can or can't believe in God is because we have the option not too. Choice is given to us from birth, so anyone can choose to go with or against their conscious, and that can or will become the truth to them.

My mind remains in the young stage where I have my faith, but I believe what I can physically analyze. RBinator made one of the best points I've ever heard last post: how can you disprove something without ever knowing it existed? Yet when there is a position that God was made up to control people with fear, I can never agree. Even if he was conceived by mankind, it's more of a temperate apprehension that it bestows, no more than a child would fear a parent. Even though the fear is there, the choice remains. That's simply how people cannot believe in God. They can sit on the fence till they lose there balance, or they can tip off to one side.

 

[RBinator]

The difference between fear of parents (and other authority figures) and God is that there's no debate if the former exists. It's a pretty sure bet that if you get caught by authority figures doing something you're not suppose to, you'll get punished. As for God, if we knew for sure there was one out there who would punish us, this topic wouldn't be here. I think it comes down to fear of the known (authority figures) and fear of the unknown (God).

While choices are ultimately up to the person, fear can factor in, either it be known or unknown. Isn't it much easier to get people to obey if you say "don't steal or you will owe many times more the value of what you stolen" rather then "stealing is a crime, don't do it", regardless of what the actual punishment may be? Wouldn't it have worked out much better say about 2,000 years ago then with today's science and philosophy?

At one point, the thought of the afterlife really did scared me, till I changed my view on it. Hey I still held that belief today, I might would've decided to become a Christian just to avoid punishment. Well, despite all the fear and Hell threats, I made my choice of not believing in any deities. Again, while fear doesn't force people to make choices, it certain helps.

That's not to say using fear at all is bad. It can certainly scare people into behaving well, but my issue is that I feel that God was created to be the highest authority of all to use fear like punishment after death.

Then again, I might have completely missed the point.

 

[KevinM]

Meh, it's scientifically impossible to travel to the future, ALT4. Only to the past. Unless I need some updating to do.<_<

I don't know if you wrote that 'for the sake' of the point, because if so, then sorry.

Actually with relativity it's possible to "Travel" into the future the closer you get to the speed of light, It is however IMPOSSIBLE to go back in time. By traveling to the future they literally mean that time around you slows down, so while you've been traveling forty years near the speed of light you may have only aged twenty years. Therefore you can make an argument that you've jumped 20 years forward into the future.

Hmm, I think that was what i used in my relativity paper, I know i made an analogy to a space traveler, let me check just to make sure I'm not falsely correcting you here.

 

[Deleted member]

If you know someone who claims to "know that there is no god", then I agree in you labeling them as hypocritical, and just plain unscientific. But we (or I, rather. I don't like speaking for others) are not those people.

Okay, so we agree. However...

I hold the belief that there is no god. I have this belief for a multitude of reasons, none of which add up to a conclusive "proof of the non-existence of god" but are sufficient as I see it for me to hold that belief. I began to enumerate my reasons in my first post in this thread, but it went largely unnoticed.

So..before I continue, I want to make sure that this is a belief. It's not a lack of belief, it's a belief. Therefore you're still in the realm of hypocrisy, for holding the belief that there is a god (which is the opposite on the existence, not the matter of belief versus lack of belief) is a fallacy. I don't think I'm wrong on this, however, it's early in the morning and I'm a little sleepy. It's getting very difficult to discern whether or not you're actually believing or simply having a lack of one, but since you say that you hold the belief, I'm going to assume that you (unfortunately) fallaciously believe there is no God, instead of the safer, "lack of belief" point of view. God, what a ramble.

The following are all problems with theism of various kinds that I have seen no sufficient answer for:

Actually, these reasons are not so much for theism. Sure, these are problems with theism, but that's the umbrella term. These are generally problems you see with religion. And as I said in the original post, you don't need to be a part of religion to believe in a God. As I earlier theorized, people have trouble believing in a God because they see religion with many holes in it. And I will admit that some of these holes have no real answers to them.

However. The concept of God is not synonymous with religion. Therefore, it is an association fallacy.

1) Bad things happen to good / innocent people constantly.
2) Good things happen to bad people constantly.

Omni-benevolence is a trait associated with the popular notion of the Christian God, and surely other religions - I'm surprised someone as smart as you doesn't realize this.

3) Problems with Free Will (see related thread)
4) Extreme lack of consistency in miracles (see: "why does god hate amputees")
5) Religions are largely separated geopolitically
6) Biblical inconsistencies (or absurdities)
7) Religious atrocities (like the crusades, but this falls partly in the other categories too)

Religion, religion, religion. Again, these are matters that pertain to religious fallacies. If you abandon religion, that's fine, and in some cases I would believe that it's healthy to do so. However, denying the existence of a God because you see Christiantity as evil or simply contradictory is completely irrelevant to a belief in God. It's relevant to hear your reasons, but you've exposed a weakness. I thank you for explaining why you don't believe in God, but perhaps you can rethink your position after realizing that the concept of a God and Christianity are not inherently related.

Personally:
1) Personal experience with the corrupt and undeniably evil nature of the catholic church.
2) Everything I have accomplished or possess, I have done so entirely on my own through my own hard work.
3) Though my hard work, I have accomplished much more than the religious people I know. (I tease them that god must like me better.)
4) I have yet to be struck by lightning while yelling blasphemy in the rain.
5) I have yet to find a question that was answered to my satisfaction by religion.


I could enumerate more reasons if need be, too. Those are just some off the top of my head. These are some of the things that make me believe there is not a god.

I don't need to repeat myself, but yea...same thing here.

 

[cF=)]

I don't see the point in an unreligious God.

- He doesn't punish nor reward.
- He probably created the universe, but he doesn't do anything else.
- He is still as untestable as any religious god.

This is where you can say god isn't necessary and still, unprovable. It makes as much sense as saying Barbra Streisand is behind the physics of the universe.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, I am saying I hold a belief about the non-existence of god. But it's just a belief, I'm not positive. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Just having a lack-of-belief is a much easier rode to travel... but isn't actually how I feel.

I don't think it's hypocritical to hold this belief categorically. I feel that religious beliefs are irrational because they are are based upon poor reasons. (or none at all) If my belief IS based upon good reasons, then it wouldn't be hypocritical. But that's what we're discussing here...


Most of those things that I listed do implicitly pertain to the Judeo-Cristian god just because it's probably most familiar to all of us. But here's my problem, what exactly IS god then? The question only makes sense in context of a particular religion. Unless you can give me a definition of god that holds true for EVERY religion, but I doubt it.

So you ask me "Why do you believe Hinduism is wrong"? The answer is probably more obvious than you think, and I'm certainly willing to bet it's the same reason you don't believe in Hinduism: I was not born into a family that was Hindu.

This is what I was getting at with my statement that religions are geopolitically separated. It's an interesting phenomenon that has a clear and obvious answer: religions are cultural. People do not choose their beliefs any more than they choose their culture. So their beliefs can be viewed as depending entirely on the location of their birth. A rather awful reason to believe in a particular deity. So this is one flaw I find with every religion on our planet which stems from another issue...

You can convince a child of anything. Literally anything. Even nonsense such as imaginary oversized rabbits which lay eggs and hand out candy. It's absurd. And it's easy to see just how religion in general can persist. Everyone preaches to their children from a young age, brainwashing them. it is absolutely nothing short of brainwashing.

I would be willing to claim that if the entire world raised their children without mention of a god at all until a competent age, religion as we know it would vanish.

This post is long enough, but later I think I'll go more in depth about other major religions.

 

[Wolfang]

I reason why I laugh about this topic alot is because there are so many people that throw themselves in the paradox of trying to disprove something they say is unprovable...there's nothing to disprove...

 

[yossarian22]

I don't see the point in an unreligious God.

- He doesn't punish nor reward.
- He probably created the universe, but he doesn't do anything else.
- He is still as untestable as any religious god.

This is where you can say god isn't necessary and still, unprovable. It makes as much sense as saying Barbra Streisand is behind the physics of the universe.

While I personally see little point, some philosophies rely on the notion of a god.

I reason why I laugh about this topic alot is because there are so many people that throw themselves in the paradox of trying to disprove something they say is unprovable...there's nothing to disprove...

You realize that there is a massive difference between a epistemological disproof and a scientific one right?

 

[mzink*]

I don't know if there is a Higher Force or not, I hope that there is sometimes but theres no way I can be sure. But whats the point in dwelling on it? I feel that its enough to be aware of the the force of life and my connection to the earth and be respectful of that and seek to be one with it. If there is a Higher Force I do not believe It would be looking for anymore out of me other than that, and I am always at peace with this knowledge.