Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

as I say, you have already decided that these books are not what they claim to be i.e. about the Divine

What I reject is that the scriptures are FROM a divine author. I would also add that I have no reason to believe that anyone knows anything ABOUT any god including whether they exist, what they think, or how they are.

But to address your comment, yes, I've already examined the relevant available evidence and arrived a conclusion based on it. As I wrote, "I offered you a chance to share some of this truth, and you declined." You still do, only now you seem to be asking what would be the point as if my mind were closed. It's the opposite. I've asked you repeatedly for additional evidence that might change my mind, and none has been forthcoming, so the conclusions I came to on the existing evidence remain unchanged.

back to the same old "God hasn't shown himself" stuff.

Back to the same old unbelief absent sufficient reason to believe. That's not going to change. You seem to object.

Let me think back 45 years ago, and analyse why I became a Muslim. I was reading the Bible, which was the Holy book I was raised with as a Protestant in the UK, and started questioning why Christians weren't following the OT, despite it being part of the Bible. This happened as I met Muslims when I moved to Birmingham UK. It was both rational and social. I learned more about Islam and attended a mosque with other new Muslims. I found a lot of new books, containing religious knowledge, and began to practice my new faith. I had a positive experience, had nothing but praise for God in the help that I have received. Going back to my previous state, was not something I view as positive, even though I know it can happen.

It's nice to know something about you. UK, formerly Christian, probably about my age (68 yo) if you changed religions 45 years ago.

But I wrote, "Right now, I think you believe that by faith, that somebody has told you that those words contain truth and wisdom, and that you repeat it not realizing that you have insufficient evidence to support that contention and have believed it anyway." Did you think you addressed that with your comment? I still think that you say that holy books contain truth and wisdom not because you have found any there, which I assume that you would have shared with the thread already if you had, but because others told you that they do, you believed it uncritically, and now you repeat it. If that's incorrect, you ought to be able to show how. If you can't or won't provide new evidence that contradicts that, why would I revise it? As I indicated earlier, I think your beliefs are comfortable for you and that's why you hold them and that's why you call them truth.

that leaves you without any chance of "knowing God", because you have decided that you don't need to find spiritual truths, as it is so easy to dismiss them all as "unlikely" and unhelpful.

That's incorrect. I didn't decide that I didn't need to find spiritual truth. I decided that there probably is no such thing as I define truth. You may recall that my words were "If you're correct, you should be able to provide an example of an ascertained spiritual truth. You can't. I know this because I know how truth is ascertained, and also because I have asked at least a half dozen RF posters who made the same claim to give me one of these truths and explain what makes it truth. They can't."

We'll never know what truth you have that I would have dismissed, will we? You've offered none, as predicted.

God knows why some people are attracted towards the Divine, and others are not. It isn't about rationality, but the needs of our soul.

This is theology as I've defined it. You posted, "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief." To me the systematic study of nature is science, not theology, and the systematic study of religious belief only theology when believers are doing it about their supernatural beliefs. If it's comparative religions, then it is social science, not theology.

You also posted, " It is possible to make rational conclusions .. it depends on the criteria used, and on the topic." As I've explained, theology is meaningless to me, an unbeliever, since it is predicated a god existing and man knowing something about it. It is impossible to generate sound conclusions from untrue premises. Believing them is irrational.

Some people have a strong faith due to knowledge

Not as I define knowledge, which is akin to truth and fact. Once you have sufficient knowledge to justify a belief, that belief is no longer believed by faith. Believing with less is faith. They are mutually exclusive categories. All beliefs are one or the other, and none is both or neither.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, that sounds interesting. I have a few questions:
What is exactly the methodology to demonstrate God exists? Can you demonstrate this method is reliable?
Who are the Messengers and how can they be identified as Messengers?

The only way we can know that God exists is through the Messengers, and the only way we can know if a man is a Messenger of God is by researching and investigating him and his claims. Obviously, you cannot research every man who claimed to be a Messenger of God, so as a starting point, you would have to go by certain criteria that a Messenger would have to meet.

I listed the criteria in this post #751

 

[Trailblazer]

If your religion shoved beliefs down your throat, you are a member of a cult. Probably too late to get out now, but do try to speak to someone.

My religion did not do that, it is a friend in my religion who has been shoving that belief down my throat... NOT the same.

 

[samtonga43]

My religion did not do that, it is a friend in my religion who has been shoving that belief down my throat... NOT the same.

In that case, your friend is in a cult. Only those who are members of a cult would 'shove their beliefs down your throat'.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is an improvement. Previously, you said that God existed outside of time and space. Now you got him existing in his own separate time and space, but that idea has a problem as well if one wants to imply that this other spacetime is separate from nature. Anything that can be said to exist can interact with other things that exist, that is, they are causally connected, making each detectable to the other, and all a part of nature. Supernatural as in not detectable even in principle, yet able to modify reality as the supernatural is often described is an incoherent concept.

"Anything that can be said to exist can interact with other things that exist, that is, they are causally connected, making each detectable to the other, and all a part of nature" is nothing but your personal opinion, your rule. That certainly does not make it a fact.

The spiritual world is not "all a part of nature" because it is not a natural world. The spiritual world can never be described because it is so different from this world. The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother.

The spiritual world is not natural, it is supernatural, since it is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Because it is not natural, is not detectable from this world, which is natural. The spiritual world is separated from the natural world. The two worlds are connected but we cannot see the spiritual world from this world.

It seems to me that believers believe because it is comforting, not because their beliefs are empirically supported. Their reasons aren't related to what is true, because that isn't as important as what comforts.

That is gross generalization. That might apply to some believers but it certainly does not apply to all believers. To say that all believers believe for the same reason, i.e., emotional comfort, is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of black and white thinking. Believers all have their own reasons for believing in God just as atheists all have their own reasons for disbelieving in God. Moreover, even if the beliefs are comforting, that does not mean that is the reason believers believe them. Comfort is just a side benefit of some of the beliefs. Moreover, all the beliefs are not comforting, some are downright frightening! I am sure you have heard of the fear of God. This is one reason some of us believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

What would be left of religion if it didn't have self-promotion?

"Your alternatives to my product are awful. You should buy my product.

"My product is wonderful. You should use it a lot. You should come to rely on it."

- every shady sales pitch ever

There is no product in this world that is wonderful and that was the point of the verses.

product: an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=product+means

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In that case, your friend is in a cult. Only those who are members of a cult would 'shove their beliefs down your throat'.

Or a friend is genuinely trying to help a friend, which is what I would consider.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

In that case, your friend is in a cult. Only those who are members of a cult would 'shove their beliefs down your throat'.

That is not what he did, that is just what it felt like at the time. All he did was try to 'convince me' that God is loving.
Christians try to convince people that God is loving all the time... Does that make Christianity a cult?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no product in this world that is wonderful and that was the point of the verses.

product: an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=product+means

My point was that a religion is an article that's "manufactured or refined for sale."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The only reason there I have a conflict is because it has been shoved down my throat that God is all-loving and it is drop dead obvious to me that God cannot be all-loving given all the suffering in this world, and I do not mean only my own suffering. If it was only my suffering that could be just bad luck. This world is as Abdu'l-Baha said, a Storehouse of Suffering.

Baha'is are so illogical, to believe God is all-loving when God is the one who created the world that is a storehouse of suffering.

The subject of suffering is indeed a challenge.

A subject that does seem to defy logic. Yet it is those that told us about God that suffer the most in this world and it is those that told us about God, that say God is all Loving.

So it is a quandary indeed. The solution to that quandary may be found in the very suffering one faces? Could it be that finding one's own answer to this, could be also finding out what it is to be all Loving?

Personally I look back at my darkness hours and see that from them, that I was shown many things I would have not have seen if I had not been through those dark hours and this is the door it led me to, personally I am yet to walk through, but at the door one can appreciate the wisdom beyond that door.

"…the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene." – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 109.

All the best in life and happiness to you Trailblazer. Love from down under always to you and all.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The subject of suffering is indeed a challenge.

A subject that does seem to defy logic. Yet it is those that told us about God that suffer the most in this world and it is those that told us about God, that say God is all Loving.

So it is a quandary indeed. The solution to that quandary may be found in the very suffering one faces? Could it be that finding one's own answer to this, could be also finding out what it is to be all Loving?

Personally I look back at my darkness hours and see that from them, that I was shown many things I would have not have seen if I had not been through those dark hours and this is the door it led me to, personally I am yet to walk through, but at the door one can appreciate the wisdom beyond that door.

"…the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene." – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 109.

All the best in life and happiness to you Trailblazer. Love from down under always to you and all.

Regards Tony

It's funny how, when it comes to monotheists trying to explain their god, the most "loving," "good," "wise," etc. action is always the one that's completely indistinguishable from no action at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"I offered you a chance to share some of this truth, and you declined." You still do, only now you seem to be asking what would be the point as if my mind were closed. It's the opposite. I've asked you repeatedly for additional evidence that might change my mind, and none has been forthcoming, so the conclusions I came to on the existing evidence remain unchanged.

It's not my responsibility to convince you of anything.
The books and knowledge are there.

I share "my truth" in most threads I participate in.
..and you want an "instant response"?
..means nothing.

I still think that you say that holy books contain truth and wisdom not because you have found any there, which I assume that you would have shared with the thread already if you had, but because others told you that they do, you believed it uncritically, and now you repeat it.

In a way .. "others told you that they do".
Yes, I believe that Jesus and Muhammad "told us that they do", and are not lying about God.

..As I indicated earlier, I think your beliefs are comfortable for you and that's why you hold them and that's why you call them truth.

I wish they were! .. I'm not one of those people who think they go straight to heaven because they believe rightly etc.
On the contrary, I think I am gulity and in danger of not only suffering in this life, but also in the life hereafter.
Islam and Orhodox Christianity are similar in this respect, that do not teach automatic success for believers. It is dependent on many factors, but we should not lose hope of God's forgiveness.
[meaning the whole cosmos, in effect]

We'll never know what truth you have that I would have dismissed, will we? You've offered none, as predicted.

Well, what is it exactly that you want to know?
Do you know the ins and outs of Chrsitianity and Islam?
I think you used to be a Christian, but wanted "instant response" from God. If He had given it to you, would you still have turned away?
..it's not easy.

As I've explained, theology is meaningless to me, an unbeliever, since it is predicated a god existing and man knowing something about it. It is impossible to generate sound conclusions from untrue premises..

Yes. It's all untrue because you say so. You need God to "prove He exists", otherwise you sulk and ignore it all.

Not as I define knowledge, which is akin to truth and fact. Once you have sufficient knowledge to justify a belief, that belief is no longer believed by faith. Believing with less is faith. They are mutually exclusive categories. All beliefs are one or the other, and none is both or neither.

It doesn't matter how you define it.
Some people are educated, and some are not.

One can sincerely believe in God and have faith, but have little knowledge. Their faith relies on something other than knowledge.
Religious knowledge can strenghen faith.
..and as far as I'm concerned, that is a fact.

satan has knowledge, but unfortunately, he uses it to trick others.
satan could be any human that wants to destroy others, and denude them of faith and hope. Some people are envious, and that is also a fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Anything that can be said to exist can interact with other things that exist, that is, they are causally connected, making each detectable to the other, and all a part of nature" is nothing but your personal opinion, your rule. That certainly does not make it a fact.

Then rebut it if it is incorrect in your opinion. Explain why you think it is wrong. Simply dissenting has no power of persuasion. If you could come up with a better definition of existent that doesn't allow nonexistent thing to be called existent, you would, but you can't.

You don't have to acknowledge this, and you won't if you need it to be false because of your other faith-based beliefs, but that doesn't change the reality that the god you believe in is indistinguishable from all other nonexistent things. Can you explain why you consider anything at all nonexistent? When you say that such-and-such isn't real, what are you saying about it that isn't also true for gods and supernatural realms? Absolutely nothing other than that one exists and the other doesn't in your opinion, and nothing more.

The spiritual world is not "all a part of nature" because it is not a natural world. The spiritual world can never be described because it is so different from this world.

I guess you don't have a problem offering personal opinion as fact after all.

That's the definition of nonexistent. Everything that doesn't exist can be described that way, but nothing that does exist fits that description. That's what a good definition does. It provides a description that allows one to distinguish which are things rightly included from everything else: "An intensional (sic) definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used."

I've already rebutted that, incidentally. There is no world that isn't a part of nature that can affect nature. To postulate that there exists something which cannot be detected is the same as saying it doesn't exist. If a deity lived in such a causally disconnected space, it would be indistinguishable from everything else that can't be detected, like werewolves and leprechauns.

Believers all have their own reasons for believing in God just as atheists all have their own reasons for disbelieving in God.

You think atheists all have their own reason for being atheists? I've only ever heard one - lack of sufficient reason to believe in gods. Theists, however, all have their own god. You do. Your god is unloving. I don't recall hearing that one before.

Moreover, even if the beliefs are comforting, that does not mean that is the reason believers believe them.

What else is there if there is insufficient evidence of gods to believe? What's the motive for believing without it if not to meet some psychological need?

Moreover, all the beliefs are not comforting, some are downright frightening! I am sure you have heard of the fear of God. This is one reason some of us believe.

You don't see that as a comforting belief? Why don't you just defy this god, or would that be too uncomfortable?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

Personally I would suggest the only legitimate reasons would be if one has not heard of God.

That opens a minefield as well!

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's funny how, when it comes to monotheists trying to explain their god, the most "loving," "good," "wise," etc. action is always the one that's completely indistinguishable from no action at all.

Yes you can use that as an excuse.

Regards Tony

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not my responsibility to convince you of anything.

It should be your pleasure and privilege to teach.

The books and knowledge are there.

Unjustified belief is not knowledge.

I share "my truth" in most threads I participate in...and you want an "instant response"?

How long does it take to write a sentence or two that you consider truth? Look at your claim - you have knowledge, truth, and wisdom in holy books, claim to have given these truths elsewhere but can't write out any example in this thread, and besides, it's not your responsibility anyway to support your claims.

I wish they were! .. I'm not one of those people who think they go straight to heaven because they believe rightly etc.
On the contrary, I think I am gulity and in danger of not only suffering in this life, but also in the life hereafter.

Well, what is it exactly that you want to know?

Nothing other than a reason to believe your claims if one existed. I predicted that you had none, and you've offered none.

I think you used to be a Christian, but wanted "instant response" from God. If He had given it to you, would you still have turned away?

If I had had a reason to continue believing, I would still be a Christian. That god had a decade to reveal itself.

You need God to "prove He exists", otherwise you sulk and ignore it all.

Sulk? That's the believer who has the emotional response. I just walked away from religion. I wasn't angry then and I'm not angry now. My reaction is about the same as to Santa. I once believed, I no longer do, and I have zero emotional response to that. No sulking about Santa or gods here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Personally I would suggest the only legitimate reasons would be if one has not heard of God.

That opens a minefield as well!

Regards Tony

Yes, it opens up a minefield because hearing of God is not the same as hearing from God, and as you know atheists do not believe that hearing from Messengers is the same as hearing from God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It should be your pleasure and privilege to teach.
Unjustified belief is not knowledge.

Contradictory .. you say "teach me" .. what .. "unfounded belief"?

How long does it take to write a sentence or two that you consider truth?

..but you are only trying to be "smart".
You have already told me that "scientific fact" is the only truth you will entertain.
Scientific fact teaches about this world, and is not what Jesus or Muhammad taught.
..hence I conclude you dismiss it with this haughty stance.

it's not your responsibility anyway to support your claims.

You speak as If I have declared myself a prophet.
I am merely a believer and you are merely a disbeliever.

My reaction is about the same as to Santa. I once believed, I no longer do, and I have zero emotional response to that. No sulking about Santa or gods here.

Well, good for you..

I believe, and it means nothing to you OK

It means something to me that you disbelieve.
As I already pointed out, I find your views extreme, in that you talk about santa and FSM. It seems emotional to me.
You must know the difference, but you pretend there isn't any.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, it opens up a minefield because hearing of God is not the same as hearing from God, and as you know atheists do not believe that hearing from Messengers is the same as hearing from God.

Nor do Christians. Hearing from Jesus is the same as hearing from God. But of course Jesus is more than a mere messenger.

 

[samtonga43]

That is not what he did, that is just what it felt like at the time. All he did was try to 'convince me' that God is loving.

That is not what he did? Now you are contradicting yourself.

Christians try to convince people that God is loving all the time... Does that make Christianity a cult?

No, because you have fallen for the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.