Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[F1fan]

Uhh, no.

Yet we observe believers very comfortable claiming they believe their version of God exists, and some even claim they KNOW God exists. That doesn't suggest they are comfortable?

Again, that is like saying that religious people are not being rational, if they think that God is likely to exist.
Your idea of "critical thinker" is more one of "materialist thinker".

First, we are all materialist thinkers. Just because some thiests believe what they believe is immaterial is irrelevant. Second, neither you or other theists have explained what is rational about deciding supernatural concepts that lack evidence is a rational thing to believe are true.

Well, you are safe there then.
"experts" in science are not gods, but human mortals like ourselves. Why should God show them the unseen, but not us?

This doesn't offer anyone a reason to assume a God exists given the lack of evidence. And I'll defend deferring to experts in science because they avoid assuming a spuernatural as that assumpion is unnecessary and unwarranted. It is a liability in undestanding how things are in the universe.

The Qur'an is not "ancient", relatively speaking .. and nether is the NT.

They were both written well before the age of reason, science, and modernity. They aren't considered factual given the references to gods and supernatural concepts.

Did you?

We see in the OT, that mankind are often envious of one another. Adam's son, Cain, killed his brother Abel .. not even over wealth, but over his brother being praised.

Yes I did wonder thy Christians didn't get along when they claimed their belief is of love and Godliness. The lack of consistency was glaring and I couldn;t ignore it. That Christians and other theists make lofty moral claims that they themselves don't follow suggests there is something flawed in religious belief, devotion, etc.

As I have noted I would be im pressed by believers if they all showd a remarkable wisdom, balance, tolerance, knowledge, and moral comittment. But they are no better than average folks. Christian and Muslim extremists tend to ignore many lessons in their holy books, and that suggests they don't take God or the books seriously.

Both Muslims and Christians are tempted by evil .. being religious in fact, often means that satan [the envy of others] causes them to behave badly .. temptation is there for all.

And their failures reflect on the claim of God existing. I find it odd that believers think a Satan exists along with God. The more reasoned conclusion is that the idea of God is symbolic of the good in humans, and Satan is a symbol for what is bad in humans, yet Abrahamic believers through the age of reason and into modernity still take these concepts literally, and refer to God ad Satan as real beings influencing humans. This illustrates how the tradtion of belief is a powerful social phenomenon, and devout minds have little control and authority over it.

Mmm .. "satan" probably decided you are no longer a threat, and you get some peace.

Now it makes sense. Why didn't I assume an improbable actor was respsonsible instead of me? That damn reasoning!!

Yes, the tradition was forced on the Romans by their rulers, and the tradition still remains.
I believe what I do, because the Qur'an leaves no doubt.
i.e. Jesus is the promised Messiah, and not God

Followers will go along with the norms. They are busy trying to stay alive than sit back and ponder what is popular lore in their society.

How is that?

Are you admitting that you aren't aware of the high standard of evidence for the sciences and the courts?

This is not difficult to understand, and you can read up on the standards quickly. In court hearsay evidence is questionable. Some forms of hearsay are not allowed. Yet in religion hearsay evidence is crucial. Many believers claim the Bible or Quran is evidence. No, they are books that have a known history, and content that is not verifiable, and even implausible, so not evidence that these books are true at face value. The supernatural elelments of these books needs ebidence themselves before the books can be evidence of anything.

Why is it that people tried to kill Jesus and Muhammad?
Human beings are not all interested in the truth .. some despise it.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything. The "truth" is relative and subjective, so naturally Hindus won't assign meaning to your truth, and vise versa. You have assigned validity and meaning to Islam for certain reasons, as have Hindus.

Of course not. It is only because some Christians oppressed others that Jesus "must be God".
The Qur'an is explicit .. the Jews have it .. God cannot be a person .. a person is created by God.

Sounds like tribes fighting each other, and no God around to keep the peace. Typical human behavior.

I can't understand it. The more my health declines, the less it makes sense.

It makes sense in a naturalistic, materialistic approach. It doesn't make sense when a believer assumes a God exists and is the loving author of life.

However, what makes the least sense to me, is that the world evolves just "because" .. no reason .. only creatures have reason that comes from naught.

False, there iare reasons why some organisms succeed and many die off. The reasons are somewhat random, as the climate changes, the environment changes, and this all affectsthe organisms that live there. There have been asteroids that have hit earth and this has changed things dramatically. There is no reason to assume these changes were planned or had a cause. Entropy is the only driving force we can name. Gods? Where, when, what? Did you know the Hawwian Islands were created by Gods that the original people believed in? It's a very interesting story. This is how ancient people explained their worlds, as they wanted answers and lacked adequate knowledge.

My mind tells me that Almighty God is the creator from naught.

How did this happen? Why is your mind telling your mind this? And who told your mind to believe this? And why did you accept what they said?

Nothing can come from naught, without something else being responsible.

So your God is nothing, or it came from something else.

Nothing to do with ego.
If you can convince me that Jesus is God, or that God does not exist, I will change my beliefs.

I doubt you are genuine with this invitation, and you know there is no more evidence for Jesus being God any more than Allah existing. You have your beliefs, and thus far you offer no explanation that you have arrived at this decision via evidence and reason, so why would I expect you to use evidence and reason at all in regards to religious concepts.

This illustrates an earlier point I made, that you and other theists will appy a standard of evidence and reason to other religious concepts, but not your own. It's a logical fallacy called special pleading.

So far, I have not found a better coherent explanation. My experience shows that it is the truth .. whether I am able to follow it or not is another matter. I can but try.

Sure, Christians create experiences that validate their beliefs, so why wouldn't the same apply to a Muslim? Of course your experiences will verify what you already believe. This is the basis of self-deception. Atheists examine all religious claims with the same skepicism, you only apply skepicism to those that are not your own.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are taking the role of the adder who wants his way of adding respected. If you believe in gods, you have not done so using reason. There is no evidence or sound argument that gets us to, "therefore God."

I don't agree with you.
It doesn't have to be black/white.
The probability of God existing can be attempted using reason.

It is immoral to force the birth of an unwanted baby in this overpopulated world which now, unlike the worlds in which these ancient religions arose, respects human rights and autonomy. As the world changes, so do the choices that benefit or harm people.

You confuse religion with human dogma .. there are a variety of opinions on this issue.

It makes no difference what God or the universe or the multiverse are. If one can exist without beginning, they all can.

..and how does that change anything?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

thus far you offer no explanation that you have arrived at this decision via evidence and reason

This is inaccurate (deliberately?)…
He told you:

Nothing can come from naught, without something else being responsible.

This is logical, and reasonable.

 

[F1fan]

This is actually pretty easy… although most people do not & will not accept this simple answer: love. Loving without man-made constraints or stipulations. What does this say about most religions, then? Do not most religions support the wars & conflicts of their respective lands?

Christianity expanded as a result of war, so there's that "love".

We would expect a religion that is the “genuine article” to support such a love for people, even when it incurs the wrath of those warring politicians & countries.

Why would such a stance be expected? If, as the Bible says, God is the Creator of all people (Acts of the Apostles 17:26), what would God want us to do? Hate each other ? Or love each other (Matthew 5:44)?

Well some Christians believed it was not only loving, but a moral duty, to torture and execute people for witchcraft, and this was supported by the Bible as well. So "love" is quite subjective. This is one advantage of secular laws in a society, less subjective interpretation of believers following God's laws.

As I said, the answer is simple; but hard to do, especially in times of conflict. That is why I stated most people will not accept that answer.

Yet it isn't simple when you Christians have people in your own tribe that are cruel, mean, and want to harm others, like those who despise gays, trans kids, gun access laws, atheists, democrats, Muslims, etc. You should explain what is so simple to your fellow Christians.

But there’s a religion out there, IMO, that does….’hated by the world,’ as Jesus prophesied.

Is it a secret?

 

[F1fan]

This is inaccurate (deliberately?)…
He told you:

This is logical, and reasonable.

No it isn't. And you avoided the bit I wrote about God.

The first cause argument is fatally flawed because it has to assume the "first cause" itself as uncaused. And this "cause" isn't even known to exist. All we can assert is that energy exists, we observe this fact. There is no reason to assume energy was created or caused by something that itself wasn't caused. This is clunky and absurd. We just remove the "first cause" assumption, and assume energy is eternal. In Occam's Razor and science you eliminate any unnecessary assumption, and assuming a "first cause" is unnecessary.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Christianity expanded as a result of war, so there's that "love".

Well some Christians believed it was not only loving, but a moral duty, to torture and execute people for witchcraft, and this was supported by the Bible as well. So "love" is quite subjective. This is one advantage of secular laws in a society, less subjective interpretation of believers following God's laws.

Yes, I agree. But that doesn’t make what Jesus said, in error. It only puts the onus on those who don’t live by the “instructions.”

If a person buys a shelving unit, but he messes the construction up because he didn’t “follow the instructions,” do you blame the instructions, or the person who didn’t follow them?

Christendom has built a lousy reputation beginning from its inception, because most of its members don’t follow Jesus’ commands, especially about loving others.
They’ve been killing their brothers from the getgo. So much for John 13:34-35

 

[samtonga43]

Second, neither you or other theists have explained what is rational about deciding supernatural concepts that lack evidence is a rational thing to believe are true.

Hmmm... I have to smile when I read this kind of thing from atheists. I want to suggest that they insert the words "I believe"
between 'that' and 'lack'.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, I agree. But that doesn’t make what Jesus said, in error.

Assuming Jesus even existed. And assuming Jesus was God. And assuming the Bible depicts what is attributed to Jesus is accurate. Call me skeptical.

It only puts the onus on those who don’t live by the “instructions.”

No it doesn't. Those skeptics like me are under no obligation to believe anything in the Bible, nor how Christians, like yourself, might interpret the Bible. The fact Christians don't agree on what the "instructions" mean is a huge dilemma. Maybe Westboro Bapist Church is right, and "God hates ****". Do you agree with these Christians and thier interpretation of love?

Gee whiz, you said it was simple.

If a person buys a shelving unit, but he messes the construction up because he didn’t “follow the instructions,” do you blame the instructions, or the person who didn’t follow them?

If the author who wrote the instructions does not account for people who can't follow instructions as written, then it is the author. An author writing instructions had better make sure they are comprehesible to all who will read them, yes?

Christendom has built a lousy reputation beginning from its inception, because most of its members don’t follow Jesus’ commands, especially about loving others.

Then something is wrong with how humans were created, and also something wrong with the religion that arose from the instructions the author wrote.

They’ve been killing their brothers from the getgo. So much for John 13:34-35

The creator should have seen that coming when it created humans, yes?

 

[F1fan]

Hmmm... I have to smile when I read this kind of thing from atheists. I want to suggest that they insert the words "I believe"
between 'that' and 'lack'.

We would if theists actually had credible evidence that met usual standards of evidence that allows reason to work. Theists don't.

You seem to want atheists to lower our standards so we will accept unwarranted assumptions and weak, subjective evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No it isn't.

Please! Yes, it is very logical. “Ex nihilo nihil fit”

And you avoided the bit I wrote about God.

The first cause argument is fatally flawed because it has to assume the "first cause" itself as uncaused. And this "cause" isn't even known to exist. All we can assert is that energy exists, we observe this fact. There is no reason to assume energy was created or caused by something that itself wasn't caused. This is clunky and absurd. We just remove the "first cause" assumption, and assume energy is eternal. In Occam's Razor and science you eliminate any unnecessary assumption, and assuming a "first cause" is unnecessary.

What has science discovered about energy? You know, I’m sure…
The First Law of Thermodynamics, aka the conservation of energy, states what regarding energy?

“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”

If this is true, then the implication is quite obvious….. energy has always existed, in one form or another.

Therefore, science (hooray!) has revealed that the invisible form / nature of God being eternally existent, meets explanatory parameters.

Gotta love (most) science!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't agree with you.

I had written, "If you believe in gods, you have not done so using reason. There is no evidence or sound argument that gets us to, "therefore God."

Then rebut it. You know the criteria for critical analysis and dialectic. Simply disagreeing is essentially conceding that the point can't be rebutted. Provide the sound argument that concludes, "therefore God," and you will have done more than simply disagree.

The probability of God existing can be attempted using reason.

Once again, show me the reasoning. These claims have no persuasive power without a sound argument preceding them.

You confuse religion with human dogma

My comment had been, "It is immoral to force the birth of an unwanted baby in this overpopulated world which now, unlike the worlds in which these ancient religions arose, respects human rights and autonomy. As the world changes, so do the choices that benefit or harm people." Once again, no rebuttal - just dissent. Religion is dogma - insufficiently supported claims offered as undeniable fact.

how does that change anything?

That was in response to, "It makes no difference what God or the universe or the multiverse are. If one can exist without beginning, they all can."

It doesn't change anything. It restates the basis of the claim of you committing a special pleading fallacy, which is an unjustified double standard. You want gods viewed differently and excused from the rules you insist on for other things. My argument has been that whatever you allow a god to be, either of the others can be. You also haven't rebutted that. Your approach is to simply say that you don't see it that way - that you believe what you believe and disbelieve what I do - but can't give good reasons why.

I think we've reached the end here unless you're prepared to rebut my claims rather than merely reject them. Dialectic comes to a close when the last plausible, unrebutted claim is made. I think I've explained that to you using the courtroom analogy, but perhaps that was elsewhere.

The prosecution presents a theory of guilt. If it is plausible and not rebutted, the jury, if fair, impartial, and thinking critically, convicts. But not so fast. The defense rebuts it with an alibi that is believable and supported by evidence. Maybe the defendant's phone pinged off a tower too far away from the defendant to be guilty. If this isn't rebutted, the jury acquits. But wait! The defense has CCTV video of the defendant not being where his phone was. Oh. Guilty, unless that can be rebutted, perhaps by showing that the time stamp on the video was inaccurate.

And back and forth they go until one side cannot rebut the other, and the last plausible, unrebutted claim has been made. It doesn't matter if the other side says they disagree, or that's not how they see it, but can offer nothing in rebuttal. The jury isn't even listening to that.

But thanks for a pleasant discussion. Since you have no witnesses, arguments, or evidence to present, it's time to send the jury off to deliberate.

 

[F1fan]

Please! Yes, it is very logical. “Ex nihilo nihil fit”



What has science discovered about energy? You know, I’m sure…
The First Law of Thermodynamics, aka the conservation of energy, states what regarding energy?

“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”

If this is true, then the implication is quite obvious….. energy has always existed, in one form or another.

Therefore, science (hooray!) has revealed that the invisible form / nature of God being eternally existent, meets explanatory parameters.

OK, cite the science. Or are you going to claim that energy is God? If that is the case then God created itself from nothingness? If so, cite that science, too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Those skeptics like me are under no obligation to believe anything in the Bible, nor how Christians, like yourself, might interpret the Bible. The fact Christians don't agree on what the "instructions" mean is a huge dilemma.

Blaming ‘interpretations’?
That’s just a cop-out.
How else can you interpret the Bible’s counsel for Christians to ‘love their enemy’ Matthew 5:44), ‘love their brothers’ (1 Peter 1:22), and to ‘be kind, forgiving, and considerate’ ??—- Colossians 3:13-14; Ephesians 4:32.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Blaming ‘interpretations’?
That’s just a cop-out.
How else can you interpret the Bible’s counsel for Christians to ‘love their enemy’ Matthew 5:44), ‘love their brothers’ (1 Peter 1:22), and to ‘be kind, forgiving, and considerate’ ??—- Colossians 3:13-14; Ephesians 4:32.

That I don't need to believe in the Bible to do that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OK, cite the science. Or are you going to claim that energy is God? If that is the case then God created itself from nothingness? If so, cite that science, too.

You already know the science, that what I said is accurate.

And I didn’t say “energy is God”. He is the Source of all energy though, be it physical or immaterial.

I’m not going to pursue this with you, it would be a wasted effort.
The point (about God’s eternal nature) was explained.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You already know the science, that what I said is accurate.

And I didn’t say “energy is God”. He is the Source of all energy though, be it physical or immaterial.

I’m not going to pursue this with you, it would be a wasted effort.
The point (about God’s eternal nature) was explained.

So again. I have faith in God, but I know nothing about God. I try to do love and all that, but I have no science and evidence.
So am I doing it right or what?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yet we observe believers very comfortable claiming they believe their version of God exists, and some even claim they KNOW God exists. That doesn't suggest they are comfortable?

Yes, I would agree it does.
..but not all are "comfortable", yet still believe it.

..neither you or other theists have explained what is rational about deciding supernatural concepts that lack evidence is a rational thing to believe are true.

You find it irrational to believe in God, and whatever I say will not convince you, because any evidence provided is not believed.

Yes I did wonder thy Christians didn't get along when they claimed their belief is of love and Godliness. The lack of consistency was glaring and I couldn;t ignore it. That Christians and other theists make lofty moral claims that they themselves don't follow suggests there is something flawed in religious belief, devotion, etc.

No, it doesn't.
We are all imperfect humans.

The more reasoned conclusion is that the idea of God is symbolic of the good in humans, and Satan is a symbol for what is bad in humans, yet Abrahamic believers through the age of reason and into modernity still take these concepts literally, and refer to God ad Satan as real beings influencing humans. This illustrates how the tradtion of belief is a powerful social phenomenon, and devout minds have little control and authority over it.

Are you claiming that people can't think for themselves?
Some people believe, and some don't.

Many believers claim the Bible or Quran is evidence.

It's certainly evidence of something.

No, they are books that have a known history, and content that is not verifiable, and even implausible, so not evidence that these books are true at face value..

They are what they are.

How did this happen? Why is your mind telling your mind this? And who told your mind to believe this? And why did you accept what they said?

My mind tells me that there are reasons why things happen.
That includes why everything exists.

I do believe that everything has evolved .. but that is a "how" and not a why.

You have your beliefs, and thus far you offer no explanation that you have arrived at this decision via evidence and reason..

It is very easy for somebody to make claims like that .. the person might even believe it to be true.

1. Jesus was a Jew with Jewish diciples
2. Christianity in its present form evolved through a series of ecumenical councils
3. Arian Christians do not believe Jesus is God
4. the Qur'an tells us that Jesus is the promised Jewsih Messiah and not God

OK .. you can claim that is not evidence, but for me, it reuires further investigation .. which I have done, and am satisfied.

Atheists examine all religious claims with the same skepicism, you only apply skepicism to those that are not your own.

No, I do not. I look at all the available evidence, and draw conclusions from it .. and that includes personal experiences and experiences of others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I had written, "If you believe in gods, you have not done so using reason. There is no evidence or sound argument that gets us to, "therefore God."

Then rebut it..

You don't agree with it .. you think that an "aimless universe" is the most likely scenario. I don't.
If the universe is "aimless", then why aren't we?

Once again, show me the reasoning. These claims have no persuasive power without a sound argument preceding them.

A combination of the above, and the existence of the Divine discussed in the Bible and Qur'an.

Once again, no rebuttal - just dissent. Religion is dogma - insufficiently supported claims offered as undeniable fact.

Your opinion.
The foundation is the belief in One God.
..from that, people can believe all sorts of things .. some have more credence than others.

That was in response to, "It makes no difference what God or the universe or the multiverse are. If one can exist without beginning, they all can."

It doesn't change anything. It restates the basis of the claim of you committing a special pleading fallacy, which is an unjustified double standard. You want gods viewed differently and excused from the rules you insist on for other things.

No, I don't. I don't believe in "gods".
I believe in One God .. I cannot precisely define what God is, but can only explain some of God's attributes.
..and one of those attributes is that God is Eternal.

..whether the universe/multiverse is eternal is nether here or there, but if the big-bang-theory is correct, it probably isn't.

And back and forth they go until one side cannot rebut the other, and the last plausible, unrebutted claim has been made. It doesn't matter if the other side says they disagree, or that's not how they see it, but can offer nothing in rebuttal. The jury isn't even listening to that.

But thanks for a pleasant discussion. Since you have no witnesses, arguments, or evidence to present, it's time to send the jury off to deliberate.

As you like. Cheers

 

[TLK Valentine]

..yes, but why?
Why can he not be redeemed?
Why doesn't he change his ways?

Is G-d preventing him from doing so?
..or is it because the deeper one gets in to sinfulness, the harder it is to get out?

... or is it because there's no point?
Forgiveness, redemption... these are the things God promised to US... there's no way to know if His angels ever got in on that deal.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is logical, and reasonable.

There's you, a Christian, and there are Baha'is and a Muslim here. Each one says they believe in God. How much do you really believe is true about these other religions? Since neither believes that Jesus is God, is it even the same God that each is claiming to be real?