Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[Nakosis]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

 

[Heyo]

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

By both. They both don't know what they are talking about.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

Absolutely! One's beliefs is rooted in one's experiences.

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

It's not.

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Nope.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

It's same reasons for which Santa or the Easter Bunny is applied.

We know where it all comes from , everything, and it's all clearly derived from people's imaginations and creativity.

It's easy to see that God doesn't exist because it's known and established that the entirety of theology is completely sourced and originated back to humans and not the rest of the universe, which is completely and entirely indifferent of the matter with absolutely no indication that a deity was ever there nor will be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

It is certainly reasonable to be an atheist.

It can be reasonable to be a theist, or it can be very unreasonable indeed, all the way to complete insanity, immorality and illegality. It will depend mainly on what exactly and how much the theist allows itself to do, refuse or believe in due to that theism.

Edited to add: the key factor to consider here is that, cliche as it is, people are indeed almost without exception "all atheists" to most understandings of gods. It just happens that some are atheists to all understandings of gods as well.

Belief in gods in and of itself says very little. Perhaps literally nothing.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?

Regards

 

[sun rise]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

My answer is no difference. If you want to ascribe right and wrong, then I would say aggressive fanaticism and cynical nihilism are wrong.

 

[King Phenomenon]

To not recognize anything greater than yourself is kind of weird imo

 

[LuisDantas]

Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?

Regards

Not really. There is no need to, even in the abstract.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

The question

Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe X for whatever personal reasons they happen to have?​

is a curious one. The obvious answer is

Not necessarily.​

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?

Regards

Just as those who strongly claim that come out with evidences they ask from non-believer, right?

 

[ppp]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Thats not enough information about what either Joe or Charlie mean specifically. What evidence they have, or lack. Or what they are trying to accomplish.

EDIT: Or what you mean by wrong -- morality or factual correctness?

 

[Quintessence]

If someone's life experiences have led them to a particular perspective on something (gods or otherwise), it is true and authentic for them and who they are. What I happen to think about the culture they've developed doesn't matter for them and their lives - they are who they are and will live in accord with who they are, just as I will in turn. The diverse twist and turns of the courses of many lives are a source of great richness and beauty as well as great conflict and division.

Where I will sometimes raise up a hand is when there are attempts at erasure; when the experiences of one are taken as the only possible, real, or correct course for all peoples. In this, the different wells of wisdom others have drawn from is squandered in favor of forced homogeny - only one way to define religion, only one way to define god, only one way to live. Which simply does not work, where it is attempted. The inherent diversity of the universe wriggles free of any attempts to enforce hegemony, for we do not all live the same lives, find the same reasons, draw the same waters, find the same meaning.

 

[chinu]

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Wrong is both of them are liars. Liars becuase claiming needs a secondy party.
If both are satisfied on their own, why they need the approval of a second party ? perhaps both not satisifed on their own

 

[PureX]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

First, it is neither honest nor reasonable to believe anything that we can't know to be so. Belief, for the most part is nothing more than a cognitive conceit. Pretending to ourselves that we know what we don't.

However, that axiom cuts both ways. Not knowing is not equivalent to 'knowing not'. Meaning that which we would like to believe to be true could still be true. And we can still adopt the idea that it is true. Just not as a blind belief or pretense of knowledge, but rather as an chosen condition of faith. Choosing to trust that it is true, while knowing that it may not be true.

So why engage in such an act of faith?

Because doing so can sometimes bring about the results that we hoped for, by our having taken action in that regard. Also, by acting of faith when knowledge is not available to us, we can keep moving forward into the face of the unknown. It's a way of breaking stagnation. And to, acting on faith when knowing is not possible gives us hope when things might otherwise appear hopeless. Even if we don't gain the outcome we'd hoped for, by moving forward toward it, we may gain a different and unanticipated outcome that changes the field of possibility for the better.

Faith is an excellent method of engaging with existence when sufficient knowledge is not available to us. While belief, on the other hand, often becomes a set-up for self-delusion, and for willful ignorance. Both of which only compound the problem of our not knowing, and therefor also the danger that can result.

 

[ppp]

Wrong is both of them are liars. Liars becuase claiming needs a secondy party.
If both are satisfied on their own, why they need the approval of a second party ? perhaps both not satisifed on their own

Each of those declarative statements is a claim. Perhaps you are not satisfied on your own?

 

[LuisDantas]

Wrong is both of them are liars. Liars becuase claiming needs a secondy party.
If both are satisfied on their own, why they need the approval of a second party ? perhaps both not satisifed on their own

Do you mean evidence?

 

[Audie]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

An enormous amount of harm. Incalculable, resulting from god- belief.

 

[Audie]

First, it is neither honest nor reasonable to believe anything that we can't know to be so. Belief, for the most part is nothing more than a cognitive conceit. Pretending to ourselves that we know what we don't.

However, that axiom cuts both ways. Not knowing is not equivalent to 'knowing not'. Meaning that which we would like to believe to be true could still be true. And we can still adopt the idea that it is true. Just not as a blind belief or pretense of knowledge, but rather as an chosen condition of faith. Choosing to trust that it is true, while knowing that it may not be true.

So why engage in such an act of faith?

Because doing so can sometimes bring about the results that we hoped for, by our having taken action in that regard. Also, by acting of faith when knowledge is not available to us, we can keep moving forward into the face of the unknown. It's a way of breaking stagnation. And to, acting on faith when knowing is not possible gives us hope when things might otherwise appear hopeless. Even if we don't gain the outcome we'd hoped for, by moving forward toward it, we may gain a different and unanticipated outcome that changes the field of possibility for the better.

Faith is an excellent method of engaging with existence when sufficient knowledge is not available to us. While belief, on the other hand, often becomes a set-up for self-delusion, and for willful ignorance. Both of which only compound the problem of our not knowing, and therefor also the danger that can result.

" engaging with existence"

 

[Windwalker]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

Sure. I believe that belief in God has valid reasons. I also believe disbelief in God has valid reasons. I believe both perspectives are true in their own right. I also do not believe they are inherently contradictory either, depending upon how tightly one holds to their perspectives as the only true perspective or not.

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

I think it's an error to claim either perspective to be a "fact". They are perspectives, not facts.

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Yes, if they are claiming their perspectives to be objective facts and ignoring the entire apparatus of their personal experiences and subjective filters as having anything to do with how they conclude what is real or not. In that case, then they are both making the same error in assuming that how they see reality, is reality in itself.