Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[Trailblazer]

Just because claims exist with people who believe said claims, is NOT a reason to believe said claims.
Otherwise, the existence of big foot believers is a reason to believe in bigfoot.
Or alien abductees are a reason to believe in alien abductions.
Or the existence of scientologists are a reason to believe in Lord Xenu and our inner thetans.

You make a terrible argument.

That is not my argument.

Of course the claims of believers who believe x, y, or z is NOT a reason to believe that x, y, or z is true.
Claims do not constitute evidence. Claims need to be supported by evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a need to hold God to a different standard then all other things because God is different from all other things.

The same can be said about a magical santa claus.

This is in accordance with logic.

Disagree.

There is no verifiable evidence in support of a God that makes testable predictions

Which is why I have no rational reason to believe a god exists.

, not unless you consider prophecies that have come true to be evidence that the Messenger who fulfilled those prophecies came from God. I consider it to be part of the evidence that the Messenger was who He claimed to be.

That is just your religious belief.
Isn't it curious that the only people who believe that such prophecies are valid and real, are the people who believe the religions in which those are included?

A scientologist isn't impressed by the "prophecies" of christianity.
A christian isn't impressed by the "prophecies" in islam.

Theists are always only impressed by the prophecies in their own religion.

It makes sense when you consider that belief in such is just part of the religious beliefs themselves.

 

[CG Didymus]

I saw a ghost when I was 16 or 17. I woke up in my room and a woman with her hair in a bun was crouching near my bed, and I as I looked she slowly faded away.

What exactly do Baha'is believe lives on after death? Do you call it a soul or spirit, or do people use those words interchangeably? Then... Why would the soul or spirit dress like and look like their physical body, and also appear as being at certain physical age?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All evidence is not testable evidence, as any court of law will tell you.

False.
Bad evidence isn't testable. That courts on occasion accept bad evidence is unfortunate at best.
Although usually, they will require corroboration. This "bad evidence" usually comes in the form of "testimony". And even children (who play the telephone game) realize how bad such "evidence" can actually be.

Sorry I have higher standards.

You want a certain kind of evidence, testable evidence, but there is no testable evidence for God.

Right. Which is why I have no rational reason to believe in gods.

The fact that there is no testable evidence for God does not mean God does not exist

I didn't say otherwise.
The fact that there is no testable evidence for undetectable cookie monsters does not mean there are no such monsters either.

But it does mean that there's no rational reason to believe such monsters are real.

, it only means God is not 'subject' to testing by humans.

Just like undetectable cookie monsters.

Let me know when you have got that 'settled' and you will get the Nobel prize.

I'm not making the claim. I have no need to settle anything.
I, in fact, reject the claim because the ones making it aren't able to settle it.

The evidence for God is the Messenger of God and the religion that He revealed.

The claims of alien abductees don't convince me of alien abduction.
So the same kind of claims of claimed messengers of gods aren't going to convince me of gods either.

Those reasons aren't sound or valid but logical argumentation cannot be used to prove that God exists since it can never be proven that God exists with a logical argument.

Or with evidence.

Incidently, just putting it out there....
That would actually support the claim that no gods exist.
The claim that no gods exist, predicts that you won't find any evidence of god and won't be able to come up with logical arguments to support the existence of gods.

Everything you are saying concerning not being able to test it, not being able to support it properly, not being able to logically argue for it, not being able to prove it,...

All that is very very consistent with gods not existing. Just saying.

Indeed, you can't support, demonstrate, prove, logically argue,... the existence of things that don't actually exist.

I don't know if God(s) exist is agnosticism. Atheism is I know no God(s) exist.

No.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
Atheism pertains to beliefs.
"i know no gods exist" would technically be "gnostic atheism".

I'm sure you saw this diagram before:

On this forum, the line between agnosticism and atheism gets blurred so we have a lot of agnostic atheists.

The only people trying to blur that line are people who are allergic to the word "atheist".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not my argument.

Of course the claims of believers who believe x, y, or z is NOT a reason to believe that x, y, or z is true.
Claims do not constitute evidence. Claims need to be supported by evidence.

Then "messengers" of god aren't evidence of god.
Just like alien abductees aren't evidence of alien abduction

 

[Trailblazer]

That is just your religious belief.
Isn't it curious that the only people who believe that such prophecies are valid and real, are the people who believe the religions in which those are included?

A scientologist isn't impressed by the "prophecies" of christianity.
A christian isn't impressed by the "prophecies" in islam.

Theists are always only impressed by the prophecies in their own religion.

It makes sense when you consider that belief in such is just part of the religious beliefs themselves.

Many of the prophecies given by Baha'u'llah have been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled right now, and others will be fulfilled in the future.

Baha'is are also interested in the prophecies given in the other religions, since they demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah. The people of the other religions don't believe that the prophecies have been fulfilled because they want to continue waiting for the return of Christ or the Messiah. so they look for all manner of excuses to deny that the prophecies have been fulfilled.

The fact that people believe such prophecies are valid and real is not what makes them valid and real. Certain events either took place or not and certain places exist or they do not. History and geography bear these out.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not making the claim. I have no need to settle anything.
I, in fact, reject the claim because the ones making it aren't able to settle it.

I have no need to settle it and I know it will never be settled, not unless God settles it somehow.

The claims of alien abductees don't convince me of alien abduction.
So the same kind of claims of claimed messengers of gods aren't going to convince me of gods either.

The claims should not convince you, only the evidence that supports the claims should convince you, if you are ever going to be convinced.

Or with evidence.

Incidently, just putting it out there....
That would actually support the claim that no gods exist.
The claim that no gods exist, predicts that you won't find any evidence of god and won't be able to come up with logical arguments to support the existence of gods.

Everything you are saying concerning not being able to test it, not being able to support it properly, not being able to logically argue for it, not being able to prove it,...

All that is very very consistent with gods not existing. Just saying.

Nobody can test, demonstrate, or prove God's existence because God is not a physical being.
But that does not mean that God does not exist.

I can logically argue for the existence of God but I cannot prove that God exists with a logical argument.

No.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
Atheism pertains to beliefs.
"i know no gods exist" would technically be "gnostic atheism".

I'm sure you saw this diagram before:

View attachment 68507



The only people trying to blur that line are people who are allergic to the word "atheist".

I have seen that diagram before but I forgot about it. So you are an Agnostic Atheist and I am somewhere between an Agnostic Theist and an Gnostic Theist. I believe that God exists and I know that God exists but I do not claim to know God exists because I cannot prove that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then "messengers" of god aren't evidence of god.
Just like alien abductees aren't evidence of alien abduction

Alien abductees who claim they have been abducted aren't evidence of alien abduction unless there is evidence that they have been abducted.
Men who claim to be Messengers of God are not Messengers of God unless there is evidence that supports their claims to have been sent by God.

 

[rational experiences]

Why you don't believe man a human is a God.

As he said all words. As a man a human words thought by a human.

Man...hu man....wo man back to man thoughts. Men strual....wo men back to man ..hy men...my man penis to penetrate...man man. His man god talk.

Double thinker self Idolating I'm a God in science...to thesis talk own by words said in my head position a man human all things I discuss.

Science man with machines confess of Sion. Earths mass is Fu Sion by I did Sion as fis Sion.

Fis H...H as science of man's symbol.

Had man already named in water biology the fish?

Yes.

In symbolism his word use suddenly a double meaning appears by science.

Fis H magnetism Sion. H a science symbol. H he said terrestrial magnetism. ET he says extra in terrestrial.

Sion his ancient subject holy and not allowed....fis Sion.

Fish real fis H Sion..fish is not.

So he applies fission...nucleated above cloud mass falls burns and ground water attacked....seen UFO sun mass cooling using nature's Life support then it's void removal sucked out...fish die birds fall out sky.

Fish in natural group shoal birds in natural group flock.

Humans dying from crop ground attack starving get given fish tainted die anyway from nuclear event.

Wasn't given any miracle.

UFO crop circle fall has yet to kill of crops on ground yet warning...birds have already fallen out of sky and masses of fish died.

Warning signs science is breaking earth seals.

New sink holes open as sun mass is only meant to be voiding...not received on our spirit gas side. Or ground mass.

Men said between temple machine on mount above to machine on ground between two machines my life began to be bio sacrificed genetics.

I am bio living between above and below. Machine isn't.

UFO ark fall finished us off the story.

UFO hovers moves slowly as it's cooling to then be voided sucked out speeds leaves law sun one way only...into infinity.

Humans victim loses microbe water mass heavens supports. Brain body chemicals alter. Has an experience...knew holy life water theirs was abducted by sun mass.

Don't know how to explain condition. Psychic healers could from afar gained cooled visions. Human conscious warned.

As void sucks out sun mass humans living on ground could be moved bodily also in effect of phenomena.

Evil only doesn't belong on earth. Is in space law only. Out.

Father's man warnings. He was holy Conscious spirit father a man.

You remember his memories when star fall brain changed as his image voice recording is shared re recorded transmitted as ice melts water saving life.

Versus man of science who anti life tried to send it back to being one biological cell only in water image recorded. Rest of cells biology mass destroyed reason.

As he's God Inventor idolator you know. Overcome self Idolating father's man's warning to his son.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Alien abductees who claim they have been abducted aren't evidence of alien abduction unless there is evidence that they have been abducted.

Exactly.
The same goes for messengers who claim to be messengers.

Men who claim to be Messengers of God are not Messengers of God unless there is evidence that supports their claims to have been sent by God.

You have just spend several posts saying that there is no such verifiable evidence.
Make up your mind.

Either there is verifiable evidence or there isn't.
Which is it?

If there is, share it.
If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many of the prophecies given by Baha'u'llah have been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled right now, and others will be fulfilled in the future.

Yes that is your religious belief as a baha'i.
Non-baha'i's don't seem terribly impressed with these "prophecies".

Why, for example, aren't these supposed remarkable "prophecies" stirring up academic circles around the world?

Why are there SO FEW baha'i's if such remarkable prophecies really exist and are valid?

Why aren't christians, muslims, atheists, scientologists, budhists, hindu's, wiccans, .... impressed by these?

Why is it that only those who already have religious belief in baha'i apparantly capable of recognizing them?

You don't think that this requires an explanation?

Baha'is are also interested in the prophecies given in the other religions, since they demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah.

Christian scholars seem to heavily disagree with that, since they remain christians.
Why is it that only believers of baha'i see this?

If such "prophecies" are really so remarkable, shouldn't there then at least be much more people following your religion? I mean, there are some 8 million of you worldwide. There are 2 billion christians. There are 8 billion people in total.

What is it that your small minority is able to realize what 99.9% of the rest of the world seems to be unable to see?

The people of the other religions don't believe that the prophecies have been fulfilled because they want to continue waiting for the return of Christ or the Messiah.

But you just said it already happened.
How is it that you are able to recognize bahaullah as the return of christ that 2 billion christians can't? Or 8 billion humans in general?

so they look for all manner of excuses to deny that the prophecies have been fulfilled.

All 2 billion of them?
All 8 billion of them?

You find that reasonable?
I don't. What I find reasonable, is that these "prophecies" are just part of the overall religious lore. Faith based beliefs. ie, you have to believe it to believe it. There's no proper evidence to make you believe it.
It's instead in the same category as all other faith based claims found in religions.

The fact that people believe such prophecies are valid and real is not what makes them valid and real.

And yet you seem unable to give other reasons which are valid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no need to settle it and I know it will never be settled, not unless God settles it somehow.

Then there is nothing to talk about.

The claims should not convince you, only the evidence that supports the claims should convince you, if you are ever going to be convinced.

You just wrote plenty of posts saying that there is no evidence....................
Make up your mind.

Either there is evidence or there isn't.

Nobody can test, demonstrate, or prove God's existence because God is not a physical being.

See? In the previous quote you say there is evidence and in the next breath you say there isn't.
What do you expect me to make of this?

But that does not mean that God does not exist.

Nobody can test, demonstrate, or prove the existence of undetectable cookie monsters.
But that does not mean that cookie monsters don't exist.

We've been over this already.
I agreed to it. I also said that it DOES mean that there is no rational reason to believe it.

I can logically argue for the existence of God but I cannot prove that God exists with a logical argument.

If there is no evidence and no logical argument, then how do you expect to reasonably "logically argue" for the existence?

I have seen that diagram before but I forgot about it. So you are an Agnostic Atheist and I am somewhere between an Agnostic Theist and an Gnostic Theist. I believe that God exists and I know that God exists but I do not claim to know God exists because I cannot prove that God exists.

"i know it but I don't know it".

I shouldn't have to explain the absurdity of that statement.

 

[1213]

But some of us wish we were dead so we could escape the endless suffering.
...

It is sad and I am sorry, if you suffer. I think following Jesus could help in suffering.

He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith? Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious. For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luke 12:22-31

 

[AppieB]

To turn that around, what would constitute a sufficient reason for you to believe?

Evidence and/or a demonstration that a god exists.
What kind of evidence or demonstration I hear you ask.
To be honest, that’s a difficult question to answer. It would have to be something as rigorous as a scientific demonstration or evidence. Something that can objectively and independently be verified.
Something we would require for anything else to believe to be true, outside of religion.

One or multiple testimonies won’t do it. An old book won’t do it. Claims of miracles won’t do it.
The rearrangement of stars to show the sentence in the sky “God exists”? I’m not sure that would be sufficient, but at least we have something extraordinary to talk about.

I’m open to reason and evidence. That’s all I ask. Surely an omniscient god would know how to convince me . And surely an omnipotent god would be able to.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you ever find God in spirit, then you will understand the explanations of those who have. Until then it won't make sense to you.

I understand their explanations, perhaps better than they do. I've been there. I was once one of them. I had no doubt that I was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then I learned more about that experience and what it actually meant. I now have a better understanding of the spiritual experience, the difference being there are no spirits in my worldview any longer. The authentic spiritual experience derives from the mind like the experience of beauty or humor, which are related intuitions generated by a human mind.

You mean, you dislike deist deities?

What I am saying is that I am indifferent about the existence of all proposed non-interventional deities - gods that don't modify nature. Their existence might be interesting to know about, but the knowledge is unavailable and couldn't be used to any benefit, a position called apatheism

everyone has their own personal opinion as to what is the truth of the matter.

Not all definitions of truth are useful, thus not all are equal. Truth ought to refer to a quality that a statement might or might not be shown to possess, that is, that there be a test whether it does or not (is true or not). Thus, if I tell someone I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, there exists a test to determine whether that is true or not, namely, walking five blocks south and three blocks west and see if you wound up at the pier. If you do, the statement was true. If not, false.

Other definitions of truth don't have much practical value if they admit statements that can't meet that test. They can't be used to accurately predict outcomes. If not, why call them truth?

There is evidence but it is not testable.

I don't understand what testable evidence means. Is it related to my definition of truth above?

I don't test evidence. I interpret it. I might test my conclusions, but that's not testing evidence. Consider the life and words that you say are convincing evidence of somebody channeling a deity. What does it mean to test your evidence? How do you test the book or biography?

You aren't guilty of this, but I also see the phrase falsifiable evidence at times, and ask the same question. What does that mean? Evidence isn't falsified any more than it is tested. Only statements can be falsified or tested. If I put a machine to the test - say a manned lunar spacecraft - and the test is a success, what is my testable or falsifiable evidence there? Nothing, just statements, The statement that man can do this is tested. The evidence is a man going to and returning from the moon. What has been tested was the claim. What was not falsified was the claim. What is now empirically demonstrated to be the truth is the claim - not the evidence.

Incidentally, evidence and evidence of are different ideas. The first is the apprehension to the senses. Evidence is what is evident to the senses. The second is the conclusion drawn from it, which might be sound (correct) or not.

That is not my argument. Of course the claims of believers who believe x, y, or z is NOT a reason to believe that x, y, or z is true.

You wrote, "there are reasons to suspect that a God exists. That reason is all the great religions." He responded, "Just because claims exist with people who believe said claims, is NOT a reason to believe said claims." How is that not your argument? How are the great religions evidence of a god if not that their existence makes the likelihood of a god existing greater?

They say the opposite to me. That there are so many conflicting religions and denominations says to me that people aren't experiencing a deity. If you read my comment to cOLTER, you know that I understand that to mean that people are misunderstanding their spiritual intuitions and projecting the idea of a god onto the universe. Then they go writing stories about it that evolve into a nested hierarchy of religions (tree of religions). Thus, these religions are evidence that none of them has any actual knowledge, not that a deity exists.

 

[Colt]

I understand their explanations, perhaps better than they do. I've been there. I was once one of them. I had no doubt that I was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then I learned more about that experience and what it actually meant. I now have a better understanding of the spiritual experience, the difference being there are no spirits in my worldview any longer. The authentic spiritual experience derives from the mind like the experience of beauty or humor, which are related intuitions generated by a human mind.[QUOTE/]

Hey, it happens, people rationalize away genuine spiritual experience. And then some people confuse emotionalism for spiritual experience.

 

[AppieB]

What I am saying is that I am indifferent about the existence of all proposed non-interventional deities

Turns out the feeling is mutual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Turns out the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, I feel different.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They say the opposite to me. That there are so many conflicting religions and denominations says to me that people aren't experiencing a deity..

Not to me.
I see that some religions are about "the Divine" and some are more philosophical and make no Divine claims.

Particularly, Islam and Christianity have a lot in common, and concern the Divine i.e. God, who has chosen messengers from mankind in order to guide us.

The fact that their are so many denominations is due to mankind and their interpretations, and God is able to guide whomsoever He wills.
It is not straightforward, but they have a lot in common, as they all have one original root .. God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence and/or a demonstration that a god exists. What kind of evidence or demonstration I hear you ask. To be honest, that’s a difficult question to answer. It would have to be something as rigorous as a scientific demonstration or evidence. Something that can objectively and independently be verified. Something we would require for anything else to believe to be true, outside of religion. One or multiple testimonies won’t do it. An old book won’t do it. Claims of miracles won’t do it. The rearrangement of stars to show the sentence in the sky “God exists”? I’m not sure that would be sufficient, but at least we have something extraordinary to talk about.

This is an interesting point - what would be evidence of a god, by which I mean a sentient entity capable of creating our universe. What finding would tell us that a creature that made a universe before our eyes (if our eyes could see it from without) wasn't itself a naturalistic product of THIS universe, that is, arose from abiogenesis followed by evolution to a sufficiently advanced technological stage to now be able to do what the multiverse, for example, did for this universe? None.

The arranging of stars would be the kind of stunt we might expect from superhuman extraterrestrials capable of doing it.

some people confuse emotionalism for spiritual experience.

That's close to my point - many are confusing the spiritual experience with the presence of spirits. The feeling is familiar to us all, although it is often not recognized or called spiritual. It's a natural psychological response to some experiences that manifests as a thrilling sense of connection, and can occur while stargazing, hearing rapturous music, falling in love, laughing, gardening, or admiring the family pet. As I indicated, for me, the mistake is to begin to invoke and attach spirits and otherworldly entities and realms to the experience. When we have that deep belly laugh with somebody, and for a moment, there is just you and the other, connected by a common bond, feeling the thrill of existence, he is having the spiritual experience, but rarely calls it that. When feeling the same thrill gazing at the night sky, he often does, but this is the same feeling (see reference to Ptolemy below).

I'd like to elaborate on this a bit more. Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits and everything to do with a psychological response to life and the world in which one experiences a sense of connection to nature manifest as a warm feeling, a sense of awe and mystery, and often, a sense of gratitude. It is an inherently emotional situation. There are several examples from history of men mistaking this experience for spirits.

The ancient Greeks did this with the muses. They didn't have a concept for the mind being creative. Creative inspiration was not understood as a product of the mind, but rather, as a received message from a creative muse whispering silently into one's brain.

Likewise with dreams, who most understand to be products of their own minds, but others mistake as messages being delivered to them.

And likewise with internal moral conflicts, which are often depicted as a devil and an angel sitting on one's shoulder and arguing through one's ears.

This is the same, except that many have not discovered that their apprehensions that they call God or spirits are also endogenous psychological states and not perceptions of external reality.

Ptolemy expressed a similar sentiment describing his geocentric solar system, one star gazers are familiar with when they contemplate the vast distances separating us from the stars of the night sky yet understanding that we are made of their ashes, and one feels a sense of connection and a thrill. Here's how Ptolemy described the experience: "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."

These are all examples of people confusing thoughts originating in their own minds as evidence of some external agent communicating with them.

Do you have a rebuttal of this? I'm sure that you reject it, but can you make an evidenced argument that contradicts it? I don't think you can. I don't think anybody can. It might not be correct - there may be spirits yet - but can you show it to be wrong? If not, doesn't that mean that it might be correct? Is that something a theist can agree with - that he may be wrong?

The fact that their are so many denominations is due to mankind and their interpretations

That was my point. That's the human fingerprint, along with the holy books that all look like human beings wrote them and all contradict one another. Compare gods to chemical elements. With gods, we have tens of thousands of religions, but only one periodic table of the elements. If we had as many periodic tables as gods, what would that say about the science? It would say that it is as untethered to reality (not empirical or evidence-based) as the religions.

they have a lot in common, as they all have one original root .. God.

Or, what they have in common is the misinterpretation of spiritual intuitions as evidence of gods as described above. It's very easy to do, so easy that almost no culture has been able to avoid doing it. I wasn't either, for awhile.