• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don’t you believe in God?

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
...I don't believe in God for the same reason that you don't believe in other mythological beings such as leprechauns...
Do you mean the OT Bible God? I don't believe in that one either but I believe in God.
It is not fair to judge God by what is in the Bible since the Bible is not the only holy book in the world and it was not written for people living in this modern age.

No, but that would not make any sense. I was equating my lack of belief in God with King Phenomenon's (and my) lack of belief in leprechauns. That would have nothing to do with the OT God or the Bible. Of course, KP was not interested in revealing the reasons why he didn't believe in leprechauns and explaining how that was irrelevant to his belief in God, so he ignored my point. In fact, I stopped monitoring this thread (but not replies to my posts), because I didn't think he was interested in a serious discussion.

Do you have evidence that leprechauns do not exist? Is that why you reject belief in them?
If there was evidence that leprechauns do not exist why would anyone believe they exist?
Do you have evidence that God does not exist? Is that why you reject belief in God?

Again, KP had no interest in answering such questions or even taking a serious stab at discussion, so that ended that conversation. You did give the response that he didn't make and probably didn't want to make.

The answer to your first question is "no". Of course, there are some people who are gullible enough to believe in their existence, especially children. However, most of us know that leprechauns are part of Irish folklore and not worth the trouble to believe in.

A serious answer to your second two questions would be "yes" and "not entirely". Lack of evidence for the existence of God is sufficient to reject belief in such a being--the same reason for rejecting belief in leprechauns. The burden of proof should be on believers. However, evidence for the nonexistence of God leads to a longer discussion, beginning with the observation that lack of evidence is sometimes, but not always, evidence of lack. There are a host of other reasons that lead me to reject belief in God. They range from the observation that God is based on a formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) in Semitic folklore to my reasons for rejecting Cartesian dualism in favor of physicalism. You've been around long enough to know the drill, although most atheists would rather do the easy fallback on Occam's Razor and not overcomplicate things with positive reasons for their skepticism.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
It would be natural for a child to understand that there is a Father of all. :)

Trying to get it into his head that the father of humans was an ape would be traumatizing. :eek:
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I am glad that life has worked out well for you without a God belief, but that is not true for everyone.....
For most of my life I believed in God but I did not really believe since I knew little about God and I had no faith.
Now that I know who God is and I have faith my life is so much better than before even though I still have the same problems.

If the problems are the same, what was the benefit?

You can tell me if I'm wrong but the benefit seems to be you get to feel better.
If that is what you get, great. Not going to say that's wrong.
However maybe there is something else that I'm not seeing.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hi Trailblazer, always good to see you there!
Good to see you too!
Did God put us here on Earth then? Or did God just happen to find us here? If God put us here then that's not a very masterful creation to say the very least! God left us in dire circumstances!
God put us here on Earth and that was not very nice, Imo, since most of my circumstances have been pretty dire.
People who don't have dire circumstances and don't care about others' dire circumstances tend to see it the opposite way.
It's only the science of humans, and the constant vigilance of people who fend off war that give us the appearance of civilization.
That's true.
God could lift a finger to help. Point us in the right direction with obviousness and clarity.
As you already know, I believe that God points us in the right direction by sending His Messengers with a message, teachings and laws.
Sorry for my cranky pessimism, I just read a book entitled, ' The 48 Laws of Power ' by Robert Greene. I thought it was extremely wicked for the most part.
No problem. I get very pessimistic when I watch true TV programs about evil people so I have started watching the Hallmark channel. It is amazing what a difference that has made in my overall outlook and feelings about humanity. I believe that people can be like those characters, loving, caring and good, and there were times in the past when more people were like that.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
I don't see a belief in God as practical. I'd need to get some benefit or advantage from such a belief. There is just no practical reason to believe anything about a God. IOW, life works out for me fine without any beliefs about a God.

I can honestly say that I'm far better off in my life because I disavowed my belief in the biblical God and my Christian faith.

If there was some practical reason for such a belief, i.e. benefit to the belief then I wouldn't be worry about the evidence.

Not me. I can no longer accept the existence of any deities based on faith or without sufficient empirical evidence to convince me. I wasted 40 years of my life genuinely believing in the biblical God, only to end up empty-handed, heartbroken, and disillusioned. I'm not doing that again. I learned my lesson.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Jehovah, the God who, according to the Bible, created our first parents, and later formed an entire nation to be their Protector for some time, has maintained from the beginning of the rebellion a promise that every human being should wish to be fulfilled: to reverse the effects of that rebellion, bring peace to earth through a world government that will rule from heaven (Gen. 3:15), but that will be made up of beings who were previously human like everyone else here... That kingdom will eliminate evil, disease, hunger, and evil from the planet. including death (Rev. 21:3,4)

Wouldn't it be fantastic if those promises from the Creator were fulfilled? It is worth at least paying a little attention to what He says in his book.

Other gods have nothing to promise humans. They do not exist or do not have the power or wisdom necessary to fulfill it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I never made any claim that god wants my attention.
Yes, I know you never claimed that.
In fact, I would have thought it pretty clear that I am pretty sure god does not want my attention simply because god has not gotten my attention.
I would not make that assumption, because it is based upon the belief that God would something specific to get your attention, and there is no reason to think God would ever do that.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
No, but that would not make any sense. I was equating my lack of belief in God with King Phenomenon's (and my) lack of belief in leprechauns. That would have nothing to do with the OT God or the Bible. Of course, KP was not interested in revealing the reasons why he didn't believe in leprechauns and explaining how that was irrelevant to his belief in God, so he ignored my point. In fact, I stopped monitoring this thread (but not replies to my posts), because I didn't think he was interested in a serious discussion.



Again, KP had no interest in answering such questions or even taking a serious stab at discussion, so that ended that conversation. You did give the response that he didn't make and probably didn't want to make.

The answer to your first question is "no". Of course, there are some people who are gullible enough to believe in their existence, especially children. However, most of us know that leprechauns are part of Irish folklore and not worth the trouble to believe in.

A serious answer to your second two questions would be "yes" and "not entirely". Lack of evidence for the existence of God is sufficient to reject belief in such a being--the same reason for rejecting belief in leprechauns. The burden of proof should be on believers. However, evidence for the nonexistence of God leads to a longer discussion, beginning with the observation that lack of evidence is sometimes, but not always, evidence of lack. There are a host of other reasons that lead me to reject belief in God. They range from the observation that God is based on a formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) in Semitic folklore to my reasons for rejecting Cartesian dualism in favor of physicalism. You've been around long enough to know the drill, although most atheists would rather do the easy fallback on Occam's Razor and not overcomplicate things with positive reasons for their skepticism.
Me ready for serious conversation
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3835.jpeg
    IMG_3835.jpeg
    34.2 KB · Views: 14

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If the problems are the same, what was the benefit?
One of the benefits is that I know that God is there to aid and assist me with my problems, and another benefit is that it puts my worldly problems in proper perspective since I don't believe this world is all there is nor is it the main act of the play.
You can tell me if I'm wrong but the benefit seems to be you get to feel better.
If that is what you get, great. Not going to say that's wrong.
However maybe there is something else that I'm not seeing.
Belief and faith in God is not only about feeling better. I could do a lot of other things that would be enjoyable or fun if all I wanted was to feel better. It is more about doing what I believe is true and right. It is not as easy as falling off a log to maintain faith, especially in dire circumstances,, but it has been well worth it.

Belief and faith in God is probably harder for me than for most believers since I question everything rather than believing it just because it is written in scriptures.. It is a struggle.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
No problem. I get very pessimistic when I watch true TV programs about evil people so I have started watching the Hallmark channel. It is amazing what a difference that has made in my overall outlook and feelings about humanity. I believe that people can be like those characters, loving, caring and good, and there were times in the past when more people were like that.
I remember my parents used to talk about better times. I see how times change rather quickly though as I get older. Culture shock is quite an experience. My childhood was relative peace. My town was an old fashioned ghost town growing up. Now it's turned into a crowded party town with open containers allowed.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
A serious answer to your second two questions would be "yes" and "not entirely".
I asked: Do you have evidence that God does not exist? Is that why you reject belief in God?

So are you saying yes, you have evidence that God does not exist?
So are you saying that you do not reject belief in God entirely?
Lack of evidence for the existence of God is sufficient to reject belief in such a being--the same reason for rejecting belief in leprechauns.
What evidence would you expect to see if God existed? In the past I have started many threads on evidence for God.

I don't think it is fair or logical to compare the existence of God with the existence of leprechauns. Most adults do not believe in leprechauns but most adults (93% or the human population) believes in God. I am not saying tat God exists because many or most people believe in God because that would be the fallacy of ad populum. I am only saying that there must be some evidence for God if that many people believe in God. Could it be that there is evidence for God and atheists just do not recognize it as evidence?
The burden of proof should be on believers.
Why would the burden of proof be on believers? Unless those believers are making a claim that God exists I don't think they have any burden of proof. Just saying "I believe" is not a claim. I think the burden of proof is on the person who is seeking to believe because they need to prove to themselves that God exists in order to believe it. Why should they believe other people?
However, evidence for the nonexistence of God leads to a longer discussion, beginning with the observation that lack of evidence is sometimes, but not always, evidence of lack.
If you are saying what I think you are saying I agree. Just because you do not recognize the evidence that does not mean it is not there.
There are a host of other reasons that lead me to reject belief in God. They range from the observation that God is based on a formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) in Semitic folklore to my reasons for rejecting Cartesian dualism in favor of physicalism. You've been around long enough to know the drill, although most atheists would rather do the easy fallback on Occam's Razor and not overcomplicate things with positive reasons for their skepticism.
Could it be that God is something other than what is presented in the formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) or in Semitic folklore?
That is what I believe to be the case but I am in a small minority, in a religion called the Baha'i Faith that is yet to become accepted as the older well-established religions have been accepted. That is where I derive my belief in God.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I remember my parents used to talk about better times. I see how times change rather quickly though as I get older. Culture shock is quite an experience. My childhood was relative peace. My town was an old fashioned ghost town growing up. Now it's turned into a crowded party town with open containers allowed.
Yes, times have changed for the worse. In the old days most everyone believed in God. As God belief falls away people lack the morals they once had.

“The vitality of men’s belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Hakím, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold? Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 200
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
A serious answer to your second two questions would be "yes" and "not entirely".
I asked: Do you have evidence that God does not exist? Is that why you reject belief in God?

So are you saying yes, you have evidence that God does not exist?
So are you saying that you do not reject belief in God entirely?

I have what I regard as evidence that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean that you would see the evidence in the same light that I do. We have different beliefs about the nature of reality, after all. I don't believe that reality includes a spiritual plane of existence, and I don't believe that minds or "souls" can exist independently of physical brain activity. I reject belief in God to the same extent that I reject belief in the existence of entities such as leprechauns and ghosts. That is, I don't believe in magic, miracles, or disembodied spirits. Gods would fall into that category.

Lack of evidence for the existence of God is sufficient to reject belief in such a being--the same reason for rejecting belief in leprechauns.
What evidence would you expect to see if God existed? In the past I have started many threads on evidence for God.

Right, and it would take us far afield for me to even try to list all of the things I take as evidence and have you try to rebut all of that. Basically, our difference lies in fundamentally different perspectives on the nature of reality--how the universe works.

I don't think it is fair or logical to compare the existence of God with the existence of leprechauns. Most adults do not believe in leprechauns but most adults (93% or the human population) believes in God. I am not saying tat God exists because many or most people believe in God because that would be the fallacy of ad populum. I am only saying that there must be some evidence for God if that many people believe in God. Could it be that there is evidence for God and atheists just do not recognize it as evidence?

First of all, you seem to recognize that appeals to popularity are fallacies, but at the same time you think they should be taken seriously. I don't, and bear in mind that I don't pretend to be "most adults". We can always dispute what counts as evidence, but ad populum arguments don't work for me. To be fair, human cognition is not really rational, and ad populum arguments tend to be very attractive justifications for maintaining beliefs. I don't just dismiss them out of hand. To do so is to embrace opprobrium. Nobody wants to be a social outcast. Nevertheless, I can't force myself to accept religious faith just because most people I know accept it, especially when I feel I have good reasons to be skeptical.

The burden of proof should be on believers.
Why would the burden of proof be on believers? Unless those believers are making a claim that God exists I don't think they have any burden of proof. Just saying "I believe" is not a claim. I think the burden of proof is on the person who is seeking to believe because they need to prove to themselves that God exists in order to believe it. Why should they believe other people?

Generally speaking, it is impossible to prove beyond all doubt that existential claims are false, and it is fairly easy to prove that they are true. To prove them true, you only have to provide reasonable evidence in support of existence. To prove them false, you literally have to examine every possible circumstance (e.g. location) under which they could be true. So that is why the burden of proof for a positive existential claim is on the one making the claim.

Bertrand Russell famously made the point that it is extremely unlikely, but marginally possible, that a china teapot is orbiting the sun. So one is not obligated to prove that no china teapot is orbiting the sun, but there is an obligation for one asserting such a claim to give a reasonable argument to support the claim. Otherwise, the simpler assumption would be skepticism of the claim.

However, evidence for the nonexistence of God leads to a longer discussion, beginning with the observation that lack of evidence is sometimes, but not always, evidence of lack.
If you are saying what I think you are saying I agree. Just because you do not recognize the evidence that does not mean it is not there.

Exactly. But, if you have tried diligently to find evidence for an existential claim, and you keep coming up with nothing, then the likelihood of existence decreases. For example, if you may have left your purse or wallet in the taxicab, and you can't find it anywhere in your possession after leaving the taxi, it is time to call the cab company. It's the Sherlock Holmes solution: when all other possibilities are eliminated, the remaining explanation, however improbable, is the truth.

There are a host of other reasons that lead me to reject belief in God. They range from the observation that God is based on a formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) in Semitic folklore to my reasons for rejecting Cartesian dualism in favor of physicalism. You've been around long enough to know the drill, although most atheists would rather do the easy fallback on Occam's Razor and not overcomplicate things with positive reasons for their skepticism.
Could it be that God is something other than what is presented in the formerly pagan deity (or blend of deities) or in Semitic folklore?
That is what I believe to be the case but I am in a small minority, in a religion called the Baha'i Faith that is yet to become accepted as the older well-established religions have been accepted. That is where I derive my belief in God.

I suspect that you possess a lot more hidden assumptions that you take for granted but that I would not. There is that fundamental belief about the existence of immaterial spirits that I think you accept intuitively and I do not. I think that there is overwhelming evidence against it. So arguments about the existence of gods are not just about evidence for the existence of any particular god. They are also about what one believes about the ground level of reality.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, in general for all of the context it is about sicence, the universe and facts. That is what we debate over all of these threads.
Now for non-facts are the only pure fantasy or something more than both non-facts and non-pure fantasy.

It is now many years ago that I learned that everything for the "Big Bang" is connected up until now and that there are no unrelated processes in the universe as such.


So to get it back to mere beliefs and pure fantasy versus facts the only thing going on or is that a 3rd category?
Are there any defintion of religion that covers that or is it all just science versus religion?

And yes, as a skeptic it is simple.
Are there more going on in the universe than science/facts and religion/mere beliefs?
And yes, it is a derail of sorts, but it is always relevant to ask since you understand the universe as such.
Sorry I am in no mood to respond to word salad.

I can only repeat myself.
Fact are facts. Facts are demonstrable, by definition of the word "fact".

Beliefs are just beliefs and are not the same as facts.

I'm sorry if you are having so much problems understanding the difference.
I can only advice you to brush up on your english.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

Here are a few to be going on with, all are falsifiable although over the years plenty of people have tried to falsity them, no-one has succumbed.

Futility of prayer
Childhood leukemia
The mosquito.
Unnecessary suffering
Billions of definitions of god all different.
Prevalence of evil
Omnipotence is impossible while free energy exists
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sorry I am in no mood to respond to word salad.

I can only repeat myself.
Fact are facts. Facts are demonstrable, by definition of the word "fact".

Beliefs are just beliefs and are not the same as facts.

I'm sorry if you are having so much problems understanding the difference.
I can only advice you to brush up on your english.

Well, the problem is that is not a favt that it is wordsalad, like the theory of gravity is based on facts.

That something is wordsalad is a first person subjective cognitivie evaluation and not a fact.

The question is if beliefs in any same are the same as facts and yes, they are in one sense. They are both words, function as a sign, have a definition and a referent.
Further they both reuire human brains, because they both referer to cogntive processes in brains. There would by no facts or beliefs without humans.
There would be an objective universe, but even that wouldn't be fact, because to judge it to be a fact, requires a human.

In effect you and I have relevant for some part of how we understand different cogntive schema. In computer terms we have different programs and to you your program is the correct one for all humans, because if your program produces a result of something being meaningless, then it is so for all programs and not just yours.
As a very simple example there are for all humans only one way to understand both 2+2=4 and 2+2=11. But that is not so, because it can be observed that there are different ways to understand that.
It is the same with words like fact, universe, culture, religion, science and so on. Your way of doing that is not the only way and when we leave natural science and enter the rest of human understanding neither you nor I are outside culture, cognintion and feelings.

But not to you, because there is only one cognition as a fact and that is yours. That is your trick. You are in effect as absurd as if you are ouside cogntion, culutre and so on for you to claim what you claim you can do when it comes to facts and word salad.

You really have to learn that there is more to the universe than facts and mere beliefs.
 
Top