Why I Don't Believe In God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattG

Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?

---

I'd prefer not to excuse any of the atheists in this thread from their explanatory obligations by offering them a convenient target to ineptly criticize. My opinions on the subject are well publicized, and you can easily find them in this forum.

In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You can say whatever you want. But at this point, saying belief in God is delusional is just irrational. I'm not "picking on you." You're the one who erupted in a flurry of unjustifiable assertions. I'm just asking you to logically explain yourself, and you would rather write several paragraphs avoiding the question than writing three or four sentences answering it. At this point of our conversation, I think it might be easier to prove that belief in your assertion is delusional.

Oh, by the way, camels taste like strawberries and mountains are made of ice cream. I don't have to explain this all to you simply because you're threatened and don't understand the theory of gravity. You just hate camel worshipers.

This has been the form of your argument.

---

I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.

---

Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

---

What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life?

And hi. I have just joined this forum. :cornut:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.

---

Would you agree that the affirmation in the existence of anything at all would have to meet the conditions of falsification and empirical evidence? I hope so. If so, for instance, if I was to make astrological discoveries and if they're to be 'true', then it would have to be falsifiable and empirically proven. Scientists should be able to replicate my results, or see what I saw .. etc ..

Since science cannot prove the existence of God (that being the necessary condition for the existence of anything to be true), then such a belief cannot be logical.

It's not that theists lack 'evidence' (and, hence, irrational) - but that the evidence is such that it is subject to personal beliefs (sincere as they may be), gut feelings, and man's natural psychological conditions. A lot of people believe they have had ghost experiences, for instance ... And these don't meet the standards of science in the pursuit of truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

---

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global, flood are literally true, runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

---

I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.

By the way, do you want to answer the question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.

By the way, do you want to answer the question?

---

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

---

Pip, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, and so it is frustrating that you inexplicably offer a justification for your atheism, when I was prompting you for something else entirely. I think it's fairly obvious in my post that I am suggesting that disabusing a person of his theism is to deprive him of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I described. I'm just unsure of how that connects with what you're saying.

Oh, and I'll ask again: do you want to answer the original question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

---

Never mind. For some reason, I didn't see your first paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hallword

What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life?

And hi. I have just joined this forum. :cornut:

---

But of course, what else does it mean?

First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

---

I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

---

I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man.
I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

But of course, what else does it mean?

---

I ask merely because this is, from my view, a rather strange question to ask. The world is based on disordered randomness, and the very idea of a 'purpose' is directly opposed to any meaningful free-will. I also feel that probability and conincidences are a big problem here. Not forgetting that without the belief in a 'purpose', it seems to me, that some people would then equate that with meaningless. Naturally, we can all find 'meaning' in life without the supranatural ... I sometimes feel Aristotle was probably the closest by pointing to eudaimonia ... There is no such thing as destiny.

Arh. I have been talking about God a lot today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.

I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."


I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man.
I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.

---

There are dinosaurs amongst us today. They're birds ;).