Why I Don't Believe In God

[Cunninglinguist]

But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses.

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?

If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.

You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.

Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong.

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.

There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence.

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.

Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

[Drkshadow03]

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I think the stories in the Bible are fairly consistent. The contradictions tend to be greatly exaggerated, although granted there are some. But it's not really all that hard to follow the Bible as a straight-forward narrative for the most part.

[Darcy88]

Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

[usman.khawar]

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?

Knowledge! Mind! . inner eyes! can write a lot coz indeed its a very good question. so will write another free time .


You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.

You are not getting in which context I wrote this argument. Look again. I said “If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist” I gave the example of air. We can just feel it. I gave the example of anti protons etc. I said bacteria and got the reply that he has seen it through a sophisticated machine. Which enhance his sense of watching. As a whole I said if we cant see God with our body’s eyes then its not the proof that there is no God. There is not a little skepticism rather a hard one my dear in my statement. if You enhance your senses than you can also b witness for sure that there is a God 

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.

i think you should read ist then comments on Quran. its not the discussion of contradiction's defenitions not interpretation. in reply which i stated below there is an example. ?

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.

Assumptions of big bang have been converted into a solid law for now after lot of experiences and mathematical laws. In round about 1635 it was believed that earth is static and sun is evolving around it. By the invention of Mr. Galileo the law changed and and thinking process move ahead and cosmologists said No, sun is static and earth is evolving around it after observations. By Eien Stien E=mc(square) when cosmologist found to measure the distances through light it is found that the distances is increasing. Logic is maintained that if everything is expanding then there must be a start when everything was one. After big bang this one huge particle converted into highly unimaginable particles in which our earth is one. Science started it journey and ends up what Lord has said in quran already. I have quoted so many verses like this you can read those in my other posts.

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

your God is not different then mine We all are the creations of one Lord my dear!

What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

you are right coz there is a very strong concept in islamic'philosphy about the oneness of God.
let me solve your difficulty about the verse you have read in about wives.
if you read in full context and full verse about it its like " teach her ist , then seperate her from your sleeping place, then beat her"
before considering on it, you should consider another fact. from the time when human started to live in societies we see as physically women was weak and man was strong. so it was decided by nature, that woman will care inside of home and man will care of outside. islam gave equal rights to both but Lord said that one man is a one or 2 degree up from woman coz he earns and spent on her etc. Lord said in quran man has same rights upon woman as woman has upon man. but For the better living you see there should b a leader. so Lord think that man should be the leader of house.
Well come to the above mentioned verse. about beating someone ask to Muhammad how should we beat the woman if she dont understand? He replied with cloth! its not beating my dear! in islam there is a concept of full love care and affection. Good bye kises were common as well at that time. .. many extremist think that by this verse they got the license to beat. which is absolutly wrong.
i think if i see west that they are developoing and progressing in material life but deterioating their moral ethics. divorce ratio is too high so now they live together without marriage mostly. woman are doing great efforts they are doing jobs and taking care of household as well! there is a lot of about man and woman a lot of/. you can read it in chapter nisa your self. one more thing to clear about quran. that one cannot understand fully quran without reading hadiths. like i explain above about beating. hadiths is what Muhammad said, did and explained.

How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

besides that i have given this example of hands to prove non reliable senses. you took it another way but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

[MarkBastable]

[B]
but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

You are very scary.

[osho]

Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.

Do not make a conclusion my friend; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.

[MarkBastable]

the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.

How do you know that?

[osho]

How do you know that?

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

[BienvenuJDC]

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

Very simply because you do not believe in God.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Right. Because you, being a believer in God (particularly the Christian one, if I'm not mistaken), discard all other possibilities of truth. If it isn't a Christian, it doesn't count. The very idea that belief in God somehow leads to some sort of truth is irrational in the first place, as there is no real truth in the idea, or belief, of God, only faith, and faith is belief in the unprovable.

Anyways, I said, "I, or someone else." That someone else might believe in God, though how that increases his chances of having arrived at truth (whatever that even means in the first place) I have no idea. Maybe you could explain to me why it does.

[cafolini]

I know of no god. But assuming I ever did, what difference would it make?

[Sancho]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

Shocking!

Blasphemy!

Katy Perry is a cutie-pie.

[MarkBastable]

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.

How do you know that?

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we had arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth....

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

[Leobloom]

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.