Why I Don't Believe In God

[BienvenuJDC]

The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

[mazHur]

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

This world is infact hell or heaven depending upon how you spent your life here! The hereafter is merely a 'bonus' or 'penalty' for your deeds in this very world!

[BienvenuJDC]

Better nothing than the chance of hell.

Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

[MystyrMystyry]

Caterpillars to butterflies, tadpoles to frogs - yeah, that's pretty vague, probably not even provable in the former case because it happens behind closed cocoons - all smoke and mirrors probably.

[stuntpickle]

You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

See, this is the problem: you are so wedded to your atheism that you can't even admit when you make flagrantly indefensible assertions. Delusional status accorded to belief in things unseen and unheard was not my argument, but yours. You don't get to side step your original assertion by multiplying your selective criteria. You don't get to pretend that I was somehow conflating belief in you to belief in God. I was just following your own premise to its logical conclusion. See, you don't seem capable of justifying that assertion. All you are doing now is making more indefensible assertions. I could ask you to justify those logically, but I would prefer to come to some mutual agreement about the first one. I will assume that you agree that the assertion is false since you are now changing your criteria. I will be happy to demonstrate the falsity of these new claims, the minute you admit the falsity of the previous one. If you do not believe the first assertion is false, then you should be able to easily to provide a logical justification for it, which should end with "therefore, belief in an unseen and unheard God can only be delusional."

You don't get to wriggle out of it. You're making wild claims that no philosopher, theistic, atheistic or otherwise, would agree with. You don't just get to wander aimlessly through new assertions because you don't know how to defend the first one. Moreover, when you are clearly demonstrating an unwillingness to justify the things you say, you don't then get to pretend that I am somehow "threatened."

This is my experience with New Atheists. They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them. If you can't form any logical justification for your assertion, then everyone is justified in ignoring it and anything you say after it, without you first admitting the wrongness of it. This is how rational discussions work.

Perhaps you think you're being clever, but I could make similar demands of most everything you are saying here. All you are doing is making bald assertion after bald assertion. When having a rational discussion, one should try to arrange one's statements in some sort of rational order of increasing consequence--not wildly flit from assertion to assertion.

By continuing to ignore your own original assertion, you impeach your credibility. This is what we call poor form when losing an argument. It's what people do when winning is more important than truth.

[Darcy88]

If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.

[cafolini]

True.

I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.

I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris.
I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.

[Darcy88]

Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

But how do you know that its not the Muslims or the Mormons who have the inside-track on salvation?

[Varenne Rodin]

I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris.
I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."

Gotta love John Lennon, Cafolini.

[MattG]

...They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them.

My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity.

Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer.

For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?

[Darcy88]

And Bien, even if that was a dinosaur, and it was apparently most likely a shark, but even if it was, all if proves is that a species of dinosaur managed to survive this whole time deep in the ocean's depths. You don't find t-rex and raptor skeletons lying alongside those of humans. The oldest cave drawings show deer and horses and other animals we are familiar with. They don't show dinosaurs.

[stuntpickle]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.

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.

[stuntpickle]

My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity.

Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer.

For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?

Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.

[MattG]

Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.

Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?