These are my reasons for not believing in God. I never said that they constitute proof of the nonexistence of God. But they are very good reasons not to believe.
We must have a different definition of "good." I'm assuming that a good reason would not be one that could make a sound logical argument.
The lack of evidence is evidence. It points to a high probability of a lack, especially when we are talking about this God character who is described as being so deeply concerned about us and involved in our affairs. There’s nothing illogical about this. I wonder if you even know what is meant by preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of evidence requires one to be able to determine the probability of truth. There's really no way to do this unless God can be bottled into the realm of the empirical, and we have no way of knowing if that can be done.
Religion purports to explain how we came into existence. My statement was not an argument from ignorance.
I didn't claim it was an argument from ignorance. I claimed it was an argument from silence.
It was a statement of fact to be used as evidence that it cannot do what it claims to do and is appealing to magic. All it’s answers are begging the question.
And your criticism is also begging the question.
I guess you missed the fact that I was talking about the concepts of trust and faith and not how they are put into practice.
And what are the concepts of faith and trust, exactly? I've never seen a handbook on them. Clearly you and I have different notions of the concepts.
That is precisely the problem with religious faith. You're just quibbling on this one.
I'm not quibbling. Your concepts are different from mine. Why should I accept your word on it?
In regards to your "knowable God" Do you really want to claim that there could be a God that exists as part of the natural universe?
Nope. I want to claim that there could be a God whose existence is not excluded from the natural universe.
Translation errors and misinterpretations are not issues for translators and interpreters. They affect what religion teaches and how people live their lives. If your science text book has ridiculous crap in it you are going to be misinformed and if you act on it, you could kill yourself. The same goes for screwed up scriptures. What was your point in making this argument? It sounds like you had nothing to say but said it anyway.
If I tell you "The cat is grey" and you tell someone else "The cat is yellow" and it affects that person's life, it's your fault for screwing it up, not mine. I gave you the message loud and clear, but you failed to deliver it correctly.
My observation that written documents upon which religions base their actions clearly promote conversion by violence is not an appeal to consequences. It is an indictment of the nonsense religion is based on. The same thing goes for the fact that it calls for punishment and death to unbelievers. It is a document that condones violence against others and is opposed to human rights. Any honest person would count that as a mark against it.
Why? Isn't it possible that the correct values don't match your values? You're rejecting the documents because you don't personally like the values they preach, and then are calling the values silly. This is clearly an emotional rejection which clouds your judgment rather than allowing you to take an honest, logical look at the God question. If this is a reason to not believe, it's one based purely on how the religion makes you feel rather than whether the religion makes you true. That's why we call appeals to consequences/ridicule and other appeals to emotion logical fallacies.
Everything that religions teach is relevant to whether a God actually exists since there is no other evidence. But of course, you slough that off as argument from ignorance.
Are we still on scripture? Because I never called that an argument from ignorance...
If you want to call something a logical fallacy, I insist that you explain how.
I figured you were familiar enough with them that you didn't need explanation.
I'll use an example:
"promotes conversion by violence"
-If religion is true, then it is valid to promote conversion by violence.
-Violence is undesirable.
-Therefore, religion is not true.
If you're using it as an argument, it's a fallacy. If it's just a reason, then it's an illogical one.
Do I really need to do this for every one?
I said that the Bible is man-made but the statement that scripture contains many failed prophecies, predictions and unfulfilled promises of God is a point to validate my assertion. It is not a point unto itself. Your argument makes no sense.
You posted them as separate bullets in a list, so I interpreted them as separate points. Is this not the appropriate way to interpret such formatting?
It is not an argument from incredulity to point out the fact that scripture is too vague and uncommunicative to be instructions from a divine being. Of course, I am completely incredulous that ostensibly intelligent people believe in this stuff and don't expect a perfect being to communicate better but that's not what I said. I note that scripture cannot be the work of a perfect deity because it is far from perfect.
The instructions or what was actually written down?
Following on the fact that scripture is vague, I point out, again as evidence and not proof that it has to be interpreted and therefore lends itself to being abused by unscrupulous people. Too much suffering in the world has come from this stupidity which an all knowing God should have anticipated. I am pointing out the consequences of scripture but it is not an appeal to consequences.
If it is a reason to make a logical conclusion then it's a logical fallacy. Or are you not claiming that reasons for not believing in God are necessarily logical?
If you need to have support for the assertion that the problems with scriptures outweigh any good messages they may contain, I suggest you pull your head out of your bible and read history or just the news.
Ok. How do we go about doing this? Giving a quarter to the poor because of religion = +1 point, killing someone over religion = -2 points? Which history textbooks and news reports are guaranteed to give an accurate picture of the ratio of good acts to naughty ones? After all, would a good response to a challenge on my assertion that most atheists are like The Brights be to watch the news (regardless of whether my assertion is true or not)? How exactly am I supposed to quantify the data for the assertion that you dumped on me without any evidence?
If you need to have support for the assertion that morals are based on human sympathy and empathy then maybe you should crack open a science book once in a while. Maybe you should learn to be a better observer of humans too because if you aren't busy deluding yourself, it becomes readily apparent.
Readily apparent through... Ayn Rand? Nietzsche? Kant? Aristotle? Epictetus? Confucius? Thomas Aquinas? John Stewart Mill? David Hume? Sure, there are principles like beneficence, non-maleficence, and stretching it maybe even altruism, but they haven't permeated strongly enough in history to make your assertion self-evident.
And I've never seen morals based on sympathy in any science textbook. Could you point me towards the ones that would have it?
I am using the fact that establishing moral codes based on theism is unnecessary, contradictory and dangerous as one of the reasons that theism is false, not that doing so is wrong because theism is false. Begging the question is assuming your conclusion in your premise. I did no such thing.
Calling moral codes based on theism unnecessary requires the implied premise that morality isn't necessarily found in theism.
There is clear and abundant evidence that morality does not come from God. If you have a rational mind you can see that every person decides what things they will take from their religion as morality.
Does this mean that every person is right in doing so? I think we're teetering around a fundamental disagreement on whether moral absolutes may exist.
If you study primate evolution you can see just how our primate cousins are now at a different point in the evolution of moral behavior than we are.
Is it a different point in the evolution of morality or a different point in the discovery of morality? Is there any way to tell the difference?
Tell me exactly how my point that religion is divisive is anything more than an astute observation of facts.
It's more than an observation because you're attempting to use it to prove a point. You're not offering data, you're interpreting the data to reach the conclusion given in your subject line. Or, at least this is how it appears given the formatting you used for your post.
Are you incapable of seeing the divisions it has created throughout history?
Do you have a clue what you are talking about?
You wrote "appeal to consequences" over and over.
I wrote appeal to consequences whenever I found that you used an appeal to consequences as a reason why someone might not believe in God. Which is perfectly ok if you want to not believe for that reason, but I thought I would point out to those reading this thread that it's not a logical
But, since you're asking me to explain my reasoning, it appeared to me that you are rejecting a belief in God "based on whether the premise leads to[. . .]undesirable consequences." (1)
I'm in the mood for a laugh so please explain to me how you contrived the notion that my statement about how we are asked to deceive ourselves to perceive God has anything to do with fear.
Fear that personal desires would taint the message. In retrospect it is closer to an appeal to consequences. You don't like the possible implications of God being real, so you don't believe.
These are statements of fact.
No they're not, and for different reasons. Let's take them one at a time:
People are animals. We are only special due to our more developed brain.
Nonsense. We're also special because of unciform joints, smallpox, our DNA, big boobies, Jesus' love for us, and because Barney says so. But, of course, your assertion that we are only special due to our more developed brain must assume God didn't make us in His image to have a shot at being true, so to use this as an argument for not believing in him is a bit circular.
Abrahamic religions teach that the earth is only about 6000 to 10000 years old.Hasty generalization.
It's a hasty generalization. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not teach this.
Because they don't arrive at the same conclusions. There is no consistency. If God is one being and there is some way to know God, people would come to the same conclusions.
Not necessarily. There have been cases of empirical data being misinterpreted, and that's a lot less vague than a god concept.
The evidence points to three possibilities in my opinion, 1) there are multiple Gods 2) God is schizophrenic, 3) God is non-existent and people just feel the need for anthropomorphizing nature.
4) The people didn't all have the same information at the same time in the same conditions?
Goodness, truth, wisdom and all other purported attributes of God are human concepts. This is a statement of fact. You might quibble and say they came from a divine source but even if they did, that doesn't change the fact that they are human concepts as we use them. Applying those human concepts to a supernatural deity renders them meaningless because the deity is unknowable and by definition completely different in kind from us.
You're failing to recognize that these are often applied to a deity by definition, since in many theologies the terms themselves are defined by being of God. I don't know of which "we" you're speaking, but there is certainly a "they" out there who uses them in a theistic way.
Your comment about infinity missed the point entirely. But I think that's your aim anyway. Suffice to say that the point is valid and stands as I stated. If you have a counter argument then please present it.
Please explain it again. I was under the impression that your point was contingent on infinity being something that "humans cannot comprehend" (plus exception.) Since that premise is not something that has been firmly established, how is my calling the conclusion you draw from that premise into question inappropriate?
Clearly belief in an afterlife is, as I stated insidious and detrimental. It not only can lead to the notion that killing someone is, at least conceivably, doing them a favor, it has often led to that. The fact that these things are the direct result of religious nonsense is not an appeal to consequences because it is not theoretical.
An appeal to consequences does not rely on the consequences being theoretical. Even if the consequences are demonstrable, it's still an appeal to consequences. Since I'm sure you were aware of that, I'm a bit confused as to why you brought up "theoretical."
Even if god were real, the money wasted on pomp and ceremony of religion is still wasted. God doesn't need money, does he? Only people need money.
I completely disagree. Pomp and ceremony are deeply routed in our culture, and if God is exists then using them is highly appropriate given our standards for pomp and ceremony. Whether God needs
them is as irrelevant as whether the dead guy at the funeral needs an expensive coffin.
You have not addressed the claims so it doesn't matter what you think it is. Even if my statements were logical fallacies, which they are not, you have not given me any reason to think otherwise.
- Theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable.
- Religion relies on guilt, fear and outlandish promises to gain obedience.
- Theism generally precludes any possibility of testing God or questioning his existence substantively. It is something like the wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
I grouped them all as appeal to consequences (granted, with a formatting error so it may not appear that way.)
Nothing you have said is a refutation or even an answer.
It's not worth it for me to waste my time concocting a logical refutation to something that is not based on logic. If you make an appeal to consequences, it is sufficient for me to point out that it is an appeal to consequences and move on. If you want me to seriously consider a point, don't make it an appeal to consequences.
I don't have to prove that there are many good rational and logical arguments against theism because I know them and I’m giving them to you.
I must have been too busy dismissing the last few appeals to emotion to notice them.
Also, none of the arguments in favor of God consist of anything other than fallacy or assumption.
So? We're not discussing those arguments here.
I'm talking about my reasons, am I not?
I thought you were talking about reasons in general, which led me to believe it had a persuasive intent. If it's purely expository, then I misread the tone of your post.
I think you know what I'm talking about too or else you would try to refute my statements instead of saying essentially nothing.
There's nothing to refute. If someone says, "I have a cat. Thus, turtles must eat deer poo," the only real refutation is "that makes no sense" or "non-sequitur." When presented with a logical fallacy the most appropriate response is to identify it as one.
Beyond that, explanation is the most viable option, and since you're familiar with the fallacies this would be redundant.
You say that not making a choice of a god might be wrong too. If it is, we get back to the problem of this God not communicating well. If there were a God, he should be able to get that across to us.
In a way that you'd accept as valid, I'm assuming.
I am certain that not picking a god is the correct choice given the circumstances. If the circumstances change, then I would have to reevaluate.
That's what rational people do - we look at all the facts, analyze all the data and make the best choice. We follow where the evidence leads and it does not lead to God.
Define "efficacy."Get a dictionary.
Asking you to define the term as you are using it is not an unreasonable request, especially considering that the way in which you use it has a large bearing on whether or not your statement is true in this case.
Don't bother wasting our time if all you are going to do is lie
throw up names of logical fallacies that don't even apply.
Good thing I pick the ones that apply then.
There is nothing logical or rational about believing in an invisible being that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. It's an obvious fairy tale.
So obvious that billions of people miss it.
You have not made a case for anything.
I wasn't aware that I was attempting to make a case.
You also haven't refuted a single thing I said.
I'm confused now. Above you seemed to be saying that you're not making an argument, but rather are listing reasons for not believing in God (hence why the fallacies don't apply.) Now you talk of "refuting," which leads me to believe you're making arguments.
-If you are making a logical argument, then me pointing out your fallacies refutes them as part of your logical argument.
-If you are not making an argument, then I am pointing out that your reasons are not based on logic. Whether you care or not is up to you, as they're your reasons.
I should add that another good reason for not believing in God is that I don't have to be around people as delusional as you.
I should add that this is an illogical reason to not believe in God.
How about because it's a lie?
Sure, if convincing evidence can be found that it fits the definition of a lie. (Clearly you have been convinced, but I have not.)
Anyway, I would venture a guess that there is nothing anyone could do to convince you so, who cares?
This is not true at all. I just haven't found anything that has been convincing yet.
Maybe you are even a bit slow.
Quite possibly. It did take me unreasonably long to write this post, even with multitasking. It's really nice of you quick people to help the slow ones like myself. However, because of my slowness, if I have it, it's really a bother to sort the logical reasons for not believing in God from the illogical ones. It'd be much simpler to just go with pure logic. Were I faster, I could keep up with both.