What is the reason or reasons you don't believe in God? Nothing personal just curious. Thanks.
For the same reason I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.
Randy you forgot to mention the reason, let's try it again.
So you do believe in the Easter Bunny? If not, why?
Randy, this isn't that difficult. Your last comment still didn't mention the reason why you don't believe in God and now you've got me curious as to know why you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. I didn't say one way or the other whether I believe in either. This isn't about me, I'm interested in you and what others think. Don't lose any sleep over this, I'm just giving you a hard time brother! LOL.
In a manner of speaking it did, zzron. I believe equally in both Easter Bunny and Jr. I've witnessed no evidence of either of them ever existing and no one has come forth with any when asked. Actually, Bigfoot trumps both of them because of the many claimed sightings by modern man. Not that it exists either, by the way.
Beside the Chocolate Easter bunny and coke up Santa contain too much sugar
What...now you're saying there's no Bigfoot, too. Boy...is he going to be beside himself...when he finds this out...!
Bigfoot's suite looks warm and I really love the hood! LOL.
I use to make mascot costumes, that one looks really hot
Yes, but does he wear anything underneath that suit? It's a bit like the tantalising Scottish Kilt!
OK, we'll try again.
Why don't you believe in Her Holy Pinkness,The invisible Pink Unicorn?
She is everywhere, you know. You can not see Her (because She is invisible, duh!) but on the day of your death you will hear Her Holy Hooves approaching and if you have not yet partaken of the Holy Pineapple and Ham and acknowledged Her Pinkness, She will trample you into a pile of mush and your soul will forever after crawl in the dark Mines of Misery, for She is a jealous god and doesn't take last minute conversions.
While you crawl on your belly, I will be riding my Camel Beast through the fields of Pinkdom.
Now, why are you still playing around with your fake god when I have shown you Pink Truthiness?
I don't need a reason to not believe something. Rather the reverse.
The question is too broad for me. When I consider a question that just states "God", I consider the two, a deist god, or a man-made religion God. (I understand Deism is man-made, but my point is understood.)
To answer your question from man-made religion that has a god who watches over us, through many hours of extracurricular studies, in regards to the history of man-made religion, I have found it to be certain, God in this context doesn't exist.
Given that something needed to be created out of nothing for any God to exist, you can conclude that mass can also be created out of nothing.
Therefore, even if God did exist he would be obsolete, as mass can and has been created out of mass regardless of his presence.
I'm not an Atheist, but I hold no belief whatsoever with regards to your subject matter.
Why do I hold no belief? Simply, I was once a believer because I was raised by a mother and father who believed. It last pretty until adulthood. Then I decided to do the research required to understand "religion" itself and found it to be false.
I've also learned through knowledge that the "G/god" concept(the belief) was around before "religion" ever existed. Not to mention, through many other avenues, it's been learned that the conscious mind is very young and can be tracked back in time through many means. The conscious mind is actually younger than the "G/god" concept(the belief), which means that those who did believe were not conscious of their own existence at the time they believed.
After learning these things, I dropped the belief I held.
Unfortunately, in today's society those who believe now do so from an subconscious fear derived from a lack of understanding their own life.
It's hard to believe in something that doesn't exist.
The world seems to be divided into three major religious belief systems. One believes a God does exists. The second believes a god does not exist and the rest believe a god may exist. In the absence of any tangible proof, each has built its own unique belief system about "god" based upon faith, experiences, and intuition. Each has its preferred books, quotes, and talking points. However, which one has gotten it right and which has not? More importantly, who on Earth is qualified to judge?
It is also possible to believe IN God without having to believe there IS a God. The mind can certainly understand God as a symbol, a figure of speech, a metaphor for all of the noble, caring, nurturing aspects of human nature that neither science nor our intellect has YET been able to explain. As such, it matters not if there is proof God does or does not exist if people can clearly see what God represents.
If the metaphors used by some religions are valuable for living, then believe in the metaphors and don’t insist that they be proven facts. There is much to be learned about living from the Koran, and the Bible, and a Good Housekeeping magazine. When you find it, use it.
There is value in all religious books, even if the stories they contain are mere metaphores. And the ideas we have of gods have been with us for so long, that it might prove impossible to totally replace them. I believe that God is hard-wired into the human mind, even one belonging to an atheist.
Agreed; that human being are grouped in three callsifications; is it not possible that all the three groups could co-exist respecting one another for peace of the world?
The reason I don't believe in God? There's just no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. The flimsy excuses for "proofs" of God just don't hold up to critical thinking/reasoning.
We played this game before so let me pick the bait anyway. Burden of proof is on theists to prove existence of god. Atheists don't believe in god because there is no proof for god's existence. Atheists shrug off at typical theist thinking of - "there is no proof that god doesn't exist either, so let's believe in fairy tales".
This reminds me of a joke I read in Fermat´s Enigma, it goes something like this:
You have an astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician sitting together on a train ride through Scotland. After many hours of passing by white sheep along the countryside, the astronomer spots a black sheep and says, ´Look, there are black sheep in Scotland´.
The physicist looks at the astronomer and shakes his head. He then replies, ´no, my misguided friend, there is at least one black sheep in Scotland´.
Upon hearing this, the mathematician can no longer restrain himself and exclaims, ´fools!, you are both wrong. There is at least one half of one sheep in Scotland!
@bloggernotjogger quiet right...when i look at various religions in the world and read joke u pasted, i exactly have similar thoughts...but cant blame those writers...they did their best job is what ever they could make out of universe , natural phenomenas...secondly they had great imagination and creativity...what they wrote might have been proven false but they didnt intend to sell fantasy...they sold fantasies because they believed that...but in today's world too people believe that!!!!!!!!!!
There is proof of God's existence all around us. 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead....'(from Romans 1:20, KJV)
That is proof that the world is very nifty, not that it is very Godly. Unless God is like: all your nifty are belong to me. Which would be totally bogus.
Who said anything about proving the world is godly or 'very godly' as you put it? You should re-read the post I replied to and then go back over my comment because you sound quite confused in your reply.
Your quote basically says 'world is nifty'='world is made by God'.
Unless you can suggest some other way to interpret it.
It is a typical non-proof-based statement of 'it's just obvious (to me) that this cool stuff required a creator-God' of the type that Catholics are particularly fond of. But fundamentally a tautology.
Words from an old novel written by an anonymous person stating invisible evidence of a god is there to be seen by all. Why not take a photo of it for us to not see the truth of it!
I usually describe myself as an atheist, although perhaps agnostic is a more appropriate term, as no one can prove if there is or isn't a god. However, my reason for being an agnostic is because of the lack of evidence in favour of God. People ususlly describe their personal experiences as evidence. Someone simply stating that they have found Jesus, is not in itself evidence, no matter how real it might seem to them. God cannot be put under the microscope or dissected using objective scientific means. As belief is never quite enough for me, as someone who relies on evidence, I would find it hard to ever say I could have faith in the existence of a god, although I would never say it would be impossible, as like many people, I would love to belive that God exists.
You are incorrect that the non-existence cannot be proved. Agnostics are just like theists in that sense: they haven't thought about it logically.
Richard Dawkins, the world-famous atheist, has in fact described himself as an agnostic, because, as he says, God cannot actually be proven not to exist, even though, he says it is very unlikely. To describe himself as an atheist, would he suggests also mean having to describe hiself as an afairyist, because he does not believe in fairies, or an ateapotist, because he doesn't believe in a teapot which orbits the Moon. Whilst I think the burden of proof lies with the believer, humanity is not yet in the position to know with absolute certainty everything there is to be known.
Because he isn't smart enough to think it through.
Or because, as he always has, he kowtows to religion.
Any sentient creature has to be composed of simpler parts. It can't be homogenous, therefore the parts existed before it did.
Therefore it has to have either accidentally assembled or be a product of evolution like us.
That's no god even if it did create us. It's just a very unlikely life form.
Many have claimed Dawkins is the World Champion of Atheist, Dawkins states is 99.9999 sure God does not exist. Then Dawkins states he is deeply religious. Now I can't make head or tail out of Dawkins.
Pcunix are you the true atheist that is 100% sure that God does not exist because no Atheist has proven it yet, so you should wear the Atheist Crown, don’t you think?
Dawkin's has bent over backwards to avoid offending the religious. He's been doing so all his life and of course at the same time has found it harder and harder to do.
It's too bad that reality offends people, isn't it?
Reality is painful because we have been convinced that we need something. Some form of truth or a job or any number of illusions transposed by the conditioning of a world that does not understand anything. We think we know things and in some cases, we have some kind of idea, but they are all an illusion of the perception of the self. I do not no why atoms exist, they just do and I can also say the same for a bear or a snake or myself.
Dawkins bending over backward for religion or anyone spiritual by making films and books called God delusion and enemies of reason.
I’m sure glad not to claim anyone an enemies, although Dawkins claim to be deeply religious was very nice of him and keeping it real.
Yes, Dawkins can't really be described as religious, as he has made it part of his life's work to argue against religion and the belief in God. If he is bending over backwards for religion, he is not making a very good job of it.
Then you simply haven't read his books.
I have. He works hard to avoid offense, constantly hedging his statements to try to find room for the supernatural beliefs of the religious.
That there is no room is obvious, yet he keeps trying to find that tiny space for the religious to hang on to.
Agreed, those who complain about Dawkins haven't read his works or been to any of his lectures.
Seen a few of Dawkins long and short films, a few lectures with a boyish charm which did open my eye more to atheists views. Did a little reading from his books and have taken some notes from his second and third hand me down information, yet he has a strong fan base and he makes a great deal of money.
Overall not impress with his bias approach to spirituality which lack imagine for many other possibilities and other forms of new ways of thinking.
Yes, he deals with reality, so it may not be your cup of tea.
And clearly Dawkins he is less open minded about other ways of things that, say, the Pope, or many of the Christians on this forum....
A Troubled Man
I would claim to know all reality, or someone might mistake you as the one and only God
I have watched many discussions and lectures with Richard Dawkins, and unless I have been interpreting him very wrongly, the impression I have of him is not of a religious man. He has made it his purpose to condemn and criticise religion, and I have found myself agreeing with much of what he says. If Dawkins is in fact a devout believer in God, I can't understand why I have been so wrong, and why he comes across to me as a non-believer. I am totally confused now.
That's why I'm a hug fan of Sam Harris. He brings a nice philosophy twang to his work, and to the idea of spirituality with out religion.
"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to
terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. But
we will find that it requires no faith in untestable propositions—
Jesus was born of a virgin; the Koran is the word of God—for us to
do this." - Sam Harris
Do you think reality is always on his side?
He has a head for sure; but the tail is lost in the evolution. I respect him.
Richard Dawkins is just a human being who could err; why should one follow him blindly in a field which he is not a master or an expert; in matters of religion his is just a layman.
Please expalin further for the atheists; that non-existence could be proved.
Reason could take you to that extent only; that there "should" be a Creator God; Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of the era agrees with it. Reason coupled with Revelation or the Truthful Word could take you to the point that there "is" a Creator God.
Muldania, I'm also more inclined to call myself an agnostic these days, because I don't like getting lumped in with rabid atheists.
I don't think atheists do their cause any good by being aggressive, impatient or patronising with Christians. I understand why they do, because they get so frustrated with the worst of the bone-headed fundamentalist Christians, who seem incapable of engaging in intelligent debate about their beliefs. But reacting in an extreme way only entrenches them in their views.
An atheist is an intelligent person who currently does not believe in God, because he or she has been unable to find any evidence to indicate He exists. If evidence turned up tomorrow, they would readily change their views, because their view is based on logic and common sense. However most atheists think that's unlikely.
What should have been asked is "If you are an atheist, why must you always fuel your cause with the ashes of condemned believers " ?Huummmmm?
Zzron, there is no secular evidence to support the existence of a god--that is why I do not believe. If you are a believer, then the burden of proof lies with you, not me.
I have to say I like ahorseback's responce. There doesn't have to be any proof at all that God exists to believe that he does. I believe there is other life forms billions of light years from Earth in the universe and there is no proof of that. There is no burden of proof when it comes to believing in something. Lack of proof for the purpose of believing in something is in my opinion a lame and narrow minded way to look at things, but that's just me.
zzron, let's just clear up your misunderstanding of the English language.
If you can "prove" something, there is no need to "believe." Belief only comes into play when you cannot prove something.
Of course nothing can be "proven" about "god" one way or the other. If "god" is infinite, therefore un-measurable, you cannot touch, see, hear, taste or smell god, because there is nothing.... NO THING there.
If you, or I, or anyone else wants to conjure up in the mind some imagination and call it "god" then that is what one "believes." No proof required.
Simple, plain logic.
Incorrect. I can prove that any creature with the attributes that define a "god" cannot have those attributes and is therefore logically impossible.
In simple form:
Any intelligent being cannot be homogenous - it must be composed of simpler parts.
If composed of simpler parts, those parts existed before it did.
Therefore, it is either a natural product of evolution or an accidental assembly.
In neither case is it a god.
You complicate the issue, unnecessarily.
I was simply showing that an entity called "god" is, for the person who accepts it as so, the embodiment of "God." The god is a construct of that person's mind. Neither you, nor I, have the right to try to dislodge such an imagined entity from that person's mind, unless that person uses their imaginations to mount an assault on you or me, to the detriment of our freedom.
The latter point is the reason we are in great danger, in today's world, of being subjected to oppressive religious thinkers. Fundamentalists they are known as.
I guess we can just agree to disagree, can you prove that God does not exist? If you can I would like to see it.
With great respect zzron I am happy to agree to disagree.
I have no proof one way or the other. Don't need it. Life is wonderful as it is, until the moment I die, then this person writing will be a "has-been" instead of a "comelately."
Thats the idiousy of this whole debate ! No one has to prove anything to anybody! Faith .......doesn't require proof!
Yes, faith only requires the loss of reason, rationale and the capacity to think, hence proof would not be a characteristic of those requirements.
I cannot accept the concept of a god because I have partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, a tree with roots that begin before man walked the earth, and whose limbs span all of human history. I recognize that "I don't know" is a valid answer that does not validate a supernatural explanation.
"Faith requires the loss of reason"...."the tree of knowledge "....Oh thats right too ,only people of faith are stupid.....I see pa couple of those who are intellectually challenged right here !
(Faith .......doesn't require proof)
The above are your own words. No one has challenged your statement because it is correct - faith requires no objective evidence.
No one has said anyone was stupid - confirmation bias applies equally to thesists and non-theists. The difference is whether you use your reasoning to override emotions or whether your emotive subjective conclusions overrule your reason.
The noted Evangelical Christian Apologist William Lane Craig indicated as much:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.
…We’ve already said that it’s the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role."
I do not for a minute think that William Lane Craig is stupid. I do think what he believes is dumb, because it is based on authority and emotions only, and discounts evidence and reason as less important than emotions.
This is basically the Dark Ages versus The Enlightenment all over again. I vote for Enlightenment. You are free to hold onto Dark Ages beliefs, though.
I'm not even sure it's dumb. It's dangerous, definitely, but if you really believe that this stuff is true, then the intelligent thing to do would be to ignore any poisonous rationality that tried to convince you that it wasn't.
Fortunately, most folks don't REALLY believe it. They hope it's true, they wish for it, they want it, but they don't have that certainty that some of the, umm, more committed ones have.
(Fortunately, most folks don't REALLY believe it)
Exactly. Most only profess a creed. But to genuinely believe one must hold to the idea that reality includes such things as flying mules (Islam), magical seer stones (Mormanism), and matter that can regenerate and live again after death (Christianity), to the point that if such things were not real there would be no belief.
I'm an Atheist because:
1.) I am perfectly happy without believing in a God
3.) I can think rationally
4.) I've read the Bible
5.) I evolved from a primate
6.) Cain and Abel were both boys - end of humanity, right?
7.) Like everyone else, I was born non-religious, but thankfully I didn't have Bibles shoved down my throat
8.) My once close friend was a "Christian", but he is greedy, unforgiving and he swears A LOT, but because he has a god to forgive him, it's fine!
9.) Religious conflict, terrorism, martyrdom etc.
10.) The Bible advocated homophobia and sexism
11.) If man was made in God's image, why do Jews and some Muslims/Christians have their foreskin cut off?
12.) GOD ISN'T REAL!
And I finish with some delightful Atheist quotes!
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod shows a lack of confidence" - Doug McLeod
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" - Delos B. McKown
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Segan
Well said, Ryan-Morgan. I agree with pretty well all you have said, as it applies to myself also. Yet I still have a respect for those who find a faith helps them in their life. Provided it remains their private view, and is not "shoved down my throat" as the only way to believe.
Of course, you and I would seldom get such tolerance and understanding from the Believer.
No wonder atheists know the bible better than, I find much of it a waste of time
I must be so ashamed now ! Only liberal ateists are the enlightened ones. Because they are more intelligent , they believe in evolution., they need "proof" above faith. Oh me .......if I were only just like you . I too could spout forth with much intellectual horsebucky ! You people actually scare me ......It actually requires more faith to be an atheist than to believe now , doesn't it?! Well?..........
No, it doesn't. It requires common sense and willingness to look where your pastor tells you not to. It also requires not believing myths and stories made up by common men who remain anonymous. Religion is much better than listening to learned scholars, eh?
(I must be so ashamed now ! Only liberal ateists are the enlightened ones.)
Sarcastic contempt from a Christian is like an American Express card to a traveller - they never leave home without it.
No, it requires nothing but the intelligence evolution gave you.
However: religious belief brings comfort to some. They have an emotional need to believe and that emotional need suppresses the rationality that would otherwise make it plain to them that it's all nonsense.
Some people even choose to believe while being partly aware that it is nonsense. Either way, it's fine: if you aren't using your beliefs to harm other people, why should I want to interfere with what comforts you?
Your problem , AKA is that you assume I am a Christian , and not just a fair minded forum poster!But then liberal "intellectuals " never were ones to never be fair and open minded.
And Randy , there is probably at least one "learned scholars" who IS a Christian and yet only your intellect is as so P.C. that you cannot see that.Grow up people !
Castle , No , perhaps he would be a muslim though , like you he would relish the P.C. of accepting anything except Christianhood!
You know guys , I've got to stop calling out your lack of respect for believers , its just not fair to pick on the idiousy of P.C. people. Really , its just too easy!
Thank dog, we are Studying about early America man, don't want anyone who stuck on Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs
Even an idiot can use spellcheck. "Idiousy" is a hard thing to deal with.
In truth you know nothing of early american man , adam and eve or dinasaurs
santa must have been nasty to you man.
The idea of God in general is ridiculous because you can't disprove his existence. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can go on forever. Even if we disprove one aspect of God, the "omnipotent" factor allows the person who believes in God to say "Oh he's so powerful that he's doing something to deceive you." For example, they used to think God lived up in the sky but now that we have airplanes, they've been changing the story and the last explanation I heard was that he lived on Jupiter.
Furthermore, there really isn't a practical point to believing in God. You can say God answers in the form of "yes", "no", or "maybe" but that won't help me get a good grade in a class. I'm sure studying is a much better use of my time. And even though they say God helps those who helps themselves and God's going to do whatever he wants, why bother praying in the first place?
Yeaaa whooo!.....dododododdodooo do doo do! You people have been away from sunday school tooooo long !Hows that for spell check! Liberal atheists are dopey!
I don't believe in God because there is no valid evidence of the existence of such a higher power. Evolution has far more legitimacy, with ample evidence to support the theory being uncovered and archived over year and years. Religion is about faith but faith but it's faith based on something outside of ones self & within the framework of an elaborate story. Some people need that story. I don't. People look to god for "strength" but this is misguided because strength comes from within. Strength comes from being a thinking, breathing, living purposeful member of the human race. People thank god for the things they have & while the appreciation for things is good the direction of that appreciation misplaced.
I prefer to use the simple powers of logical deduction, based upon the 5 basic senses I possess, and draw my own conclusions.
So often said before, any suggestion of a "god" that is infinite, un-measurable, un-quantifiable, can only be dealt with in the imaginative mind.
Without any means to prove the existence or otherwise of an entity outside of our physical perception, I assume that it does not exist. Then I get on with observing, studying, marveling at the wonders of this world. This is so much more important to me, because in a few years I will not be able to do this. Why waste time worrying about such ethereal matters as "god?"
By the way, I have just been watching a spider make a meal of a blowfly, through the modern marvel of a digital microscope! I suppose there is some kind of force, designer, creator that is responsible for those microscopic hairs on the fly's legs, and the intricate pattern of veins on the wings. Also for the intricate ecological workings and patterns of our living world. You and I cannot know the true nature of that force or the creator. It would be like a table having an understanding of the carpenter who made it.
Stay with your beliefs if that satisfies you in your life. Your choice. I have my choice.
by FootballNut 8 weeks ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting hallelujah and praising him or her for typical life results.If God did create...
by Joseph A K Turner 3 years ago
Why do most people, whilst they acknowledge God's existence fail to live for him?The devil has done everything he can to make people think that he doesn’t exist and yet most people live for him. Most people, though they believe in God don’t live for him. Why is that?
by Vapid Maven 6 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with there is also no physical evidence that a god "does not" exist which is a...
by Richard VanIngram 8 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals would have difficulty with the very notion of believing in any God? Again,...
by Retrohawaii 7 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Peeples 4 years ago
What makes someone who wants to believe in a God incapable?No matter how much I want to be part of the majority my brain just doesn't allow for the belief in a God. What is different about the brains of non believers (or maybe it's just me) that makes me/us incapable of belief even when their is a...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|