Why do people disbelieve in God??

[John Cuthber]

So the scriptures are false. That is a lack of evidence of god, not evidence that god does not exist.

If I'm unable to address the question of 'how God can set Himself a task...', how does that make me delusional? Admitting there is a paradox would seem to make me seem more sane.

 

I imagine 2000 years ago, the 'nutters' were those who did not believe in God.

If someone believes in an all powerful God and yet they know that an all powerful God is a logical contradiction then they believe in something which they know (or should know) to be impossible. That's not rational.

The fact that it's logically impossible should count as evidence against it.

 

They may have been the nutters, but the point is that they would have been spotted even though they wouldn't "have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought."

 

The evidence has changed in the meantime, so the group who are "on the wrong side of the evidence" has changed,but the idea of "delusional" is pretty much the same.

[seriously disabled]

We always tend to think that our life is important and special in the universe. And we also tend to think that the universe revolves around us.

 

But scientific evidence shows that not only is there no God but that human life is really not so important as we tend to think it is and our lives really don't mean much (in terms of value) as we think they do.

Edited January 22, 2013 by seriously disabled

[jp255]

We always tend to think that our life is important and special in the universe. And we also tend to think that the universe revolves around us.

 

 

Who is "we"? I don't share their view, whoever they are.

 

 

 

But scientific evidence shows that not only is there no God but that human life is really not so important

 

What evidence?

 

 

 

I'm happy to look at it from the perspective of a more general use of the term delusional. Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought. I imagine a significant portion of the theist population does not have the ability to do that examination, and a significant portion of those who do have the ability, have not bothered to do so. Therefore calling a theist delusional is an extreme generalization.

 

If you had used the definition which incorporates lack of evidence into it (as john responded), as opposed to evidence to the contrary, then those who don't bother to examine the foundation of their beliefs are included also. Not only is that definition better (evidence showing the non-existence of something is hard to come by), but also allows inclusion of those individuals. I do agree with that there is a generalisation. When you are scrutinising the belief of an individual, you just need to determine whether they have the ability to critically examine the foundations of their belief. After you have that information you can then proceed to describe them as delusional or not delusional. Agreed?

 

 

 

Regarding comparisons of God to the tooth fairy and the like, I don't feel that is a good comparison. No one of any maturity claims the tooth fairy is real. There are no historical documents, schools, artifacts, ancient texts, or other (however tenuous) evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy. I feel a better comparison would be to that of the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. Not much better, I know, but at least there are adults seriously examining the situation.

 

 

They are very comparable in my opinion. Just pretend that someone is asserting the existence of the tooth fairy and compare it. There may be many pieces of evidence to support the existence of god, but they are all worthless in their ability to verify the existence of god. The amount of "evidence" there is to support the existence of something does not increase the individual value of each of the evidences. You can use this as a comparator: the claim from me that the tooth fairy is real. 1 piece of evidence vs 1,000,000's? they all have the same value. Which is ???????????.

Edited January 22, 2013 by jp255

[tar]

 

Lets take the universe for example the only known way to create charged particles known to science is through

pair creation where charge and mass are conserved. So positrons and electrons, protons and antiprotons

are created in pairs, but the problem is our universe is the missing antimatter from pair creation, so what

happened to it and how can our universe be naturally here without it? Some outside force must of seperated

the matter from the antimatter to prevent the universe from annihilating it's self.

Semjase,

 

Why assume that the universe demands 1 fold symmetry? Perhaps it is 6 fold, that it demands.

 

And IF it is just 1 fold required, then God vs Devil would pose us yet another question. What outside force is keeping the God, and the Devil from annihilating it's self?

 

Seems to me that we have no actual way to "get outside" ourselves. Which brings us to your contention that anything man-made is created by intelligence, therefore intelligence exists, and since science can not describe where this "intelligence" originated, it must have been brought in from the outside, ie. goddidit. Which leaves me with the question, who did God?

 

So, from my point of view, we are sort of stuck with the notion that we are both bound by what the universe is naturally capable of, and responsible for any outcomes therefrom. We cannot logically "step outside" ourselves or belong to "a different" universe. This is the only one we have.

 

If you would suggest that you are in possession of a "different" universe than the one I've got...I would beg to differ.

 

In this light, I would propose that if God, is being itself, it would be rather silly to suggest that you were immune from it.

 

And would answer the OP by saying that I don't believe not believing is an actual possibility. And I say that, as an Atheist.

 

Regards, TAR2

[zapatos]

If you had used the definition which incorporates lack of evidence into it (as john responded), as opposed to evidence to the contrary, then those who don't bother to examine the foundation of their beliefs are included also. Not only is that definition better (evidence showing the non-existence of something is hard to come by), but also allows inclusion of those individuals. I do agree with that there is a generalisation. When you are scrutinising the belief of an individual, you just need to determine whether they have the ability to critically examine the foundations of their belief. After you have that information you can then proceed to describe them as delusional or not delusional. Agreed?

No, I don't agree. I don't feel you can label someone delusional if they have not examined the belief, even if they are capable of doing so.

 

Look at how many people come to this site with a complete misconception about how the universe works. Someone comes to this site and believes that an atom has a nucleus with electrons traveling in circular orbits around it, similar to the way the solar system works. They've believed this for years. Friends have confirmed it. They learned it from a person in authority. They never bothered to question it. Now they arrive at this site and learn that is not true. Were they delusional before they got to this site?

 

They are very comparable in my opinion. Just pretend that someone is asserting the existence of the tooth fairy and compare it. There may be many pieces of evidence to support the existence of god, but they are all worthless in their ability to verify the existence of god. The amount of "evidence" there is to support the existence of something does not increase the individual value of each of the evidences. You can use this as a comparator: the claim from me that the tooth fairy is real. 1 piece of evidence vs 1,000,000's? they all have the same value. Which is ???????????.

I should have stated they are not comparable from a theist's perspective. The two are comparable to you, but then you've already examined the evidence. For a theist to think they are comparable, both must have evidence believed by some.

[hoggy]

I find that most religious people behave in a similar way. When their beliefs are challenged they cling more tightly to that belief like a tiny flea to the hair of a dog. It seems to me that some people simply need something to cling to whether that be a God, deity, life after death or spritualism and ghosts. All these things give comfort to them, sadly for them they, like us only have one life and are wasting a substantial amount of their lives living in fear of their 'god'.

[zapatos]

I find that most religious people behave in a similar way. When their beliefs are challenged they cling more tightly to that belief like a tiny flea to the hair of a dog. It seems to me that some people simply need something to cling to whether that be a God, deity, life after death or spritualism and ghosts. All these things give comfort to them, sadly for them they, like us only have one life and are wasting a substantial amount of their lives living in fear of their 'god'.

You might wish to actually talk to some religious people. Not many of them are "living in fear".

[tar]

hoggy,

 

Not quite sure that there is an after-life payoff for NOT believing, either. Who do you figure is going to give you the gold star...after you die? And based on what are the standards, that were set before you were born?

 

An after-life is assumed I think, by most. Not their own, per se, but life none-the-less. Just a theory of mine, but to illustrate, how far out, into the future, do you think it is reasonable to assume responsibility? 'Til your kids die? 'Till your clan dies out? 'Till your planet dies? Until the human race has no living representatives? 'Til the Milky Way is left alone in space? 'Til the black hole in the Galaxy's center consumes every peice of matter in the Milky Way? Where exactly to do figure there is a line. where your existence disappears? And what would be the deciding factor, to determine that "the end" had been reached? Who would care, after that? If a thing is to "disappear", it first, I would think would have to be apparent to someone. For it to matter, there should be someone that cares.

 

I suppose the question I am asking you to explore is where do you define the boundries of those enities that you consider, when you consider entities that you include in your feeling of self.? Do you feel no association to the world that will exist after you die? Do you consider life insurance a stupid idea? How about recycling? Or saving the planet's resources from being "used up"? If the "idea" of God is so abhorent to you...why do you believe you might have any claim on the real estate, after your body/brain/heart group "gives up the ghost"?

 

Just asking.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Just for fun, consider this. You light a match and hold it in the air in a clearing. Unfortuneatly the clearing is a highway and you are struck by a bus and instantly killed. A bystander witnesses the event and it matters to them. A small plane above sees the matchlight extinquished. A year or so later the event reaches (rather dimly) a planet circling the nearest star. The light of the match continues outward and reaches a planet on the other side of the Milky Way several thousand years later. Most of the universe has not yet witnessed the birth of our Sun. When exactly, universally speaking, did your life cease to exist?

Edited January 23, 2013 by tar

[John Cuthber]

"Look at how many people come to this site with a complete misconception about how the universe works. Someone comes to this site and believes that an atom has a nucleus with electrons traveling in circular orbits around it, similar to the way the solar system works. They've believed this for years. Friends have confirmed it. They learned it from a person in authority. They never bothered to question it. Now they arrive at this site and learn that is not true. Were they delusional before they got to this site?"

No, they were uninformed.

There's a difference. I don't need an electron microscope and a knowledge of quantum mechanics to see that there is a fundamental difference of approach between the church and the scientist.

I don't need any special equipment to realise that an all powerful God is logically self contradictory.

[zapatos]

There's a difference. I don't need an electron microscope and a knowledge of quantum mechanics to see that there is a fundamental difference of approach between the church and the scientist.

I don't need any special equipment to realise that an all powerful God is logically self contradictory.

So one of the differences between the uninformed and the delusional is not whether you examine the belief or not, but whether or not you need special equipment to do the examination?

[John Cuthber]

If it's impossible to say whether something is right or wrong then it's not delusional to believe either side of the argument.

When it's clear that one side is impossible and you still believe it...

[zapatos]

So you are saying that God is impossible? That seems a pretty bold statement.

[jp255]

 

No, I don't agree. I don't feel you can label someone delusional if they have not examined the belief, even if they are capable of doing so.

 

Look at how many people come to this site with a complete misconception about how the universe works. Someone comes to this site and believes that an atom has a nucleus with electrons traveling in circular orbits around it, similar to the way the solar system works. They've believed this for years. Friends have confirmed it. They learned it from a person in authority. They never bothered to question it. Now they arrive at this site and learn that is not true. Were they delusional before they got to this site?

 

I understand your point, and agree. Couldn't you always just argue "their ability to critically examine their belief was not good enough" for any individual? and that no one is delusional when it comes to this type of belief? Is the scenario of an individual who is capable of critically examining their belief but doesn't possible? Is justification even required to form a belief? When iNow talked of stopping analysis of one's belief to maintain it, when someone becomes aware the foundations of their belief might not be true, is it right to still call it a belief? And what does delusional mean, and how does it relate to mental ability (doesn't delusional also imply that the individual is mentally impaired somehow, and so delusional is the same as inability in this discussion? are we arguing the for the same thing?)?

 

I'm a bit confused now.

[zapatos]

I understand your point, and agree. Couldn't you always just argue "their ability to critically examine their belief was not good enough" for any individual? and that no one is delusional when it comes to this type of belief? Is the scenario of an individual who is capable of critically examining their belief but doesn't possible? Is justification even required to form a belief? When iNow talked of stopping analysis of one's belief to maintain it, when someone becomes aware the foundations of their belief might not be true, is it right to still call it a belief? And what does delusional mean, and how does it relate to mental ability (doesn't delusional also imply that the individual is mentally impaired somehow, and so delusional is the same as inability in this discussion? are we arguing the for the same thing?)?

 

I'm a bit confused now.

Heh heh. Yeah, it does get confusing.

 

I joined this site about three years ago. At the time I believed that is was probable that the universe was created by someone who then had nothing further to do with it. I wasn't confident about it but based on what I saw, it seemed quite reasonable. So, I'm an adult, college educated with a BS, and a strong layman's interest in science. It wasn't until I joined this site and had many discussions with people who have discussed this for a long time, that I became a confirmed atheist. In no way do I ever consider even the remote possibility, under any definition of the word, that I was delusional for my belief in God.

 

My son's girlfriend is studying to be a nurse. She was raised Catholic. She recognizes that her belief in God may be wrong. She has decided that she does not want to examine it further, primarily because she knows if she does so it is possible she may conclude there is no God. From her perspective, she'd rather not take the chance that she might stop believing in God. She likes the thought of God and what that means for her. Her life will be the same whether she believes or not, so she may as well keep that security blanket. Can't say I blame her for that attitude. In no way do I consider her delusional.

 

I know a lot of theists (I come from a very religious extended family). In no way do I consider any of them delusional. Most of them do not really understand science, and what 'evidence' really means. While they could critically examine their beliefs, it would take a lot of work. Why bother? They already 'know' that God exists. And there aren't that many people around them who would make a concerted effort to challenge them.

 

So to answer your question "Is the scenario of an individual who is capable of critically examining their belief but doesn't possible?", I say yes, I am confident that not only is it possible, it is widespread.

 

The people on this site discuss this all the time. They have a strong science background and are well educated. I think many of the atheists here lose touch with average Joe. Challenging one's religious beliefs is, IMO, not something that is widely done in the general population.

[iNow]

The people on this site discuss this all the time. They have a strong science background and are well educated. I think many of the atheists here lose touch with average Joe. Challenging one's religious beliefs is, IMO, not something that is widely done in the general population.

Not that this is a terribly good comparison, but acceptance of slavery was also not widely challenged, nor was the idea that a black man and white woman should not love one another widely challenged, and nor was the idea that it is wrong for two people with similar genitals to love each other romantically widely challenged. Many very caring and kind people were for slavery... were against interracial love... were against homosexual romance. Their feelings on those topics were still (IMO) wrong, and it was important to shine a light on that at every opportunity. It still is today. I include religious beliefs in that set of things, despite my earlier stipulation that it's a terrible comparison for other reasons.

[zapatos]

Not that this is a terribly good comparison, but acceptance of slavery was also not widely challenged, nor was the idea that a black man and white woman should not love one another widely challenged, and nor was the idea that it is wrong for two people with similar genitals to love each other romantically widely challenged. Many very caring and kind people were for slavery... were against interracial love... were against homosexual romance. Their feelings on those topics were still (IMO) wrong, and it was important to shine a light on that at every opportunity. It still is today. I include religious beliefs in that set of things, despite my earlier stipulation that it's a terrible comparison for other reasons.

I also believe it is healthy to challenge beliefs and perspectives on a regular basis. And I know that you think belief in religion makes people more apt to make less logical decisions (possibly to the detriment of others) in other parts of their lives, which I think is a reasonable assumption. Your comparisons though make it seem as if people who choose a belief in God for themselves are on a par with those who have rather nasty personal characteristics (Such as racist, homophobic, slavers). Is that how you look at them? There are religions that do not support any of those attributes, and being a theist who is a Catholic (for example) does not necessarily mean you are homophobic.

[iNow]

Your comparisons though make it seem as if people who choose a belief in God for themselves are on a par with those who have rather nasty personal characteristics (Such as racist, homophobic, slavers). Is that how you look at them?

No, but I do think they are on par with people who choose a belief in unicorns or the tooth fairy or a bogey monster under the bed, and I find it terribly difficult to respect them despite my sincere and passionate attempts to do so.

 

Also, I was not equating religion with homophobia or bigotry above. I was merely saying that challenging outdated beliefs (as you seem to agree) is a good thing, and that I include religious belief in that set of outdated ones.

[John Cuthber]

So you are saying that God is impossible? That seems a pretty bold statement.

No, I 'm saying an all powerful God is impossible, which is a logical truism.

[Iggy]

"Why do people disbelieve in God?"

 

I think at it's basest element it's 'cause and effect'. Those things for which there is no effect generally don't have a cause. If God has no effect then what cause could one imagine?

 

People can disagree with cause and effect, and they frequently do (reference miracles), but it's clearly the stupidest kind of decision they can make. The moment one brings heaven and earth to bear... or as some book put it... 'call heaven and earth to testify'... they betray that they can't express their delusions without betraying their own worldview.

 

You can't live basing your decisions on anything other than cause and effect and you can't be religious without disregarding it. Some people see the symmetry and irony of that, and then they can't help but disagree with stupidity... and disbelieve...

Edited January 25, 2013 by Iggy

[zapatos]

Also, I was not equating religion with homophobia or bigotry above.

Ok. I was just confirming as all your examples of outdated beliefs included nasty traits, as opposed to, say, the outdated belief that tiny shorts on NBA players is a good look for them.

I was merely saying that challenging outdated beliefs (as you seem to agree) is a good thing, and that I include religious belief in that set of outdated ones.

I agree that challenging beliefs (outdated or not) is a good thing.

You can't live basing your decisions on anything other than cause and effect and you can't be religious without disregarding it.

Seems to me that people have been doing just that for thousands of years.

[iNow]

People can disagree with cause and effect, and they frequently do (reference miracles), but it's clearly the stupidest kind of decision they can make.

Wouldn't a theist argue that they DO agree with cause and effect, and that's precisely why they believe in god(s)... because the universe must have had a cause, in their opinion?

 

 

And btw zapatos... those ball hugging shorts in the NBA have ALWAYS been outdated IMO. That was NEVER a good idea!

[Iggy]

Wouldn't a theist argue that they DO agree with cause and effect, and that's precisely why they believe in god(s)... because the universe must have had a cause, in their opinion?

 

 

I'm positive that's exactly what a theist would say had they the intelligence, but its fault is obvious. Saying "we don't know the cause" (as in the case of the big bang) is very different from saying "cause and effect can be suspended for my benefit if I pray about it". Apples and oranges.

 

My point is that cause and effect is a principle without which one cannot live their life. If you don't understand that the tiger charging at you is about to kill you then you're dead already. Religion holds no such explanatory power. It rather disagrees with it.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Iggy

[SamBridge]

"Why do people disbelieve god?"

Why not?

Edited February 1, 2013 by SamBridge