Can anyone provide a reason to NOT believe in God?

Question

that is NOT rooted in science? I'm looking for something concrete, not the cliche, "the Bible isn't real" or "let's believe in fairies in the sky" stuff. Is science the basis for non-believers beliefs?

(I kindly request that no one cite inaccuracies in the Bible. I, personally, don't believe because "The Bible told me so")

Quit saying "duhh". The bible says God is good, so how can it be true if bad things happen?

I didn't ask for a reason not to believe in the Bible. Actually, I explicitly asked that that be avoided. Duhh.

Answer 1

What prompted me to disbelieve in god wasn't the biblical inaccuracies (that came later and with a lot of study). What prompted me to begin to question my faith was my inability to reconcile my self-image with the word of god. I thought I was just as good as my spouse. I thought that my words, insight, and intellect were just as important as my spouses. This view of myself, as a woman, did not mesh with the biblical view of women, specifically the Pauline Doctrines. Was Paul wrong? Was I wrong? Then came the question. How did the letters Paul wrote come to be included in the Bible?

The answer is that Ecunemical councils (seven of them) began the process of deciding what was biblical canon and what was not. Martin Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, Jude, and a few others because they did not agree with his view of Christian doctrine. Modern biblical canon, that is, what the bible contains, what the word of god is, is decided by human beings based on criteria decided by human beings. In particular, these human beings were from a strictly patriarchal, pre-science society and biblical canon reflects that.

I could not trust that the bible was the word of god rather than some man's interpretation of what the word of god ought to be. If you cannot trust the bible, you cannot trust the god it purports. That is a reason not to believe in the Christian god.

Further studies on the other major religions had the same issue. You cannot trust the scripture to be divine.

Answer 2

NOT rooted in science? How about in math?

There are many dieties in all the world's religions. I am not sure how many, but that is irrelevant to my example. The Abrahamic god claims to be the only one. Clearly these things cannot both be true. So, the odds are 1 in ??? that God (Abrahamic) is right. Since I can think of over 5 others off the top of my head, I know the odds are MUCH worse than 1:5 or 20%.

How that for convoluted non-logic?

Answer 3

Let me try, but your starting point is flawed on two points.

1) The error filled bible

The basis for belief is supposed to be "god's" word which probably 90% of christians believe to be the new testament.

If god is supposed to be all powerful and perfect, how can so many errors and contradictions exist in "his" book.

You would not believe a history book that said Benedict Arnold was the first president would you?

2) The classic "trying to prove a negative" argument

This is not a logic possibility, prove to me that Unicorns do not exist; you can't.

The burden of proof is on the believer to prove that a god exists. Since you can't use the flawed bible as proof, what else is there.

Answer 4

asking to provide a reason to not believe in God that is not rooted in science is like asking to provide a reason to believe in god that is not rooted in faith. Its impossible either way.

Before i start, im a biology major who believes in both god and evolution.

Why do people believe in God. Some cause they were raised to do so, some had a life-changing event occur in which they assumed it was God's doing, others are afraid in there being nothing for humans after death. Im sure there are others, but those are my top three.

Either way religion is an abstract idea. There is no concrete evidence to prove that God or Jesus ect. ever existed. Just different versions of the Bible that accounts for the stories of his time and so called miracles and pure faith.

Evolution is easier to believe cause there are actual fossils (which religious people claim were placed on earth by the devil) that provide links between different species ect...(im not even going to get into the people desceneded from monkeys(being a general term for primates) although i know that we did descend from them).

science is not the basis for non-believers. science does explain how things occur and how they got to be the way they are now.

Im not one to argue for either side, because i believe in letting one believe in whatever they makes them happy unless they want a good debate. The majority of scientist that i have met are like me and have found a happy medium.
But it doesnt help when idiot preachers say that everyone that believes in evolution are going to hell and put it on tv, just as when scientist say that God is fake and religion is false.

Answer 5

No, atheism has more roots than science. Much of that would reside in philosophy. For example, even before Darwin or the discovery of the Big Bang, the Scottish philosopher (and atheist) David Hume effectively debunked the Argument from Design by pointing out that it's a nonsensical infinite regress.

Hume could not figure out how life DID get here (evolution), but he figured out that it (almost certainly) couldn't have come from God.

Hume also posthumously published an effective argument against miracles. To sum it up: "Which is more likely: that a man saw a true miraculous reworking of the laws of nature for a benevolent cause by a transcendental force, or that the man is simply mistaken or lying?"

Besides Enlightenment philosophers and thinkers like Hume and Spinoza, effective arguments against anthropomorphic intentionalist omnimax gods predate Christianity itself, and were formulated/discovered by Greek and Roman philosophers, such as Epicurus, Democritus, and Plato.

Epicurus argued the Argument from Evil, and spoke thus of the relationship between God, evil, and suffering:
"Is God willing, but not able (to stop evil or unnecessary suffering)? Then he is impotent.
Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Plato formulated Euthyphro's Dilemma, rhetorically asking:
"Is what is pious (good, moral) beloved by the gods because it is pious, or because it is beloved by the gods?"

Essentially Euthyphro's Dilemma can be used to argue against the claimed inseparability of morality and religion, or of morality being created by God and innate in all humans, believing or not.

If God created morality, then he could have said *anything* was moral or immoral, and it would be so ("Thou shalt not give to the poor", "Thou shalt kill adorable puppies"). If answered this way, religionists fall prey to the moral relativism they're trying to escape by rooting it in divine authority.

If morality exists independent of God and God simply approves of it, than his status is less important and the claim that "Science is science but if you choose atheism you'll have no moral basis for anything you do and everything is permitted" is false and becomes no more.

So yeah: arguments against God go beyond science.

Answer 6

You are "looking for something concrete" that is "not rooted in science".

Do you actually understand what science is? Science is test-result-hypothesis, ad infinitum. The default position is not to believe (just in the way you DON'T - I presume - believe in the Easter Bunny - he simply doesn't bear credible examination).

So however much the scientifically-minded might WANT to believe (and that is moot) it is not possible until the tests for God's existence turn up something positive.

There is not one single, solitary shred of evidence for God's existence. Concrete MEANS science. Sorry.

Answer 7

The book of Deuteronomy is a fake, written under King Josiah to reform Mosaic law.

Start there and tug on that thread for awhile.

The Bible is the only reason TO BELIEVE in the monotheistic god. If you mean some vague generic concept in your own head, I feel no need to disprove that as it doesn't exist outside of your head anyway.

Toss out the Bible, and the God goes with it.

Answer 8

I guess you first ought to ask yourself what kind of God you're asking about. A God who starts the universe running and leaves everything alone to run by the laws of nature that came with the universe would be impossible to prove or disprove. God wound the clock (metaphorically speaking), started it ticking, then left the clock alone to run according the mechanical rules of the gears and springs inside it.

On the other hand, a God who's got His fingers in everything - answering prayers, working miracles, smiting enemies, etc., is a much better target for disbelief. To believe in such a hands-on deity requires being OK with God being able to ignore the prayers for safety sent by a child who’s being assaulted by a lunatic kidnapper, yet answer the prayers of a bride for nice weather at her wedding.

A hands-on God cannot be universally omniscient - meaning that He knows everything that's going to happen before it happens, and then be filled with wrath and vengence when some schmuck fails to follow His rules. The Bible says God does this all the time. If God know something was inevitable, then why does He so frequently and cruelly punish people who merely do what God knows they have no control over doing?

Either God is actually NOT all-knowing, in which case He's imperfect, or He really IS all-knowing, but He still likes to punish people (and their offspring for multiple generations) for doing bad things (like killing innocent children) he knew all along they were going to do but let them do anyway.

How can God be omnipresent, yet so frequently be unaware of what His creations are doing? The Bible has many references of God going away somewhere and then returning to be angered by what he finds.

Who's the biggest child killer and abortionist of all time? God. If you believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible, then you believe that there really was a Noah's flood that killed everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. That meant that God chose to kill countless infants, toddlers and unborn babies. What were they guilty of? Drowning is a slow, excruciatingly painful way to die. Think of all the mothers desperately trying to save their frightened babies as they drown. Do you really want to believe in that level of cruelty?

The bible is replete with examples of God commanding that whole populations, right down to women and children, be slaughtered. Is God some kind of sadist? He sure sounds like one to me.

The implications of a supernatural being who intentionally sets human beings up for unimaginable suffering and then turns a deaf ear to their pleas for help are horrific. Such a God would be arbitrary, capricious, and cruel beyond words.

Remember, the 9/11 hijackers were all devout believers in God and were shouting "God is great!" as they crashed their planes loaded with innocent passengers and caused all that death and suffering . It doesn't matter that "their" God is the God of Islam and "our" God is the God of Christianity. It's all the same delusion.

Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, Odin, "God," they're all the same.

Answer 9

Some people use science as a scape goat for their none belief.
The truth is GOD is some thing man made up to keep hope alive when there is no hope; to set rules of how to live to getter as a guide line for life to live up to, nothing more than that. Man has started wars over this belief or lack of this beleif : has killed for it and used it as an excuse to kill. If there was a GOD why would he allow such things to take place in his name? I hope you now see the true light: THERE AIN"T NO SUCH THING!

Answer 10

Isn't atheism is safer than theism?

Think about it:

1. As God has historically served as a force for evil and it seems that any demon could very easily trick us into thinking it is God. God might not be who he seems, he might just be a powerful demon.

2. The major monotheistic religions hold that idolatry is a serious sin so it is safer to accept no god rather than risk accepting the incorrect one. After all, what happens if you accept the WRONG god?

3. The goal of reaching heaven is dubious as we know very little about what heaven is really like. Is heaven really what religions teach? How do you know it's not just wishful thinking?