Athiests: Why don't you believe in God? Then, what do you believe in?

Question

Please, don't say science and logic. Even, thiests are scientists and engineers. What else is there that you athiests can back upon?

Don't give dumb examples like Santa Claus.

Of course, you'll say he's non-exist ( the usual answer ). What is the reason? Anybody can make statements!

I respect you people and don't meant to offend you. But, I have the right to information. Just curious.

Read this and judge:
http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

Who created life? How was the universe created?

Your answer: the Big Bang.
But, what started the Big Bang?

I read " A brief history of time " By Stephen Hawkings. Even he doesn't have the answer as to what started the Big Bang though he's a brilliant scientist.

Answer 1

Here's why I don't believe in God.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "It is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, and the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I don't believe God exists. And regarding what I do believe in? I believe that the universe is incredibly broad and difficult to comprehend, and that you and I are no more significant in it than a speck of dust. The funny thing is that you and I can know that, but that a speck of dust cannot.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

EDIT (regarding your "big bang" questions):

150 years ago, we didn't know about bacteria. No clue. It wasn't understood until Louis Pasteur determined that germs caused disease.

You are asking the same questions that scientists ask. You have, however, asked this in the Religion & Spirituality section, where we are mostly humanities majors, not biologists or physicists. Would you come to R&S to find out what opus number was Mozart's 40th Symphony? I think not. You're asking us to play to our weakness. Quite frankly, you're being unfair.

So let me suggest two things:

1. If you are serious about wanting to know the current evidence-based understanding on the origins of the universe, there are excellent descriptions found at http://www.talkorigins.org .

2. Consider that you are proposing (not so subtly) that anything that is not explained is a place for God to be discovered. This is commonly referred to in ontology as "the god of the gaps" theory. It typically assigns God to any blank space that science has not yet reached useful conclusions. Remember what I said about disease? Before bacteria were discovered, it was assumed God was punishing the ill, or that they were demon possessed, or some other supernatural phenomenon caused sickness. This is the same god of the gaps.

Science never assumes, and should never assume, anything is supernatural. The purpose of science is to discover through measured observation, testing, and repetition what natural causes lead to our natural world. If you impose a statement "God caused it," then this stops the search for knowledge, because God is ultimately unknowable. This is the reason that the "god of the gaps" theory is discounted among learned ontological academicians, and is ignored by science.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

Why ask a question and then stipulate what the answers can/cannot include? Are science, logic and reason not enough for you? I have no reason to believe in your god. A better question might be why do you choose to believe in your god? Why not pick something else at random to believe, if you can't be fulfilled with science?

Edit - Science does not have all the answers (yet). Scientist do not claim to have all the answers. They are constantly searching for answers to literally millions of unanswered questions. That is what pushes science forward. It is very dangerous for religion to use God to fill in the unanswered questions. First of all, why would you even do that? If science can not yet explain how the big bang started, why would you simply say "God did it". That doesn't really answer anything. Second, when you use God to fill in the gaps science has yet to completely answer, you render God smaller and smaller with each new scientific discovery. Eventually you will render God meaningless, as a clear pattern will emerge (and already has for most of us) along the lines of:
1. Where did people come from?
2. Scientists are working on several theories.
3. Well then, it's obvious science doesn't have the answer, so God did it like the Bible says.
4. Scientists have proven (scientifically speaking, of course) that the human species evolved from a lower life form.
Next
1. Where did that lower life form come from?
2. Scientists have developed several theories which are being worked on/reviewed/tested.
and so on..........................

Answer 3

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

Answer 4

What I do believe in is not the point. The fact that I do not believe in Gods including your God, that is the point.
Many atheists do believe in other stuff like peace and love and trying to understand how reality works but that is entirely up to the individuals.
I would bet there are a few atheists who believe George Prescott Bush ordered the Kennedys assassinated.

I, for example, firmly believe that Frank Zappa was a musician.

Answer 5

Simply put, one day I realized that I don't believe in miracles. When debating YEC's on this and other forums as a christian (That's what I was before), I always argued that God always follows his own natural laws which he created.

Oddly enough, I still accepted the miracle of the virgin birth and the resurrection.
Why?

More importantly, why doesn't God perform miracles anymore, if he could do them then?

I know, I know. A lot of people claim to have seen "miracles." I iknow people who hav4e been shot and say God saved them...it was a miracle the bullet didn't kill them.

Miracle? The bullet stopped in mid-air just before hitting them, and dropped harmlessly to the ground? Did God allow the bullet to pass through their bodies without causing any dammage? Did God miraculously and instantly heal them after the bullet struck? Nope. No miracle here. God, if he exists, didn't break any laws of physics. But according to the bible, God used to break the laws of physics all of the time on behalf of people who believed and lived in him.

Not anymore, apparently.
Why not?
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and could perform miracles then, then he should be able to do so now.
But he doesn't.
If he doesn't, it is either because he can't, or won't.
If he can't or won't, then he can't be omnipotent.
If he isn't omnipotent, then he can't be God.

I found myself asking why did I ever believe in God, and why did I believe in the christian God, specifically. The answer is simply that I was indoctrinated to do so.

I know you don't want to hear the Santa Claus thing, but it really is appropriate. I was told to believe in Santa Claus from an early age, just like I was told that there is a God, and his son is Jesus. I noted that everywhere I went, the Santa story was promulgated with figurines and stories in stores, schools, and churches, which lended credibility. It was comforting to believe in a jolly fat guy in a red suit who loved me and gave me things I wanted. It was also a handy tool for my parents to keep me in line. "Behave, Son, or Santa will only bring you a lump of coal this year."

The only difference between my reasons for believing in Santa and God is that eventually the hoax of Santa Claus was admitted by somebody.

EDIT: 08/06/07
The God of the Gaps argument is fine for some people. If one wishes to accept not having an explanation for why or how something happens as proof of God, that's fine for them.
But it doesn't work for me.
Science has found lots of answers for things that were once beyond the ability of people to answer. Mold growing in sealed containers of soup were once considered to be an example of God's creative powers. Of course, we can explain how that happens now.

I think that everything that happens in our universe has an explanation. That we don't know it doesn't mean one isn't there. It certainly doesn't prove a God must have done it.

I'm reasonably certain that a personal, omnipotent, benevolent God could prove himself to all humans beyond a shadow of a doubt if he wanted to.

Apparently, that isn't one of his priorities.

El Chistoso

Answer 6

Why is it necessary to believe in anything in particular?

You exclude science and logic in your question because you have no answer to them. It is irrelevant whether theists also believe in science and logic; both can also stand alone without any further or additional belief.

Religious belief is nothing more than the dogmatic adherance to a set of statements in the face of the total lack of supporting evidence and in some instances overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why anyone would choose to believe something which has no supporting evidence (except a 2,000 year old book that says that donkeys talk) defies all reasonable explanation.

Answer 7

Its a shame the way no one believes in god anymore. science and logic doesnt begin to explain where everything started, even going to the big bang, that had to start from something. life is to maraculous for there to be no god.

Answer 8

I don't believe in God because there is no evidence what so ever to support the claim that he exists. I trust evidence, nothing else. Faith is a weak thing, it can be destroyed easily and its destruction often destroys the faithful along with it. I have seen it many times and I think I will unfortunately see it many, many more times before the end.

Answer 9

I believe in love. I believe that I and the people I care about can take on anything and accomplish it together. I believe in justice and in "live and let live". I believe the good in the world has to come from purposeful decisions from ourselves, not through magical decisons of an invisible, omnipotent being in the clouds. I believe people make life too complicated than it has to be. I believe I would like a *Drink*!

Answer 10

A belief in god requires you to have faith in something that is mostly a fairy tale, some history and a whole lot of malarkey. I believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings, I believe in the Golden Rule of doing onto others as you would do onto yourself. I have no one to blame but myself when I fail, I do not look for answers where none can be found.