Why don't you believe in God?

[IB*Dropout]

I am a strong believer in Christianity, however, I am just the idiot who dropped the IBDP. I will say, however, that most of the "non-believers" I have met have typically been the individuals who were not students you would want to associate with. They claim to not believe due to the fact that they did not have a fair chance at life. Those students also generate claims that they just quit believing in him, however, they still "believe in him" for a particular reason. One girl claimed that she believed in God, however, she no longer believes due to the fact that her brother shot her mother. Other students who do not believe in God would be the students who are very egotistical. One student I met from one of the worst places to come from in Ohio would actually think of himself as an intellectual, however, he was failing nearly all of his basic classes in reality. He would even generate claims to contradict himself. He claimed that God does not exist because we do not have proof. I know that my former class of IB students would have went through a debate in regards to this topic in ToK. That would be why some individuals at my schools, West Holmes High School and Wooster High School, would or would not believe in God. Most of the students at my former school who believe in God at my former school, West Holmes High School, would be the students who were of the most intelligent, however, that could probably be concluded by summarizing the culture of the area and values of the vicinity in regards to the mentioned school. Overall, to answer this question, I would disagree that the majority of individuals who are extremely intelligent would be led go believe against the existence of God due to the circumstances that are attached to the context of this post.

Edited December 11, 2013 by IB*Dropout

[Ryoika]

People see that it is illogical to believe in God and because of that, tend to see
intelligent people as non-believers in God.
Doesn't anyone realize how fallacious, stereotypical such thinking is?
My cousin is a Theology-major student (graduated as a top I.B. student from his school) and his previous major was Computer Science.
He graduated from one of top major engineering universities with a very good score, and worked in a top company.
And he was a "stereotypical" non-believer in God until a few years ago.
But after he started studying Theology, he began to see how ignorant his past life was, and how
he has foolishly dismissed the truth within Theology, the true knowledge within it.
The problem is, in my opinion, is that people only see a very shallow cover of Christianity (or any other religion)
and fail to see deep roots, the depth within it, leading to their misinterpretation of what faith, religion is.
One who has not studied Theology (or background study of any religion) in depth and only saw their shallow cover
does not have much rights to "judge" and "evaluate" religion.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Ryoika

[ctrls]

I've voted 'yes' to the poll, but I feel I should explain myself a bit.

I don't necessarily think that educated or 'smarter' people are less likely to believe in God, rather the way the education system handles religion tends to slant against religion. As I've grown up I've been taught about different religions that exist, certain actions by religious people (such as Catholics) and how there is no strict evidence that God exists. This is mostly from my humanities classes in my earlier years (and general discussions), but I feel it creates a bit of bias towards atheism, even though it's a fairly objective and 'safe' approach.

Personally, I would consider myself to be agnostic - I don't believe nor disbelieve in God (also known as an experimental monotheist ). I do believe in scientific theories about the origins of the universe, but to me that doesn't imply there wasn't anything before that, nor that it was or wasn't caused by a greater power.

Edited December 17, 2013 by ctrls

[Rigel]

Can we prove that God exists or it doesn't exist? I highly doubt it and I abstain myself from saying if I'm from a particular religion or something (as well, I simply say i am not affiliated with any religion instead of those fancy adjectives). It is better in my opinion to take a time off religion and then (while you are more mature and become an adult) to actually sit down and come up if you want to believe in God or not. What I can't completely stand though, is when people try to "show off" their agnosticism or atheism (as if it could make them smarter persons!) or when religious people try to shove religion in front of your head.

I believe that a correlation between religion and education is impossible to establish to perfection. I have some professors in university that are highly religious persons, but they might be some of the smartest persons in the world. Sometimes, people mistake "low income" and "religion" when trying to come up with a relationship that determines how "educated" someone is.

[Sandwich]

People see that it is illogical to believe in God and because of that, tend to see

intelligent people as non-believers in God.

Doesn't anyone realize how fallacious, stereotypical such thinking is?

My cousin is a Theology-major student (graduated as a top I.B. student from his school) and his previous major was Computer Science.

He graduated from one of top major engineering universities with a very good score, and worked in a top company.

And he was a "stereotypical" non-believer in God until a few years ago.

But after he started studying Theology, he began to see how ignorant his past life was, and how

he has foolishly dismissed the truth within Theology, the true knowledge within it.

The problem is, in my opinion, is that people only see a very shallow cover of Christianity (or any other religion)

and fail to see deep roots, the depth within it, leading to their misinterpretation of what faith, religion is.

One who has not studied Theology (or background study of any religion) in depth and only saw their shallow cover

does not have much rights to "judge" and "evaluate" religion.

I suppose the main problem with this is that whilst it's all well and good to say that people who aren't religious simply have 'misunderstood what faith is' and haven't found the 'true knowledge', this is never accompanied by an explanation. Such as how it's been misinterpreted and what the correct version. Or indeed any explanation of what the true knowledge is, might be, or can be found. Besides the circular argument that if you were religious you would know what faith was and have found the mysterious truth, which would persuade you to put your faith outside of this world and believe in the miasmic 'truth' of religion. So it's a fairly meaningless point to make.

It's a bit like me saying I'm a millionaire and anybody who doesn't see it is simply misinterpreting or lacking faith in my financial status and they've not seen into the deepest parts of my true millionaire self. All they've bothered to look at is that shallow outer covering. The one where I'm an indebted student eating tins of baked beans. But you know, their loss... they just lack faith and haven't seen the truth.

[Award Winning Boss]

Speaking from a strictly philosophical point of view, there are no grounds for believing in God, and any logical person should be an agnostic. This is because the philosophical burden of proof lies with the one making a claim, and thus the logical person would remain agnostic until either side were to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. What is "sufficient evidence" is obviously up for debate, but I would be inclined to consider it reasonable to say that what we have now is not sufficient evidence.

Therefore I would consider myself an agnostic, and hence a non-believer. However, practically speaking I'm closer to an atheist than an agnostic. That is because I think it would be rather silly to say that because the non-existence of God cannot be proven I should consider myself an agnostic. The very claim of the existence of God is non-falsifiable, and if I were to consider myself an agnostic on this matter on the basis of not having sufficient evidence for either side, I would be placing myself in a very odd position. I would argue that in the case of non-falsifiable claims it is reasonable to place the burden of proof solely on the positive claim, and not on the negative claim, since a non-falsifiable claim in itself implies that the negative claim would be impossible to prove under any circumstances, and therefore if the burden of proof were to lie also on the negative claim, one could make any claim and it should be considered to be possibly true until proven true (as it could never be proven false, which would leave only two options; possibly true and true.), which is obviously non-sense. In practical terms, with the same logic I could claim the existence of, say, the tooth fairy, and then say that you must consider it possible it exists since you couldn't possibly prove me wrong. This would be rather ludicrous, and any sensible person would agree that even though there is the ever so slight chance the tooth fairy does exist, it is fair to say it doesn't until someone provides evidence to the contrary.

And to the question in the poll, it seems that at least some studies have found a negative correlation between religion and education/intelligence. That would imply that on average non-religious people are smarter than religious people. Here are links to two such studies: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/17/4/325.short http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238 . From what I've read, the portion of atheist/agnostic university professors is also larger than that of the general population. Here's a link to one study coming to this conclusion http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf .

You've made a few of mistakes in this post.

From a strictly philosophical view you probably have even more reason to believe in God because the question of his existence is a philosophical question. It's best handled by philosophy and has been that way for thousands of years. There are hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians who have respectable positions which aren't defeated by simply searching for counter arguments on wikipedia.

The reason why I think you've made this mistake is because agnosticism is not used as a position of belief but rather a stance on knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist. In fact, you probably are an agnostic atheist. If you want to hold the position of strict agnosticism you'll want to back that up somehow. So, I think it's unfair to say 'any logical person' would be an agnostic (therefore atheist).

I have an issue with the word evidence in the context of this debate because it seems to imply there needs to some kind of physical evidence for his existence which arguably misses the point.

[Ryoika]

People see that it is illogical to believe in God and because of that, tend to see

intelligent people as non-believers in God.

Doesn't anyone realize how fallacious, stereotypical such thinking is?

My cousin is a Theology-major student (graduated as a top I.B. student from his school) and his previous major was Computer Science.

He graduated from one of top major engineering universities with a very good score, and worked in a top company.

And he was a "stereotypical" non-believer in God until a few years ago.

But after he started studying Theology, he began to see how ignorant his past life was, and how

he has foolishly dismissed the truth within Theology, the true knowledge within it.

The problem is, in my opinion, is that people only see a very shallow cover of Christianity (or any other religion)

and fail to see deep roots, the depth within it, leading to their misinterpretation of what faith, religion is.

One who has not studied Theology (or background study of any religion) in depth and only saw their shallow cover

does not have much rights to "judge" and "evaluate" religion.

I suppose the main problem with this is that whilst it's all well and good to say that people who aren't religious simply have 'misunderstood what faith is' and haven't found the 'true knowledge', this is never accompanied by an explanation. Such as how it's been misinterpreted and what the correct version. Or indeed any explanation of what the true knowledge is, might be, or can be found. Besides the circular argument that if you were religious you would know what faith was and have found the mysterious truth, which would persuade you to put your faith outside of this world and believe in the miasmic 'truth' of religion. So it's a fairly meaningless point to make.

It's a bit like me saying I'm a millionaire and anybody who doesn't see it is simply misinterpreting or lacking faith in my financial status and they've not seen into the deepest parts of my true millionaire self. All they've bothered to look at is that shallow outer covering. The one where I'm an indebted student eating tins of baked beans. But you know, their loss... they just lack faith and haven't seen the truth.

That was not my point. What I tried to point out is that one needs to deeply explore various subjects, the "areas of knowledge"

in order to gain a better understanding of the world.

For example, let's say Student A is a Math hater who sees Math as a meager, non-philosophically based subject that people just use

for social utility and comfortable living style because well, studying Math and getting a good score would mean that you have more potential in being successful

in Engineering/Science/Business, and those majors usually give you satisfactory jobs.

There are many friends around A who think in the same way, because they all hate Math too. And this environment has led A to strengthen his belief.

Calculus has also convinced them that Math is a colorless, charmless subject that people only study so that they can have better lives, not as in

gaining insight into human nature, but more as in having better clothes, food, money, etc.

Now, student A has a friend who is studying Math Philosophy in university. Let's call him Student B.

B finds how atrocious and illogical the perspective that A has on Math, because unlike A, he has studied Math more deeply in university and has

more knowledge of what Math is actually like. After A talks with B, A got to realize how ignorant he was in discrediting a valuable area of knowledge

out of an assumption that is based on personal emotion (anger and hatred, mostly), rather than sufficient evidence.

I would like to recommend you to read "Theology of Body" by Pope John Paul II... and soak in more "theological" knowledge.

Religion is not based on faith alone. Strangely as it might sound to you, it is also based on reason too. The documents would provide you

how religion is also based on reason and how reason and faith are not really enemies, but partners.

[MariJRA]

My family is catholic and i've been baptized and did the first communion. Just this year i realized i did not believe in the catholic church because i believe the institution is very hypocrite. Concerning god, i'm not sure if i actually believe or not. Anyways i've never been really religious

[under-cover]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

Edited December 27, 2013 by under-cover

[Award Winning Boss]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

You're not really being objective about religion if you're using an emotional reaction (i.e the bad things that have happened in the past) to denounce the existence of God. It's no different from a religious person thinking God exists because good things have happened to them in the past. Plus, you should be able to differentiate between religion and God since they are different questions.

[ChocolateDrop]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

People can do bad things while claiming to be religiously motivated, just like they could do the same while claiming to be nationally motivated. This has happened in the past, but doesn't mean that's what the specific nation or religion is truly about. It's better to go to the source, than dwell on the negative outcomes.

Sidenote: religion is also at the centre of many positive movements but still firsthand information on the actual religion is best.

[under-cover]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

You're not really being objective about religion if you're using an emotional reaction (i.e the bad things that have happened in the past) to denounce the existence of God. It's no different from a religious person thinking God exists because good things have happened to them in the past. Plus, you should be able to differentiate between religion and God since they are different questions.

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

People can do bad things while claiming to be religiously motivated, just like they could do the same while claiming to be nationally motivated. This has happened in the past, but doesn't mean that's what the specific nation or religion is truly about. It's better to go to the source, than dwell on the negative outcomes.

Sidenote: religion is also at the centre of many positive movements but still firsthand information on the actual religion is best.

Listen, I'm not talking about things done in the past are people using religion as an excuse blah blah blah. Although this is included, I'm talking about the actual religious establishments using religion for really horrific things and really I am being very objective about this. Like maybe it would be better if I gave a specific example, like the racist ideologies spread by the Church in Rwanda which contributed immensely to the genocide.

And all this stuff about religion providing us with such good morals and doing such good? Seriously? You don't need religion to have a good moral code and do good things. Yes, I think religious organisations doing charity work is a good thing, but I think any organisation doing charity work is good.

And I do agree that things in history are not religions fault. But if you do look in the past, you will see how religion is not just sharing a belief in god and all beautiful things. It can be held responsible for many things that people don't like to bring up, and theres probably a reason why you don't know about these events. Yes, look at the source. But also you have to be critical of everything, even religion, and I know so many people avoid doing this.

I don't like organised religion. No, I don't think people who believe in god are wrong because each to their own. And yes, I can see the many beautiful things in religion (like architecture and beautifully written passages) and yes religion has had an important role throughout civilisation. So, I really don't want anyone to be thinking I am against religion and I hate on people who do this and that blah blah because I really really don't, I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

I don't believe in god because it has no role in my life. If I was born into a religious family, I probably would believe to some extent (but doesn't that in itself show how it is simply just connected to your family? Apart from on a few occasions)

[ChocolateDrop]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

You're not really being objective about religion if you're using an emotional reaction (i.e the bad things that have happened in the past) to denounce the existence of God. It's no different from a religious person thinking God exists because good things have happened to them in the past. Plus, you should be able to differentiate between religion and God since they are different questions.

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

People can do bad things while claiming to be religiously motivated, just like they could do the same while claiming to be nationally motivated. This has happened in the past, but doesn't mean that's what the specific nation or religion is truly about. It's better to go to the source, than dwell on the negative outcomes.

Sidenote: religion is also at the centre of many positive movements but still firsthand information on the actual religion is best.

Listen, I'm not talking about things done in the past are people using religion as an excuse blah blah blah. Although this is included, I'm talking about the actual religious establishments using religion for really horrific things and really I am being very objective about this. Like maybe it would be better if I gave a specific example, like the racist ideologies spread by the Church in Rwanda which contributed immensely to the genocide.

And all this stuff about religion providing us with such good morals and doing such good? Seriously? You don't need religion to have a good moral code and do good things. Yes, I think religious organisations doing charity work is a good thing, but I think any organisation doing charity work is good.

And I do agree that things in history are not religions fault. But if you do look in the past, you will see how religion is not just sharing a belief in god and all beautiful things. It can be held responsible for many things that people don't like to bring up, and theres probably a reason why you don't know about these events. Yes, look at the source. But also you have to be critical of everything, even religion, and I know so many people avoid doing this.

I don't like organised religion. No, I don't think people who believe in god are wrong because each to their own. And yes, I can see the many beautiful things in religion (like architecture and beautifully written passages) and yes religion has had an important role throughout civilisation. So, I really don't want anyone to be thinking I am against religion and I hate on people who do this and that blah blah because I really really don't, I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

I don't believe in god because it has no role in my life. If I was born into a religious family, I probably would believe to some extent (but doesn't that in itself show how it is simply just connected to your family? Apart from on a few occasions)

Exactly, this branch of church is people not religion. Religion is the ideology and beliefs NOT the people. So just because one church or several churches decide to commit mass murder does not constitute as religion.

[under-cover]

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

You're not really being objective about religion if you're using an emotional reaction (i.e the bad things that have happened in the past) to denounce the existence of God. It's no different from a religious person thinking God exists because good things have happened to them in the past. Plus, you should be able to differentiate between religion and God since they are different questions.

I'm not religious because I'm a history and English student and I see the way it has been at the centre of disaster and disgusting events in the past as well as present. I really can't bring myself to say that religion is a good thing after all the really horrific roles it has played throughout history. And please don't deny it, go read a history book first because. And yes, god is not necessarily religion. But they have become so interlinked that I find it difficult to differentiate the two. On a more personal level, I've never even thought about god, never even for a second believed he existed, so maybe thats why I find it so easy to be so objective about religion.

People can do bad things while claiming to be religiously motivated, just like they could do the same while claiming to be nationally motivated. This has happened in the past, but doesn't mean that's what the specific nation or religion is truly about. It's better to go to the source, than dwell on the negative outcomes.

Sidenote: religion is also at the centre of many positive movements but still firsthand information on the actual religion is best.

Listen, I'm not talking about things done in the past are people using religion as an excuse blah blah blah. Although this is included, I'm talking about the actual religious establishments using religion for really horrific things and really I am being very objective about this. Like maybe it would be better if I gave a specific example, like the racist ideologies spread by the Church in Rwanda which contributed immensely to the genocide.

And all this stuff about religion providing us with such good morals and doing such good? Seriously? You don't need religion to have a good moral code and do good things. Yes, I think religious organisations doing charity work is a good thing, but I think any organisation doing charity work is good.

And I do agree that things in history are not religions fault. But if you do look in the past, you will see how religion is not just sharing a belief in god and all beautiful things. It can be held responsible for many things that people don't like to bring up, and theres probably a reason why you don't know about these events. Yes, look at the source. But also you have to be critical of everything, even religion, and I know so many people avoid doing this.

I don't like organised religion. No, I don't think people who believe in god are wrong because each to their own. And yes, I can see the many beautiful things in religion (like architecture and beautifully written passages) and yes religion has had an important role throughout civilisation. So, I really don't want anyone to be thinking I am against religion and I hate on people who do this and that blah blah because I really really don't, I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

I don't believe in god because it has no role in my life. If I was born into a religious family, I probably would believe to some extent (but doesn't that in itself show how it is simply just connected to your family? Apart from on a few occasions)

Exactly, this branch of church is people not religion. Religion is the ideology and beliefs NOT the people. So just because one church or several churches decide to commit mass murder does not constitute as religion.

Well, this is the reason why I can't bring myself to like religion, which was my very first point. I'm not talking about this one event. I'm talking about so many.

There will never be an answer to whether or not you should believe or not.

I don't, and this is why. There are too many other things attached and I don't need religion or god in my life, at least not as far as I can see right now.

[Award Winning Boss]

Listen, I'm not talking about things done in the past are people using religion as an excuse blah blah blah. Although this is included, I'm talking about the actual religious establishments using religion for really horrific things and really I am being very objective about this. Like maybe it would be better if I gave a specific example, like the racist ideologies spread by the Church in Rwanda which contributed immensely to the genocide.

And all this stuff about religion providing us with such good morals and doing such good? Seriously? You don't need religion to have a good moral code and do good things. Yes, I think religious organisations doing charity work is a good thing, but I think any organisation doing charity work is good.

And I do agree that things in history are not religions fault. But if you do look in the past, you will see how religion is not just sharing a belief in god and all beautiful things. It can be held responsible for many things that people don't like to bring up, and theres probably a reason why you don't know about these events. Yes, look at the source. But also you have to be critical of everything, even religion, and I know so many people avoid doing this.

I don't like organised religion. No, I don't think people who believe in god are wrong because each to their own. And yes, I can see the many beautiful things in religion (like architecture and beautifully written passages) and yes religion has had an important role throughout civilisation. So, I really don't want anyone to be thinking I am against religion and I hate on people who do this and that blah blah because I really really don't, I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

I don't believe in god because it has no role in my life. If I was born into a religious family, I probably would believe to some extent (but doesn't that in itself show how it is simply just connected to your family? Apart from on a few occasions)

You've missed my point. I'm not criticising you for not believing in God.

Yes religious institutions have done bad things. Even if those are the only things they've done, it just discredits the religion. Not necessarily the existence of God. They're separate questions. That's your biggest mistake throughout all of this.

[under-cover]

Listen, I'm not talking about things done in the past are people using religion as an excuse blah blah blah. Although this is included, I'm talking about the actual religious establishments using religion for really horrific things and really I am being very objective about this. Like maybe it would be better if I gave a specific example, like the racist ideologies spread by the Church in Rwanda which contributed immensely to the genocide.

And all this stuff about religion providing us with such good morals and doing such good? Seriously? You don't need religion to have a good moral code and do good things. Yes, I think religious organisations doing charity work is a good thing, but I think any organisation doing charity work is good.

And I do agree that things in history are not religions fault. But if you do look in the past, you will see how religion is not just sharing a belief in god and all beautiful things. It can be held responsible for many things that people don't like to bring up, and theres probably a reason why you don't know about these events. Yes, look at the source. But also you have to be critical of everything, even religion, and I know so many people avoid doing this.

I don't like organised religion. No, I don't think people who believe in god are wrong because each to their own. And yes, I can see the many beautiful things in religion (like architecture and beautifully written passages) and yes religion has had an important role throughout civilisation. So, I really don't want anyone to be thinking I am against religion and I hate on people who do this and that blah blah because I really really don't, I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

I don't believe in god because it has no role in my life. If I was born into a religious family, I probably would believe to some extent (but doesn't that in itself show how it is simply just connected to your family? Apart from on a few occasions)

You've missed my point. I'm not criticising you for not believing in God.

Yes religious institutions have done bad things. Even if those are the only things they've done, it just discredits the religion. Not necessarily the existence of God. They're separate questions. That's your biggest mistake throughout all of this.

Yeah I know. I did mention that. But the thing is that the way I see it is that the two are so linked and the lines are very vague. I know that this is isn't always true, but it is so often.

Maybe I should talk more about god. I don't see as believing in god as anything in my life, it just has no impact on me. I kind of see it as unnatural actually, like I see the world and all the beautiful things and nature and everything I love and god just doesn't come into it. There doesn't have to be a reason. I want to be happy in my life, and to do that you have to look inside yourself rather than always crediting it to other people and god (in my opinion). Do I think more educated people are more likely to not believe in god? Naturally, I do. Not because "clever people don't believe in god" but because being well educated means that you are more likely to be interested in academics, and rarely comes into this. Sorry for causing a very unnecessary debate haha

[Guest Positron]

You've made a few of mistakes in this post.

From a strictly philosophical view you probably have even more reason to believe in God because the question of his existence is a philosophical question. It's best handled by philosophy and has been that way for thousands of years. There are hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians who have respectable positions which aren't defeated by simply searching for counter arguments on wikipedia.

Aside from the incoherency of your argument (the assertion of there being more reason to believe in God from a strictly philosophical point of view in no way follows from the observation that the question of God's existence is a philosophical question), I have trouble figuring out what exactly led you to believe I went on Wikipedia to "search for counter arguments" to "defeat the respectable positions of hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians". Granted, the arguments weren't original, but that can hardly be said about any arguments that come up in the debate. Not that it matters, since appealing to authority is pointless in a debate of this nature, but my arguments drew mainly on the writings of Bertrand Russell.

The reason why I think you've made this mistake is because agnosticism is not used as a position of belief but rather a stance on knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist. In fact, you probably are an agnostic atheist. If you want to hold the position of strict agnosticism you'll want to back that up somehow. So, I think it's unfair to say 'any logical person' would be an agnostic (therefore atheist).

I have an issue with the word evidence in the context of this debate because it seems to imply there needs to some kind of physical evidence for his existence which arguably misses the point.

I guess this is where the real difference lies. Some people, including me, prefer to base their views of the working of the universe in knowledge, knowledge meaning things that can be shown to be true with a very high degree of certainty. For person like that, there is hardly any point in differentiating whether some term refers to a stance on knowledge or a stance on belief, because for that person the two are nearly the same thing. On the other hand, some prefer to base their beliefs in other things, such as finding comfort in a particular belief or thinking that a particular belief fits with how they would like things to be. Nothing wrong with that. If it makes you happy, go for it by all means. But please, for the love of God, don't try to argue that you would actually know there is a God, because we simply do not know if there is or isn't. That being so, a person who bases his beliefs in verifiable facts would not believe in God. Hence my argument of the "logical person" being agnostic.

And for the second point of the use of word "evidence"; what exactly is the point I am missing here? Why is it that one should not ask for evidence to support what essentially is a hypothesis asserting that there is a supreme being who created the entire universe and everything that's in it? Is that not a claim of great enough magnitude and importance to warrant critical inquiry? Why should the hypothesis of God be placed on a pedestal and not be treated in the same exact way as any other hypothesis that seeks to explain the universe? You would never accept String theory on bad evidence, so why would you accept God on bad evidence? What is it about this hypothesis that makes it so special?

[Award Winning Boss]

You've made a few of mistakes in this post.

From a strictly philosophical view you probably have even more reason to believe in God because the question of his existence is a philosophical question. It's best handled by philosophy and has been that way for thousands of years. There are hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians who have respectable positions which aren't defeated by simply searching for counter arguments on wikipedia.

Aside from the incoherency of your argument (the assertion of there being more reason to believe in God from a strictly philosophical point of view in no way follows from the observation that the question of God's existence is a philosophical question), I have trouble figuring out what exactly led you to believe I went on Wikipedia to "search for counter arguments" to "defeat the respectable positions of hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians". Granted, the arguments weren't original, but that can hardly be said about any arguments that come up in the debate. Not that it matters, since appealing to authority is pointless in a debate of this nature, but my arguments drew mainly on the writings of Bertrand Russell.

The reason why I think you've made this mistake is because agnosticism is not used as a position of belief but rather a stance on knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist. In fact, you probably are an agnostic atheist. If you want to hold the position of strict agnosticism you'll want to back that up somehow. So, I think it's unfair to say 'any logical person' would be an agnostic (therefore atheist).

I have an issue with the word evidence in the context of this debate because it seems to imply there needs to some kind of physical evidence for his existence which arguably misses the point.

I guess this is where the real difference lies. Some people, including me, prefer to base their views of the working of the universe in knowledge, knowledge meaning things that can be shown to be true with a very high degree of certainty. For person like that, there is hardly any point in differentiating whether some term refers to a stance on knowledge or a stance on belief, because for that person the two are nearly the same thing. On the other hand, some prefer to base their beliefs in other things, such as finding comfort in a particular belief or thinking that a particular belief fits with how they would like things to be. Nothing wrong with that. If it makes you happy, go for it by all means. But please, for the love of God, don't try to argue that you would actually know there is a God, because we simply do not know if there is or isn't. That being so, a person who bases his beliefs in verifiable facts would not believe in God. Hence my argument of the "logical person" being agnostic.

And for the second point of the use of word "evidence"; what exactly is the point I am missing here? Why is it that one should not ask for evidence to support what essentially is a hypothesis asserting that there is a supreme being who created the entire universe and everything that's in it? Is that not a claim of great enough magnitude and importance to warrant critical inquiry? Why should the hypothesis of God be placed on a pedestal and not be treated in the same exact way as any other hypothesis that seeks to explain the universe? You would never accept String theory on bad evidence, so why would you accept God on bad evidence? What is it about this hypothesis that makes it so special?

I never said you did that. Your post gave me the fair impression that you've essentially ignored thousands of years of literature on the topic. To say there's no ground to believe in God from a philosophical standpoint is foolish. Especially given that there are many intelligent philosophers of religion who either believe in God or are much more sympathetic to the idea. I'm not sure I'd go to Russell for an atheist argument either. His specialty did lie in other areas.

Yes there is. If you want to remain a strict agnostic then provide reasons for why you are one. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, then accept you can hold uncertainty in his existence while believing in him. And that wouldn't be illogical to do as long as you have good reasons for holding that position. I haven't even expressed my position on the issue so no, I'm not going to argue I know God exists. I never hinted at the idea that I would.

My last point about evidence wasn't addressed to you but it was my fault for not making that clear. Evidence in the context of science presumes natural evidence.The reason why I say this is because when you ask for physical evidence for God's existence you're requesting something that 1) probably won't convince you and attribute to natural causes (since you've asked him to cause a natural thing) 2) asking for a supernatural thing to be presented naturally. Your analogy between God and string theory doesn't work. What if God isn't a theistic one so it's impossible for further evidence to be given? I'm not making God's question more important than others, it's just the nature of the question. The majority of the arguments for God's existence are based on our experience. I don't think it's a scientific question.

The question should be treated the same with respect to rational inquiry. You wouldn't treat a sociology question in the exact same way you would a physics, biology, maths or philosophical one, why do the same for God's question?

[sameera95]

Well, the answer for me is simple. Yes I believe in God. Why? Because I don't think that all this Universe came about by chance. How can chance create the mechanisms of life? Just think about it, enzymes, DNA replication, mitosis & meiosis, the creation of a baby from 2 cells, photosynthesis, brain functioning, genes etc. This Universe is full of miracles, if only people would realise

[Andy Sebastian]

I can be very blunt on these topics, and I type fast, so I apologize if you feel insulted by either what I say or the sloppiness of my writing. 

 

bump:

 

Well, the answer for me is simple. Yes I believe in God. Why? Because I don't think that all this Universe came about by chance. How can chance create the mechanisms of life? Just think about it, enzymes, DNA replication, mitosis & meiosis, the creation of a baby from 2 cells, photosynthesis, brain functioning, genes etc. This Universe is full of miracles, if only people would realise

 

I hate to sound rude but in biology class they should have taught you about something called "evolution by natural selection" that happens to explain all of those "miracles" with far greater predictive power than your God of the Gaps ever has.  Can your God of the Gaps explain the presence of vestigial organs, or of malicious viruses and bacteria, or of the fossil record?  Using your God of the Gaps, have you been able to predict the existence and nature of particular species before their discovery, as evolutionary theory has done on multiple occasions? 

 

 

 

I think the poll given in the OP is a good analogy to the reason why I don't believe in God.  What do you mean by, do you "believe" more educated people are less likely to hold religious convictions?  That is a question of statistics and demographics that can be tested empirically - it is not a matter of opinion.  Whenever religion comes up in a discussion, immediately all participants feel obligated to conjure a "wall of respect" around it such that you have to pretend that the existence of a particular God or pantheon is a subjective question.  If you claim the existence of a deity who has/had specific effects on our physical reality, that is a claim of fact, and something with which one can claim to which there is "no right or wrong answer!"

 

The arguments my religious friends have tried to use to sway me to their faiths (and isn't it interesting that persons of completely different beliefs systems use exactly the same contentions to justify mutually exclusive positions?) reduce to one of or a combination of the following:

 

1. Appeals to emotion and consequence.  Many religious apologists will point towards the comforting effect faith has had on their lives, how they think their faith makes them a better person, how they would much rather live in a world with a God than one without, etc.  But none of this has anything to do with whether or not what they believe in is true!  That is a question of the evidence, not of wishful thinking.

 

2. Reliance on anectodes.  Somebody's grandma was terminally ill with cancer, s/he prayed to God, grandma got healthy again.  Obviously, God must have done it.  Never mind the millions of pious people who die slow, agonizing deaths from cancer despite their prayers, and never mind the confounding variable of advanced medical science that was acting on her.  No, coincidences never happen, and anectodes are the best form of evidence - at least when they conform to your selection bias.  It's not fundamentally different from the psychic who makes twenty vague predictions about your life and latches onto the one that distantly approximates something real about you.  A more subtle version of this occurs whenever anybody brings up the fact that the Earth happens to have just the proper characteristics and position in the solar system for life to develop, never mind the trillions of planets in which no life has or possibly ever could develop - to suggest this is a miracle is to suggest that one person out of millions of entrants winning the lottery is a miracle, rather than a predictable statistical result.

 

3. Ignorance of science.  No, the complexity of organic lifeforms is not evidence of design.  You're a century and a half late on that, buddy.  No, science is not a "faith" that requires a "belief" in the scientific method.  The scientific method speaks for itself by working and making accurate predictions about reality, something religions don't really concern themselves with.

 

4. God of the Gaps.  Latch onto the questions that science hasn't answered yet and then say "well, looks like [my] God is the only answer!" (ie., the fine tuning argument)  Never mind the dangerous potential for this mentality to stunt scientific progress, if you wish to close the book on any unanswered questions with the God of the Gaps.  Never mind the double standard set here, that science has to have extremely rigorous empirical data to give an answer to such questions, while religions can merely slap their God on as the answer and claim victory.  Never mind the observation that the God of the Gaps answer has always been proven wrong by subsequent scientific discovery, such that science has gradually pushed God out from explaining thunder and lightning and fire and earthquakes, out from explaining the complexity of life, and out from explaining the formation of suns and planets and galaxies, to basically the primordial beginnings of our universe, essentially regulating any remotely reasonable deity to a sort of deist first mover, not the personal God that cares about sin and whether or not you eat shellfish on particular mornings.

 

 

 

As for why I don't believe in God?

 

1. Complete lack of evidence.  By "evidence", I'm referring to the level of rigor expected from scientific or even historical publications, not the vague and horribly flawed ontological arguments typically given to support particular religions.  When scientists at the LHC discovered the higgs boson, they spent nine months rigorously analyzing and replicating the experiment to make sure they had accounted for everything - when a woman claimd to have been healed by a late Pope, the Vatican will almost immediately declared it a divine miracle without any sort of serious attempt to falsify their predetermined conclusion.  In the absence of such rigorous data, the existence of God is no more or less plausible than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

2. No relevant predictions.  Every time organized religions have tried to make predictions about the physical reality based on their scripture, they have been horribly, horribly wrong, and are eventually forced to "reinterpret" their holy texts ex-post-facto.  Whereas the best Christianity has done in this regard is for one man to vaguely fulfill the premonitionis of one of out many dozens of random prophecies from the old testament, this is once again a question of selection bias - there can be no claim that quantum electrodynamic's ability to predict the scattering of protons and electrons to eleven decimal places is just a matter of dumb luck.  Yet even the most accurate physical theories are always open to revisement and improvement, which leads to...

 

3. Dogma.  Science and history both have self correcting mechanisms, yet most religions have none.  Although the Catholic Church allows leeway on some minor details, on its core factual claims it explicitly forbids any discussion, regardless of the validity of the evidence - this absurd level of certainty for a conviction most justify on the basis of a vague ontological argument (First Cause) and some emotional revelations/anecdotes contrasts with the level of openness scientists have towards even their best tested theories, or historians have towards even the most researched epochs. 

 

4. Which religion?  What reason is there to take Christianity over Islam, or Buddhism over Hinduism?  That it is more emotionally appealing?  Or perhaps that you just happened to have been born into/exposed to that faith more frequently?  Isn't it interesting that religious convictions happen to fall so heavily along demographic lines, that children raised in Christian households tend to become Christians, that children raised in Muslim households tend to become Muslim, etc.?  It doesn't make it clear that any of these religions could claim to be The Truth against every other faith to which the differences are almost arbitrary.

 

5. Primitive worldview.  In light of the grandeur of the universe, the idea that the creator of it all created the cosmos just for an insignificant rocky planet orbiting an insignificant star on the edge of an arbitrary spiral galaxy, waited billions of years before revealing <prophet>, and then set down a set of suspiciously iron age-esque laws and doctrines that warn of the dangers of female menstrual blood, eating shellfish and men's having long hair strikes me as something an iron age society would make up in their ignorance and superstition.  The major world religions were written before we even had algebra, or knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun - that these people tried to answer the most profound question about our existence before anything resembling modern science came to fruition strikes me as profoundly arrogant and premature of them.

 

6. Mathematical universe.  At a fundamental level, the wave functions that govern the behavior of elementary particles are partial differential equations.  Where is the room for God, beyond being a Prime Mover?  How could God have gotten you that promotion or cured you of malaria when everything in the universe is clearly governed by mechanistic physical laws that have absolutely no +/- variable for God to meddle with?  Does he just mess around with the laws of physics when nobody is looking?  If so, how the hell do you know he does this, if he does it when you aren't looking?

 

7. Horrible, horrible teachings.  Take the Old Testament, which teaches that rape victims who don't scream when they are assaulted ought to be stoned to death, or that you should murder your neighbor if he works on the sabbath, or that homosexuals should be put to death, etc.  God orders multiple mass genocides, condones slavery, and espouses a bigoted, racist, misogynist worldview more reflective of the iron age society he conveniently allegedly visited, rather than an omniscient deity.  Most Christians do not actually read the Bible, so many are not aware of passages such as:

 

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Edited July 3, 2014 by Andy Sebastian