And if not, why not?

I didn't say "God" because I'm not interested in this becoming some sort of Christian/religion/creationist/what-have-you flamewar. I'm mostly interested in reasons to NOT believe in a greater being. Not a "list" of reasons you found on the internet, but your own personal reasons for not believing. Thanks!

No, because I see no need to. I think early man turned to supernatural explanations for natural events, and it evolved into organized religion over time.

No, because everything I see in the universe can be explained via physical laws that don't require the existence of any sort of supreme being.

What about Pauly Shore's career?

Well, by some interpretations of quantum mechanics, literally anything is possible - however unlikely.

Also, if Pauly Shore is now an argument for God's existence, I'm afraid to say that the collapse of all religion can't be far behind

The world we exist in is so elegant and mysterious in its mechanical complexity that it simply doesn't need some overbearing supernatural omnipresence to dictate its flow and give it meaning.

The beauty of exploring the natural world is far more profound than any of the superficial answers the supernatural appears to provide.

hahahahahah

That's no more logically conclusive than asserting than making up a similarly worded statement saying that it does need a God.

The second sentence is exactly what I wanted to post.

However, I do believe that there could be some sort of "ultimate" force out there (like qi in Chinese tradition), although not necessarily a supernatural being. It could very well be natural or explainable by science, eventually.

No, I believe that there are things science has explained as naturally occuring and without purpose, and things yet explained by science. Belief in any unsubstantiated concept without applying a shred of doubt or objectivity to it is unhelpful if truth is what you're after. I happen to personally think what is really there is a little more valuable than conjecture.

If we were to discover a presence in most human beings tomorrow that is linked to a single one force that judges our morality, people will claim [agnostic] atheists were somehow wrong instead of accurate. Until we actually have a compelling reason to believe a thing, why invest in it? History has shown a perpetual let down in the faith department.

If a double blind test shows that prayer doesn't have any effect on the natural world, why do it? You know you're misleading yourself, and probably harming yourself in the process, so why do it? Even if it provides passive health benefits, so does positive thinking, and that is clearly more effective on the environment around you.

If we could, I'd like to keep this focused on reasons to not believe. Not refutations of those reasons because that could spiral into a terrible and pointless word battle. (In reference to Obi_Kwiet)

Kind of sounds like you've made up your own mind anyway.

Personally I don't believe in a higher power because I don't see the need to. There is no benefit to me in every day life. If there turns out to be a big guy at the end of it all then I'd hope I'd lived a good enough life to earn a bit of a break.

nah

I don't believe in ghosts or magic.

Yes, because any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

IIRC Axis is a Christian missionary, or studying to be one.

As for me, no, I never had any reason to.

No, because I think that the belief in such a being, real or imaginary, has no bearing on my life at the moment. I say at the moment because right now I don't feel any level of uncertainty in my life is beyond explanation.

Our science and logic is flawless!

A 'God'? Probably not.

Some 'higher plane of existence'? Something 'beyond the mortal realm'? Maybe.

I don't like the idea of infinite time in the past, that everything always was. Thus, I think something had to start, say, the Big Bang.

Perfect.

I don't believe in a(ny) god(s) because doing so doesn't seem to help me explain anything that I've encountered. Since I think I have the tools to explain everything (including why some people would believe in gods) without invoking such a concept, I don't think it benefits me enough to be worth doing so.

I like to think of unfounded "beliefs" as strategies in a game: science believes there's an answer to every "why?" because that leads it toward productive behaviors (not because there's an a priori reason to think that there's an infinite chain of causation). Likewise, I like to believe that I can achieve what I want if I work hard enough--not because I think it's true, but because as a rough heuristic, it's better than the alternative of "your efforts don't impact your outcomes much." I suspect that belief in God is a similar strategy (in that it deflects many lines of thought that are unhelpful or unsettling).

well, i do believe in a "higher power" so i guess i cant add much here.

nah

Edit - Oops, didn't read the OP. I wasn't raised to believe in supernatural stuff, and basically hooked on science from an early age. It's hard for me to see it any more seriously than ghosts or whatever. Plus, it just doesn't seem necessary. I've never seen anything that made me say "wow, there can only be some kind of supernatural explanation for that"

I'm agnostic.

this

Yes.

No. Belief in a supernatural higher being seems unecessary and unreasonable. In a pre-scientific age it may have helped explain much but the purpose of religion in that sense is largely defunct now. In terms of ethics and philosophy I'd rather have such things explained to me with regard to the real world we can all admit we exist in rather than being couched in the will of undetectable super-beings.


Seriously, how much Dawkins have you been reading!? You sound exactly like him. (not that that's a criticism, it's just eerie)

Why would I believe in something that nobody has ever seen, experienced or felt? We just 'know' it exists because a couple of thousand years ago, some guys decided to write a funny book about a guy walking on water. That, we take seriously!

When I talk about some texts, written a couple of thousand years ago about a god causing thunder, and children jumping from his head when he headache, people start to laugh.

I believe in a greater supernatural being just as much as that teapot that is circling around the sun and the invisible pink unicorn.

I do however believe, that no matter what a person believes, and no matter how ignorant that person is, we could still just respect (or, just, walk away and let it rest) what that person says.

I believe in MB.

We're talking about some higher order of intelligence, not a higher order of mass.

I see no reason to justify the absence of belief, which is kind of the whole point anyway.

I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage

I do. Not the sorts described by any religion, but I definitely do.

And then one could make a similarly worded statement in response, asserting that I could invert that statement and conclude it doesn't need a God, and we'd be at the exact position we are now.

I can justify my beliefs with logic, but it isn't the basis of belief. It may be the end point, or maybe the middle point, but it isn't the start point. Like many humans, I am immediately drawn to aesthetics. I'm probably brutally butchering a Nietzsche quote here, but only the aesthetic justifies the existence of the world. I see symmetry, I see patterns, I see some sort of progression of complexity, and much like my religious brethren I desire answers. I only think it sad that there exist institutions that exploit this inquisitive nature only to crush it to perpetuate their own existence, and in return to offer no answers at all but only shallow promises of fundamental certainty and momentary solace. Where in the Bible is the Hamiltonian Path Problem? Where in the Bible is its solution?

It is mathematics that provides answers to all you see, and more importantly it provides the framework to test those answers. You begin with aesthetics, you apply mathematics, you end up with answers.

Keats accused Newton of destroying the poetic beauty of the rainbow by 'explaining away' how it worked. I could not disagree any more (though I'm getting quite self-conscious about how Dawkinslike I sound, as he's written an entire book starting from this very story).
The answers you get from mathematics are no less beautiful than the aesthetic from which you begin. In fact, it is more so, by many orders of magnitude, as you begin to see that vastly different areas of nature are described by the same mathematics.

I believe in God. But, like I say, everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Please don't take this the cliche way, but nothing Mort-Hog has stated in this thread, I feel, contradicts my conception of existence. Understanding itself is where it's at, in all venues it is pursued. Science, philosophy, the arts, mathematics, spirituality, and others are all paths to greater understanding. I like to conduct myself with a great respect for each of these paths, and in such a way that doesn't exclude any one path by subscribing to another in a short-sighted way.

In summary, if you're doin' it right, each supports and builds on the other. Each will lead you to the same place. (Needless to say, many, many people are not doin' it right.) My brand of spirituality doesn't dream of contradicting scientific discoveries, nor does it claim any kind of hellfire on anyone, for all sorts of reasons to be found in the arts, science, and philosophy, in addition to my spiritual understanding.

Indeed, the atheist scientist often possesses a greater understanding and is more spiritual than the devout follower of a brand of religion. Although deep down, explicit atheism isn't very scientific. We may trust our intuition that atheism is far more likely to be accurate than an alternative, but hardline atheism is a lot like blind faith, on the other side of the spectrum.

I don't mean to attack logical justification; it's a highly worthwhile exercise, but I don't pretend that my logical justifications are accurate. For them to be accurate, I would need a near complete understanding of existence, which I don't fancy myself to have.

It's all so simple, really. Love is key. Understanding in all its forms is love. This involves respecting the beliefs of others, and seeking to understand how they would hold such a viewpoint. Seek a greater understanding and everything will work out in the end, no faith, no condemnation required.

I have just as much difficulty believing in a "greater supernatural being" as I do in believing that such perfect order and harmony evident in our universe could come from chaos and randomness.

1 Godbotherer 2 Godbotherer 3 Godbotherer 4 Godbotherer 5 Mississippi 6 Godbotherer

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, FGR.

I have a hard time describing our universe as having "perfect order" or "harmony". It's a pretty random, violent, chaotic place.