Why don't you believe in God(s)?

[smuglapse]

As people, one of the most powerful motivators for us to change an idea, or take on a new one, is personal recommendation and proof. Marketers will tell you that the most effective form of advertising is word of mouth. If you have a friend, whom you respect, and they encourage you to try a new product, and they have used it themselves, and you can see the benefit it has brought to their life, you will be far more likely to try it yourself, than if a stranger simply told you it was good.

It is the nub of the “actions speak louder than words” principle, alongside “practice what you preach, and “physician, heal thyself.”

Just look at many of the arguments people will raise against a point – so many of them hinge upon the human examples of those who adhere to that point, rather than a philosophical assessment. To stick with religion for a moment, I have seen many people say, “I don’t believe in religion because of terrorists blowing other people / themselves up, the Crusades, paedophile priests, clashes in the Kashmir etc.” I see fewer comments along the lines of, “I have thoroughly examined the philosophy and doctrine of religion X, and I find them irreconcilable.” That isn’t to say they aren’t there; there’s just fewer of them.

Humans are a herd creature. We love to run with the crowd. When we see someone with something great, we’ll say, “I’ll have what she’s having.” Conversely, when we see hypocrisy, or even if we just see lives which don’t measure up to their claims, we become disillusioned, much as we do when the actual achievements of a political term don’t match up to the campaign promises.

Of course, I am making generalisations, and I’ll bet dollars to deutschmarks that there’ll be those out there who will post, or at least think, “That’s poppycock! My life decisions are based purely on my own experience, and my intellectual conclusions, not the actions of anyone else!” Without me knowing you personally, I’m not about to argue with you about your life. But I will say that I believe, with a degree of certainty, that whoever you are, whatever you believe, there will be a strong element of human influence that went into that personality and those beliefs you carry around today.

To give a contrary expression: "Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it?"  Choosing your philosophy and morals is not the same as choosing your favorite brand of soft drink.

"Generally...Humans are a herd creature."  Generally, I agree.  To use the common, but apt pejorative most people are sheep.  I am not going to waste my energy explaining why I am not a sheep besides saying I hold a minority opinion.  Of course, there is the common retort that "you are being a rebel" or "conforming to the anti-conformists", but I don't care about debating why I hold a certain opinion, just whether that opinion is logically correct or not.

If you count yourself among the herd, then there is no sense continuing a debate because you have decided to follow the popular opinion.

If you are not a sheep, don't use a sheep's argument.

[Hamish MacWolf]

I agree, philosophy and morals are much more important than soft drink. I still think it’s rare to choose them in isolation, or free from outside influence. But like I said, I’m not about to argue with you about you – you know you better than I do. Next time you’re in my neck of the woods, call in, and maybe I can get to know you better!

And although I did mention human herd behaviour, I was not alluding in any way to “popular” behaviour. In fact, the number of people who have influenced you significantly are probably less than a dozen. But whoever those crazy kids are, they will have set some kind of example for you to follow, or run screaming from. That’s really all I was saying.

By the by, I’ve been meaning to say this for the last couple of times I’ve seen you post – I too am a fan of the exploits of Jack Burton.

“How did you get up there?”
“Wasn’t easy!”

[Belthus]

There is a difference between taking a position and claiming 100% certain knowledge. I take the position that I am not a disembodied brain in a vat of nutrients having a vivid dream. I can't disprove the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, but I can take a position anyway. And so do we all, on practical matters. The truck on the highway may be part of a dream, and if you step in front of it, it may pass right through you instead of hitting you. So here are these two possibilities - dream vs. sense-based understanding of what's real. I don't rule out the dream hypothesis, but I can take a position anyway, based on an assumption of the validity of my senses.

I am an atheist because I take a negative position on the God question. I don't claim absolute certainty, on that issue or any other. I don't call myself agnostic because the impossibility of certainty goes far beyond the question of God and touches almost every belief one could have. It would be silly to say that I am agnostic about the truck, about the door, and so on. So I recognize and accept the agnostic's point about how certain knowledge is impossible, but I don't let it stop me from taking a position, just as I take a position with respect to the truck.

[acelink]

I am an atheist because I take a negative position on the God question.

You still do not understand what an atheist is...  Just because you have a negative position on God does not make you an atheist... To be an atheist you believe there is no god.  If you want to create new definitions for a word in our lexical, just say the definiens without the definiendum. 

[Rundas]

No you cannot. They are not* mutually exclusive--take the implications of each one. 

a)If you believe there is no god, then you accept (know) there is no god. 
b)If you accept (know) "god is unknown or unknowable" then you believe that you never will be able comprehend god or know he does or does not exist.

The wikipedia "atheistic agnosticism" or "agnostic theism" is a bullshit way of putting... A person who believes there is no god but does not know it or a person who knows there is a god but does not believe it.  If you say there is a god, then you believe there is a god.  It is illogical know something and not believe it or to not know and believe something.

Walk up to someone and say "I believe there is a god" then say "I don't know if he exists".  They would LAUGH at you...

c)Argument Restated/Rephrased:
The agnostic pleads ignorance.  "God is unknown or unknowable" 
The atheist says "There is no god"

Either you know there is no god or plead ignorance... cannot be both.  You know there is no god and "god is unknown or knowable"?  Not logical.

Atheist take: Atheist says there is no god then god is NOT "unknown/unknowable" for God is known--he does not exist.  Thereby dispelling the agnostic belief.

Agnostic take: Agnostic says "god is unknown/unknowable" then he knows not if God does or does not exist.  To state god does not exist would be to say God is known.  Thereby dispelling their agnostic belief.

Believing is not the same thing as knowing, even though the definition of knowledge is mmm... blurry (?) .-.

a) If I don't believe there is a God that does not mean I have true knowledge about being right, so in order to keep my intellectual honesty I can't rule out the possibility of being wrong since what I believe/disbelieve will not make things true.

b) If I say "God is unknown" is because I don't find enough evidence or arguments to assert any claim about the existence of such thing however that would not mean it will remain unknown nor stop me from taking a stance about it (a stance that may change in light of new evidence).

It is like the Russell's teapot: I don't believe there is a teapot revolving around the sun but just because of that I can't say I know there isn't one. If I say I do know just because of my belief, my knowledge would not necessarily be true and would not be justified.

c) There are different types of atheism. That is just strong atheism, there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in gods" and "There is no God" because in the latter, you are stating an affirmation in a logical sense (despite expressing it in a grammatically negative way), therefore it acquires the burden of proof. An agnostic atheist does not make such affirmations.

* I guess this was a typo...

[acelink]

The types of atheism and agnostic beliefs have nothing to do with the argument. 

Lets just simplify this to their brute meanings.
Atheism is to claim that there is no god.  Agnostic is to claim that god is unknown/knowable.  If you claim there is no god, then it is to claim known knowledge of god which goes against agnosticism.

As I said before... claiming agnostic theism or agnostic atheism is a bullshit way of putting "I do (not) believe in God but I have no proof of it"  Proof examples would be: Dogma (Religion), intuition and logic.  If you have no proof, then why do you believe in God?  At least have the marbles to say "Intuition, I just know" and "My proof is my dogma".  (dogma is beliefs held authoritatively...)

It sounds as if you believe there is no god but fail to accept that as a dogma and do not entirely believe there is no god.
 
Either god exists (theism), does not exist (atheism) or is unknown/knowable (agnostic).  Pick one.

[Rundas]

Atheism is to claim that there is no god...

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deity. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

This disbelief may vary in degrees of certainty (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm), from gnosticism to agnosticism.

But there is no consensus on how to classify the other possible belief systems about deity/deities listed above. Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.

The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

"Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists.

Again, you would only be refering to the strong atheists.

[smuglapse]

By the by, I’ve been meaning to say this for the last couple of times I’ve seen you post – I too am a fan of the exploits of Jack Burton.

“How did you get up there?”
“Wasn’t easy!”

Cool. 8) It's a classic from my childhood that has stuck with me.

The truck on the highway may be part of a dream, and if you step in front of it, it may pass right through you instead of hitting you.

Perhaps Belthus is also a fan? 

There is a difference between taking a position and claiming 100% certain knowledge. I take the position that I am not a disembodied brain in a vat of nutrients having a vivid dream. I can't disprove the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, but I can take a position anyway. And so do we all, on practical matters.

I actually don't consider that a practical matter myself.  Whether I'm a brain in a vat, we are all part of one large computer simulation, reality is just my dream, or everything is objective and material doesn't matter to me.  There is no way to tell the difference in all those scenarios, so they are not practical to consider.

In regards to gods I treat them as any other intangibles (pixies, UFOs, souls, etc...) until there is some evidence to show they exist, they are pointless to inject into our reality, whatever that reality may be.

[Innominate]

The types of atheism and agnostic beliefs have nothing to do with the argument. 

Lets just simplify this to their brute meanings.
Atheism is to claim that there is no god.  Agnostic is to claim that god is unknown/knowable.  If you claim there is no god, then it is to claim known knowledge of god which goes against agnosticism.

As I said before... claiming agnostic theism or agnostic atheism is a bullshit way of putting "I do (not) believe in God but I have no proof of it"  Proof examples would be: Dogma (Religion), intuition and logic.  If you have no proof, then why do you believe in God?  At least have the marbles to say "Intuition, I just know" and "My proof is my dogma".  (dogma is beliefs held authoritatively...)

It sounds as if you believe there is no god but fail to accept that as a dogma and do not entirely believe there is no god.
 
Either god exists (theism), does not exist (atheism) or is unknown/knowable (agnostic).  Pick one.

I did this before for another website, but unfortunately it's subsequently been removed.

Basically, almost every online dictionary that says "Atheism is a positive claim that there is no god" has another definition alongside which says "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods". Either is a perfectly acceptable stance to still be called an atheist.

From an etymological point of view, atheism is a- theism, where the prefix a- indicates the logical complement. That is, everything that is not "theist" is "atheist". Many prominent atheists define atheism to be a lack of belief.

[SeddyRocky]

Why do you believe that there is no god if you do not know?  Explain your reasoning.

It is illogical to believe without knowing.  To know but not believe.  If you are illogical then there is no point in having an argument with you.

There are a variety of claims God does or does not exist.  Dogma, intuition, logic. But the problem with logic is there is no solid evidence to prove or disprove.  (There is our agnostic!)

Quite simple: I do not believe that God exists, but if what I think would be sufficient evidence for his existence, I'd probably change my mind (probably being there for not even I can predict my own thoughts).

To take it in another context:

Annie believes that the world is about the size of Madagaskar, where she lives. However, she knows that some people believe that there is something more than just this one big island and she'd be willing to believe them if there was any viable proof.

Scenario A: No proof is brought fourth, Annie continues to believe that the world is about the size of Madagaskar.
Scenario B: Proof is brought fourth, but Annie rejects is or by logic, faith, etc, continues to believe that the world is about the size of Madagaskar.
Scenario C: Proof is brought fourth, Annie accepts it and now believes that the world is more than just Madagaskar.

This is a bit more earthly example, but if you consider that the proof can be a bit of flotsam from a kind of tree that doesn't grow on Madagaskar (which can be either dismissed or interpreted as a sign) or a gigantic cruise ship crashing into the village (kindof hard to deny it then, the athiest-theist version would probably be equal to God's hand sweeping down and smacking sinners or something) or something else.

The difference in this fictional story is of course, it is proven that Annie is wrong and I don't think that anyone would disagree on that, theist or atheist alike.

[acelink]

No you cannot. They are not* mutually exclusive--take the implications of each one. 

a)If you believe there is no god, then you accept (know) there is no god. 
b)If you accept (know) "god is unknown or unknowable" then you believe that you never will be able comprehend god or know he does or does not exist.

The wikipedia "atheistic agnosticism" or "agnostic theism" is a bullshit way of putting... A person who believes there is no god but does not know it or a person who knows there is a god but does not believe it.  If you say there is a god, then you believe there is a god.  It is illogical know something and not believe it or to not know and believe something.

Walk up to someone and say "I believe there is a god" then say "I don't know if he exists".  They would LAUGH at you...

c)Argument Restated/Rephrased:
The agnostic pleads ignorance.  "God is unknown or unknowable" 
The atheist says "There is no god"

Either you know there is no god or plead ignorance... cannot be both.  You know there is no god and "god is unknown or knowable"?  Not logical.

Atheist take: Atheist says there is no god then god is NOT "unknown/unknowable" for God is known--he does not exist.  Thereby dispelling the agnostic belief.

Agnostic take: Agnostic says "god is unknown/unknowable" then he knows not if God does or does not exist.  To state god does not exist would be to say God is known.  Thereby dispelling their agnostic belief.

Believing is not the same thing as knowing, even though the definition of knowledge is mmm... blurry (?) .-.

a) If I don't believe there is a God that does not mean I have true knowledge about being right, so in order to keep my intellectual honesty I can't rule out the possibility of being wrong since what I believe/disbelieve will not make things true.

b) If I say "God is unknown" is because I don't find enough evidence or arguments to assert any claim about the existence of such thing however that would not mean it will remain unknown nor stop me from taking a stance about it (a stance that may change in light of new evidence).

It is like the Russell's teapot: I don't believe there is a teapot revolving around the sun but just because of that I can't say I know there isn't one. If I say I do know just because of my belief, my knowledge would not necessarily be true and would not be justified.

c) There are different types of atheism. That is just strong atheism, there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in gods" and "There is no God" because in the latter, you are stating an affirmation in a logical sense (despite expressing it in a grammatically negative way), therefore it acquires the burden of proof. An agnostic atheist does not make such affirmations.

* I guess this was a typo...

You're stance should always be dependant upon evidence no matter the stance.  That is my whole point.   You can be a atheist/theist/agnostic that still holds their believes based on the contingency of knowledge.

What is illogical about the 'agnostic atheist' is the way he gets his answer (although it may not be wrong).  They take a stance on with no knowledge.   
5 + 5 = 10... no through logic, intuition, dogma or any other type of knowledge...

The strong/weak forms of atheism come to the knowledge they believe exists.  The strong atheist pleads "God does not exist and there will be no proof to otherwise prove he does exist"  The weak atheist pleads "God does not exist, but there is the possibility that God does exist"  The same is true with the types of agnosticism.

There are better ways to say what I am saying.  I am not fluid in accademia speak.  There are better ways to phrase and clearly express my point... i am just not going to attempt as that would take hours of writing.

[BloodlinE]

essence what on  is a telempathic experience?  ???
anyway i just never really believed in it(religion) my families quite religous though-i just never needed god and never really thought about him and when i did i had no faith in him.

i am a catholic and everyone needs to believe in god..your question is "why didn't i had fate in god"