Ten Reasons Not to Believe in God

As far as I am concerned, #10 is all that you need. Everything else on that list is an argument against this or that religion or religious philosophy – not against the notion of God itself. #10 is the only one that matters.

Raghu

I think number 5 is a little weak. Reading Greta’s blog made me understand where she was coming from a bit more, but I still think that one’s a little weak. Especially if you’re trying to present a good case. Inheritance isn’t really a reason not to believe, at least in my opinion.

Besides that I think the list is pretty good, especially numbers 1 and 4. I always thought those were the best ones.

I think the best ones are #8, #1 and #2. Number 10 depends on what you mean by “solid” evidence, but it sounds good as well.

11. The very fact that a belief in god is so binding- there are prayers to pray, rituals to observe, things to abstain from- it takes away the joy out of life.

God told me not to.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.”
–Carl Sagan.

11. The fact that there is little to no consensus among religions. Even within the same religion we’ve seen schism after schism after schism.

12. Yet each and every group thinks that they have it right, and all the others are wrong. Conclusion: they’re probably all wrong.

Raghu Mani Says:

As far as I am concerned, #10 is all that you need. Everything else on that list is an argument against this or that religion or religious philosophy – not against the notion of God itself. #10 is the only one that matters.

Not really. The other articles argue not against “this or that religion or philosophy”, but rather against large sets of them. And if you combine them, they demolish very large sets of belief systems, nearly all of them in fact.

It is true that the last one supercedes all of them, and is enough by itself, but the others are nothing to scoff at.

Some of the arguments that have shown up in comments, though, do suffer form this a little more.

The problem of evil, for example, is non-existent in most of the world’s religions (although, since the major religions do have it, it’s possible that it affects most believers), but other things like the nastiness or arrogance of believers have precisely zero relevance to the truth of falsehood of their beliefs.

That’s a good list. There are a few things I’d add to it:

Even though religions are mutually incompatible, they all use exactly the same (bad) arguments to justify their beliefs.
No matter what the superstition—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Astrology, Scientology–you find people “justifying” believing them with precisely the same arguments. They’ll use the “science isn’t the only way of knowing” line, the “it’s an emotional truth, not a physical truth” line, the “there must be something more” line, the “everyone has their own worldview, and [superstition] is mine” line, etc etc etc. Arguments which can “prove” anything—even two completely contradictory things—prove nothing. And no one has ever produced a solid argument for any superstitious belief which couldn’t easily be used to “justify” any other (even contradictory) superstitious belief.

Claiming that an all-knowing, all-loving, completely infallible God would create the whole physical universe, but then leave not a shred of evidence of himself in it (and in fact arrange the universe such that the study of it can only be done if you leave him out of the hypothesis), but then demand that everyone believe in Him no matter what, is a contradiction.
Think of all the violent disputes that could easily be resolved if God had just left us some objective, tangible evidence of who he is and what he wants for us. But, instead, belief in him must be based entirely on personal, subjective emotions and local traditions, meaning that any disputes about him are completely irresolvable. And yet he made this irresolvable belief central to our existence, and our eternal life. To claim that such a being is omnibenevolent and perfect is ridiculous. (Of course, this objection only applies to religions that are faith-centered and worship an all-powerful creator-god).

number 10 is the most important. Number 9 should be removed, as just because a dogma becomes more internally consistent or is able to better itself, does not make it’s base assumption (the existence of a god) any more credible.

Hi. Just a few thoughts to the numbers as they go..

1. I consider a deity as natural as anything. The supernatural term is kind of.. misused to everything from spooky gipsy curses to abyss mysticism of ancient persia. I consider there is not such big a difference between discovery and invention as many wish to be, in this mankind is arrogant indeed, in my eyes.
2. Inconsistency is what you make of it. If you know what you believe in, feel what to do and how to live, you have your own religion, sort of. And you don’t, once you discover the rules not to be rules. Laws not to be laws.
3. Strength of Arguments is good for discussion, debates, etc. But what will you do if no argument can convince you no matter what the strentgh? What else can you do than giving in to what you feel is the right path for you? Reducing this kind of issue to strength of argument is like looking at a painting of da vinci strictly geometrically. It is possible, you can learn from it, but there is something you miss in the end.
4. Again, it depends whom you ask. I have time and again faced spiritual poverty in todays society, people with questions no science and no book could answer. A soul feels an urge to understand what is beyond the world we can perceive only bodily, or at least what is possible.
5. Have seen it, but not too often here. Psychological manipulation on family base I dislike. But as a reason not to believe? Nah.
6. *smile* I like this one. In a world that is strictly physical, tell me, what other reason is there allowed to be? 😛
7. Hm, this is interesting. What do you think happens if someone is a sceptic and tries something while expecting it not to work? 😉 And now turn it the other way round. 😀
8. Nothing to say to this one.
9. It depends on what kind of religion and religious practice you look at. Many heathen traditions would have done quite good at many things if christianity had not bruted them away.
10. I prefer not to reduce everything to one reality and evidence only. It’s just limitating. Of course everyone can explain the arguments away by science or tear them apart with the “not yet researched” sticker, but you know what? I do not care. I still believe. 🙂 In as many gods as I want to. In as many pantheons I wish to find out about. I can choose. Maybe even more freely as a lot of people in the non-theist world can choose in their mental constructions of how the world works. Seen it often enough.

Art can contradict science. And if art can, what else can? Think about it.

Best regards, Arnoc

here’s a general question guys and gals, have any of you tried to think dircetly about non-existence? you know, tried to imagine death and how you’d just simply dissapear? Nothing, it’s hard hahha it hurts my head. IDK if i’m a small percentage of people that try this or if anyone else out there has tried to think about it as well. If i’m actually part of a larger group that has pondered how one’s consciousness is no more it’s a little easier to understand why others rely on religion it’s the only thing out there that offers a conceiveable explanation to what happends to your consciousness after death. Of course i completely believe it just flat out ends… but it’s completely unimaginable. perhaps thats why it’s easy to not live your life like it may be the last day of your life even though you know it could be…. or maybe im just an idiot <—- totally possible hahha

ummm it doesnt make you get your faith back. its funny that people always say atheists are always trying to convince you of something and yet there you go with that crap.

“We’re all different people and what works for me might not work for you …”

I think thats what many do not get, while looking around. They try to work on a base that works for all, but on a thing like faith, something so personal, it just feels wrong to me.

Proof is limited, because truth is, I guess. There is no absolute in the relative, so why bother looking? Yet again some seek it as if it was an enlightment of some sort. Maybe out of fear, in need of at least something that is kind of stable.

Again, just thoughts. 😉

I’m not really an atheist anymore unless your definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in a personal God. God is not personal from my point of view. I guess you could call me a panentheist.

I just look at the world differently. To me, a computer doesn’t just evolve out of the forest. You need someone to think it up and then create it. A human being is infinitely more complicated than a computer. So the idea that there’s no one outside of the natural world is just ridiculous to me.

Skeptics often say when you see something that’s not there you’re having a hallucination but how do you know you’re not having a hallucination right now? How do you know that this world isn’t a hallucination? That’s just how my mind works.

Also, I’ve done research. That’s why I asked that question about number 7. Complete failure of any supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing? Are you kidding me?!!! I have found so much evidence that suggests the contrary. For an example please go to http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org for thorough, exhaustively researched supernatural testing done by highly respected scientists.

Oh man, don’t compromise yourself with “world is designed” argument… This is plain cause & effect mismatch… 15 milliards years ago the world wasn’t that organised, you know. First there is something simple, most rudimentary rules, then there is evolution. If you say order proves God, then I say the opposite: order (and especially its strongest form, determinism) suggests that there is no God…

I’ve just shown how unprobable it is that world (along with our species, our minds, our faiths and languages) was created with plan; look, the plan isn’t arbitrary, if anything in this was otherwise, everything would have to be otherwise (this is the work of laws of nature)… If you change one element, everything changes… so you cannot really “choose” how the world would look like. As a Creator you wouldn’t be free to create what you want, enclosing it at the same time in laws of nature so simple and repeatable as they are.

Imagine you are to write a book in such matter: you choose first two letters, and a mechanism, a table of transitions, which assigns every pair of letters another three letters they’re transformed to. So you choose simple starting conditions, and the rest will follow. Would you be able to achieve Shakespeare’s drammas in such way? Or, better, a theological book reflecting yourself?

People say e.g. “if there was no water on earth” etc. There are indeed millions of planets without water. Plus, it is not said that there is no life on them. There can be another life… based on other substances. And such beings would say: “oh, if there were no these other substances here, we wouldn’t exist!”. You keep confusing cause and effect. First there is water, then something tries to appear according to the circumstances already achieved here. We are the result, and not the reason, of why our planet is organised so-and-so.