As a public atheist Unitarian, I am often asked, “Why don’t you believe in God?” Never do I say “I don’t believe in God” because the question “Do you believe in god” presupposes that there is a God; the questionnaire only wishing to know whether or not one accepts “God’s” so-called existence. Therefore, I always state something to the effect of, “I reject the wholly illogical and idiotic notion of there being a “god.” I never include the word “no” in my response, for never do I give superstitious belief systems so much as an inch. Beyond that, I contend that things that need to be “believed-in” for those things to be validated aren’t worth believing in in the first place. Think about it. When was the last time someone asked you, “Do you believe in gravity?” Yes, of course, no one has ever asked such a question of you because the existence of gravity is self-evident; drop an object from a hand and watch as it falls to the floor. But science doesn’t always win out overnight. For tens of thousands of years, most people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Eventually, though, the logic of the solar system prevailed. And one day, the same will hold concerning the mindlessness known as “god.” Beyond that, no evidence for “God’s” existence has been provided to me. Every argument in favor of “God’s” presence is quite laughable, complete with no amount of peer-reviewed scientific studies nor anything else that would serve as empirical verification. If, however, “God’s” existence was proven to me, I would remain hostile toward Christianity because I find nothing life-affirming or positive about it.
What if you are born in space and someone asks you if you believe in gravity and you say no, that's ridiculous,,,,, do you see any gravity here? Because you can't verify something in no way means it does not exist.
Hello, Spooky. Given that no one is ever going to be born in space within a vacuum and, concomitantly, that everyone born in space will be taught the meaning of gravity on Earth, your argument is rather specious. In addition, and what seals your "arguments" fate is the fact that there is indeed gravity in space. It is of course a small amount of gravity but it exists throughout all of space. Gravity is the very thing that, for example, keeps the moon in its orbit around Earth. So those futuristic human beings born in space will indeed be able to verify the existence of gravity without having to mindlessly "believe-in" it. "Technologically advanced societies and religion are incompatible with one another." --the late Dr. Karl Sagan. "As a result, we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe" to borrow a phrase from Albert Einstein.
There is a difference between something existing and something being worth believing in. If I understand his argument (which is a big if) his argument is not that God does not exist, it is that God's existence is not worth believing in. Whether God (or something else, like Russell's teapot) exists outside of our ability to figure out that it exists is irrelevant for any argument that is about belief in something, rather than the existence of something.
This doesn't seem correct to me. It seems to me, the question whether you believe something exists does not presuppose the existence of that something. We can take an example where the existence is less debated. "Do you believe Frankenstein's monster exist?" "No". I don't see any presupposition that Frankenstein's monster exists in that exchange. How do you propose that presupposition happens?
People “believe” in imaginary things. People accept the existence of real things so no belief is required. When a person says that he believes in something he is saying that he thinks that an imaginary thing is real. He has zero proof so he has to believe. The interesting thing is that it is very easy to get other people to believe in imaginary things because belief is based on emotion and not reality. We all have certain things that we believe in but those things are imaginary and not based on reality. We can go with beliefs over reality because beliefs can be comforting and enable us to cope with the harsh reality of existence.
some need the belief in a God, like some need the belief in a sugar pill... but the magic really comes from within
I have to disagree with that. I don't believe in God. I also don't believe in Santa, Ghosts, Faeries, Leprechauns, etc. My statement of non-belief in those things doesn't presuppose they exist. It just presupposes that somebody may believe they do, which I am certainly willing to grant, as I'm pretty sure many self-proclaimed believers actually do believe. A better grounds to object to the question would be that "God" is so poorly defined, and seems to switch meaning between every believer. So I would be prone to ask the person to define God before I answer. I would be careful making arguments by what is self-evident, since there are plenty of facts that are counter-intuitive. I would agree, but would add the caveat that it does depend on what you mean by "Christianity". Much of the bible and the teachings of the various churches are downright immoral. But I quite like much of the sermon on the mount, and don't need to believe in anything supernatural to do so.
If something cannot be demonstrated or verified there is no basis to claim it exists. With respect to gravity, objects in space are all affected by gravity which can be measured/demonstrated by things like radio waves being bent by a large mass such as Jupiter. All science is subject to experiments that consistently demonstrate and prove theories. What evidence proves the existence of a supernatural God? Obviously there is none.
The very nature of faith precludes any evidence existing. If you are waiting on some sort of scientific proof you will never get it. And that's fine as most of you aren't going to Heaven anyways.
