Why not believe in God?

i think the reason atheists will not believe in god just because its a better gamble is because like everyone else, they have a thirst for truth.

lets face it, if you believe something is a lie, how can you respect yourself for believing that lie?

truth is one thing, not multiple things, one opinion, not multiple opinions.

normally truth doesnt matter, it lays no consequence. whether the earth was formed over millions of years or 6 thousand years is inconsequential, im still here, im still posting this. yes, one or the other implies other things, but ultimately that truth, that fact is inconsequential

god is a different matter. it god exists, then that tells us things about our nature that affects us here and now. its important to get it right. to an atheist now, it doesnt matter, but if he's wrong, he might not like the consequences. so its a benefit to him to exhaust all possible angles to determine whether god exists. but if he comes to a conclusion that god doesnt exist, then thats his choice.

if he comes to the opposite conclusion, then one must ask what god does one worship? that too is a truth that bears consequence. the god of the bible does like sharing worship with other gods, whether they are actually alive or not. but in religions like hinduism, thats different.

again, it all boils down to a search for the truth. just because we have millions of opinions in this world doesnt mean that there are millions of truths. 1 (or 0) of those opinions are spot on. then you have half truths, and then things that a flat out false.

Originally posted by IAPremed

Why not believe in God?

I have asked this question for years, however not for the same reason as you.

Unbelievers, or those who are apathetic towards God, are always demanding that other people prove to them that there is a God or a spritsail reality at work.

First you need to understand that religion, that is to say religion as a system of worship, is a form of unbelief in and of itself, it is a denial of the power of God.

Religious systems breed apathy in peoples hearts towards God and the things of God.

All religion begins as a true moment of God.

God confirms his presence and participation in the movement by signs, miracles, and wonders.

Signs, miracles, and wonders, are real physical evidence that can be examined by anyone who chooses to look.

As things progress with genuine movements of God, men without a conscious, individuals who Jesus called the children of the devil, who see all forms of government, and view the acquisition of power and authority over others, as a sort of personal stamp of approval by God of their beliefs, they don't seek to know the truth for authority to act, as honest people do, they act to seek authority as truth.

These individuals are self righteous and feel a sense of personal confirmation when they acquire positions and authority over others, it is their way of thinking that God approves of them, and that they are right to sacrifice their integrity to be in charge, to feel they are in control, they are deceived by their love for power and the material substance of the universe, and so as a consequence they deceive others.

These men of baser nature are fully persuaded that the ends justify the means, and they rise to positions of control in every form of government that presents opportunity, whether secular or religious, knowing only the way of the world, serving the creature instead of the creator.

In the bible believers are exhorted not to even pray for such men, they are beyond our help.

Why believe in God is the question, not why believe in religion, therefore there must be a separation in understanding between God if He exists in reality, and religion.

If God exists in reality then believing that fact is in no way religious, anymore than if bigfoot exists in reality, your believing in that fact, could be religious.

God is creator of all, religion is mans attempt to govern the worship of others, to bring others into subjection and under the control of your own system of worship, whether it be in pretense or in truth.

If your religion is true, that knowledge alone should be enough for you, because God knows and you know your heart, that it is true, and God will judge.

If a creator exists then He has no religion and is no respecter of persons, He simply is..


The next point that needs to be addressed is the separation between what is known and what can be believed.

If God exists in reality, and He resides in a greater reality which engulfs all of our four dimensions of space time, then it is literally impossible for any human being, at a certain level of consciousness, not to be aware of that fact.

If a persons says, they do not know there is a creator, that person is a liar; this statement is either the truth or it is not.

At some point, if you are self aware, you are enlightened to the existence of a creator, you know that God does indeed exist, it is literally impossible for anyone not to know.

This is the reason that the bible declares that all are without excuse.

For illustration of my point, here is some of Romans chapter one, it is fractional and expanded.

Begin: Romans 1: 19 - 22 fractional, expanded

This is so because it is exhibited in them by God that He is, made clear to their minds by revelation knowledge and experience, for God hath manifested His existence unto them.

For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, His eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, God Himself having given the knowledge of them, to the things which He has made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, yet they did not glorify Him as God, they did not give Him His due place and thank Him for making the truth known, so that they might further be enlightened and gain wisdom to their knowledge, but they turned their thoughts to folly, and their heart, without understanding that comes from having light to see, became darkened:

To please themselves they professed in themselves to be wise and so they became fools,

End:

To be aware makes it literally impossible not to know of the existence of God.

All who say they don't know if God exists are liars, this is either the truth or it is not.

If an atheist says he does not believe in God he is speaking the truth, albeit self serving, it is still the truth.

But when an atheist says he doesn't know if there is a God or creator he is lying, because God has made it impossible for people not to know, but He has however made it possible for us not to believe.

A person may not believe in the existence of a creator, but he is absolutely aware that a creator exists.

This is a very important point that people tend to overlook, but it places a believer in a unique position if it is believed, a position of certitude regarding the existence of a creator, so much so that if a person attempts to deny knowledge of a creator you can call upon God to confirm His existence and presence for the sake of His word and not fear, God is with you.

God honors his word when it is believed, we do not defend the truth it has its own defense, it is up to God to see that it never fails, it is His word not ours.


This then brings me to my final point, you asked the question why not believe God?

You asked for the sake of a logical argument.

What does anyone of us have to lose by believing in God?

We can only gain if He is real, and we have nothing to lose if He does not exist.

I have asked the same question, but rather I ask instead, for the sake of proof and evidence of the existence of God.

People seem to think that God and the things of God can not be proven.

I call it playing, "the prove it game."

God can manifest Himself in definable measurable ways, and He directly and specifically charges, those who claim status as believers in Him, to prove all things spiritual.

If a person is sincere in their desire to see evidence of the things of God, then all that is required, is that they believe to manifest spiritual power for themselves.

There a nine ways the gift of God is exhibited, and they are definable and measurable.

Of course to an onlooker, standing outside of belief in God, seeing a miracle performed, or a healing, will not necessarily serve as evidence of anything.

For instance take the miracle of Jesus walking on the water.

Anyone seeing that miracle could dismiss it in their own minds by simply saying to themselves, it is a magic trick, or he is using some scientific means to freeze the water so he can walk on it.

But to Jesus who was performing the miracle, he knew exactly how it was being accomplished.

Jesus would have known while he was doing the miracle, that it was not being achieved through the use of science, and he also would have known that he was not performing a magic trick.

God gives to all who ask the ability to manifest miraculous power, in the same manner Jesus exhibited the power of God, the only requirement is that we believe.

To the individual performing an operation of miraculous power, the exhibition itself serves for that individual as evidence that God is with them and in them, not only that, but it is sufficient evidence as to qualify as proof for the individual performing the feat, because that individual knows how the manifestation is being accomplished.

So my question, "why not believe in God," when I ask it, is directed at those individuals who say prove it all the time.

If you truly want proof of the existence of the spiritual then why not believe in God, because it is absolutely available to have your proof.

All that is required for anyone to prove the things of God is that they believe in God and learn to manifest His gift of holy spirit.

If you claimed to want proof of the existence of gravity, and all that was required was that you believe what I tell you to do, and then do it, wouldn't you do it if you were sincere in your demand for proof?

Of course you would, if proof is indeed what you truly want.

Why not do likewise with God?

If a person is honest in his request for evidence, and all that is required is that they believe in God and manifest His gift of holy spirit, then why not believe in Him and have your proof?

If you want to see proof of the existence of God in truth, then why not believe in Him?

God wants us to have all the proof we need, real physical evidence in the form of operations of supernatural miraculous power.

God is more willing and able, to provide us with proof and evidence, than we are willing to believe.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by newday]

reply to post by newday

Why believe in God is the question, not why believe in religion, therefore there must be a separation in understanding between God if He exists in reality, and religion.

If God exists in reality then believing that fact is in no way religious, anymore than if bigfoot exists in reality, your believing in that fact, could be religious.

You made this really clear and one that I totally agree with!!

Response to IAPremed:

"I noticed that a lot of members on this site stand firm in the belief that God is not real and religion is some kind of a controlling instrument. Then I was thinking, as a Christian, if I'm completely wrong and all those people are correct, then I'm in no trouble. Simply nothing will happen. But if I'm right, and these people are wrong, then they are in a world of trouble. So I'm wondering why people choose to deny God when there's really no incentive. "

Actually, I have done some studying on this argument for the belief in God. This perspective states that there is a wager made when a person chooses not to believe in God. It is sometimes referred to as Pascal's Wager. I believe that you do have a VERY good point here. I will give my personal answer to this wager later in this post.

"But anyways, back to why I started this thread. I would love to hear people explain there reasoning for not believing in God/the Bible/ etc. "

I personally do not believe in the existence of God because my world-view has no need (or arguably, no room) for a God...at least not in the traditional sense of the world "God".

I believe that ALL souls are self-sufficient, exist in a timeless state, and are governed by natural laws. Let me clarify these points.

Self-sufficient= they don't need anything more than what they have to maintain their existence

Timeless= existing outside of the time-space continuum and, therefore, outside of the concept of causality. This eliminates the question of, "Who or what created souls?" An interesting point to make: The same claims could be made by a Theist regarding God. Ie: God always existed.

Governed by natural laws= Essentially, timeless entities exist and act of their own occord. They are beyond the description of causality so there is no accurate way to describe their actions (a metaphysical problem I am currently working on).

These three attributes, when applied to souls, make it a moot point to believe in the Christian concept of God.

That's just my opinion though.


Now, on to the Wager. All wagers focus on three main points: chance, cost, and yield.

Chance:
The questions here are, "What are the odds that Idea A (that the Christian God is real) is correct?" and "What are the odds that Idea B (that my notions about the soul are real) is correct?"
We can calculate the odds in two ways: blunt probability and through analysis.
Blunt probability states that given two ideas, both of which there is little scientific evidence for, the probablity of the existence of either idea (given that one MUST be correct) is 50% each.
An analysis of each of our world views will probably yield the same results from each of our perspectives: it is more likely that the one analysing the claim will say that theirs is the right claim.
So, for the sake of argument, lets use blatent probability: 50% apiece.

Cost: The cost of assuming either of our world views is as follows:
Idea A: One must live by the rules set forth by God.
Idea B: One must live by the rules set forth by oneself.
Assuming either idea DOES have a cost.
Idea A requires the restriction or alteration of ones actions if those actions would conflict with the rules set forth by God.
Idea B requires that one lives the way one wants to. This can AND DOES produce some societal issues (conflict with law and conflict with social values for example).
Either way, the cost is finite, lasting only as long as one's life lasts. So on cost both ideas are on equal footing (keep in mind that I am speaking in terms of the positive yield of this wager).

Yield:
The yield to adhering to Idea A is eternal life as God wishes you to have.
The yield to adhering to Idea B is eternal life as You wish to have.

Now all that's left is two questions:
Do you believe that God CAN know what is best for you?
and
Do you want what is best for you to be handed to you or would you rather learn the hard way?
If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second question then you should pick Idea A.
If you answer no to the first question then the answer to the second question is irrelevent; you should pick Idea B.
If you answer yes to the second answer then the first question becomes moot; you should bick Idea B.
I personally take the "maybe, yes" answer, pairing me with Idea B.

On the negative result side:
NOT choosing Idea A (if it ends up being correct) results in eternal suffering and damnation.
NOT choosing Idea B (if it ends up being correct) results in a life wasted worrying over a false belief instead of doing what you choose to do.


Now we have a standoff:
I'm assuming the following of you:
You are paired with Idea A.
You believe God knows what is best for you.
You do not want eternal suffering and damnation.

I'm believe the following:
I am paired with Idea B.
I believe that I would like to learn the hard way in terms of life.
I don't want to waste my life worrying about the consequences of a false belief (assuming mine to be true).


Here is the problem: Do the positive outcomes of one Idea outweigh the negative outcomes of the other?

1)Eternal life as you make of it. vs Eternal damnation.
2)Eternal life as God makes of it. vs A wasted life.

Now we are down to what I believe to be personal preference. Essentially, are you a high roller or do you bet cautiously?
I believe that the good of item one is more than worth the bad of item one.
I also do not like the prospect of wasting my time on this Earth (this time around) for the prospect of what another entity (God or otherwise) thinks best for me.

Therefore, I should choose Idea B.

What I'm trying to say is, I believe people who DO choose to really believe in something choose COMPLETELY WITHOUT TRUE REGARD to Pascal's Wager. Their deciding factor comes down to personality and the entity's perception of the world (perception of the world plays into analysed probablity which is more often used than the perfect 50/50 in this example).

I'd rather live freely, than be manipulated by fear. Religion is just a control mechanism, created and maintained by those who desire power, and God is the trump card always used. There is enough manipulation in my life (ie. media, government, corporations), why would I willing take on another level of control? Should I disbelive evolution because it is contrary to a work of fiction created 1700 years ago, or even longer if you talk Old Testament? I might as well worship Bilbo Baggins.

As for hedging my bets, I'd like to think if I'm proved wrong and end up at some pearly gate, any God judging me for an afterlife reward would choose me for living a decent life without believing than someone who believes but has been a complete jerk.

Originally posted by IAPremed
So I'm wondering why people choose to deny God when there's really no incentive.

If I don't believe there's "something" there in the first place, I can't very well deny it. I mean, I don't believe there's an elephant in my front yard. Why do I "deny" that there's an elephant in my front yard? There's no "incentive" to deny it. Except the truth is - it's not there. I'm not anti-elephant or anything. But the truth is, there isn't one in my front yard.

I can say this with an almost perfect 100% surety. I say "almost" because there's a slight chance that there IS in fact, an elephant in the yard that is somehow invisible or out of phase with my current reality or for some other reason does not register with my senses. But, based on past experience in this thing called "my life", I'm pretty darn sure the only animals in the yard are dogs.

I'm not "choosing" to believe in the no-elephant scenario. It's not a conscious thing where I say, "Hmm, I wonder if I want to believe in the elephant or not. Nah, I don't think I want to believe that. Hey, everyone! I don't believe there's an elephant in my front yard"!

Kind of weird, huh? It's not that I'm choosing to deny or choosing to believe. It just happens. In ALL my experience in life, for me to believe in something, there has to be some kind of evidence. Not proof, necessarily, but indication.

I have no indication that there's an elephant in my yard. I have no indication that this thing people call "God" exists. None. I believe in life after death, because I have experienced what I consider to be evidence of that. I believe my family loves me, because I have indications. I believe it's going to rain because I can see and hear the signs. But nothing about an elephant. Or God.

I would love to hear people explain there reasoning for not believing in God/the Bible/ etc.

It's the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus. There is no real "reasoning". I think the reasoning is left up to those who DO believe.

I'd like the opportunity to convince you otherwise

Why? I don't want to be convinced. I have the same information available to me that you do. If I believed it, I would be a "believer". I don't believe it. (think elephant).

I have studied the bible, I was raised in a Christian home. There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already heard and most likely have told others. I also know quite a bit about the Bible and Christianity as I was enveloped with it for 25 years or so.

Just sharing my viewpoint.

I just remembered a VERY IMPORTANT application of Pascal's Wager. The best part is that even Pascal admitted that the following is true.

The concept presented in Pascal's Wager ONLY WORKS IF A PERSON IS UNDECIDED as to whether or not to believe in God AND that person has ANOTHER option for belief.

Pascal's Wager can not be properly used as a method to convince a person who already has made up his or her mind as to the existence of God.

Thanks to Benevelent Heretic for triggering me to remember this crucial application.

Another problem with pascals wager is that it bases to much on assumption like the assumption that it is the correct god that is being worshiped or that god will send non believers to hell or that god even rewards the faithful.

Too many assumptions.


G

Actually, it isn't the point of Pascal's Wager to make any assumptions. It is the PERSON who makes the assumptions. Pascal's Wager just states that any person undecided upon a world view should consider the gains and losses of each world view he assumes COULD be true in order to make a tentative decision.

Originally posted by daniel191159

Pascal's Wager just states that any person undecided upon a world view should consider the gains and losses of each world view he assumes COULD be true in order to make a tentative decision.

I thought I would give some of the gains that COULD be true if you decided to believe in God.

Of course the biggest is the possibility of gaining eternal life.

Which by the way is the solution to the mother of all lies, that there is life after death.

The notion that we don't actually die, but instead move on to something more at the end of our physical existence, is the self identified original and conceivably most enduring lie ever told by unholy spirits through religions.

In fact it is my assertion that the Christian religion, which could be the arm of Molech himself, has obstructed the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of billions for thousands of years by promoting the combo pack lie of life after death with the trinity.

Believing the two lies combined, that there is life after death and that Jesus is God, will make a demon petrie dish out of your brain cavity.

But I am getting of topic.

The promise of eternal life, if eternal death is the reality of our existence, should be considered a major potential positive point of personal profit, albeit not a gain that can be measured or realized immediately.

Another possible benefit that I think should be considered deeply when attempting to decide whether or not to believe in God, is the immediate and immeasurable profit that comes with the ability to manifest supernatural power from God

The manifestation are given to everyone who believes in God, for the purpose of providing specific types of profit to the lives of the people who operate them

For instance take the manifestation of, "speaking in tongues."

I am aware of at least twelve different benefits mentioned in scripture that are the result of a person believing and learning to manifest the gift of God in this way.

My personal favorite benefit, described in the scripture which I enjoy, that comes with speaking in tongues, is the ability to pray perfectly.

God energizes the operation of it.

Only God is in an objective position to know what is most needed to be prayed for at any given moment of life, not me.

But each one of the nine manifestation have multiple types and degrees of profit, and when we believe in God, He rewards our faith in Him by creating in us His gift of holy spirit.

God fills all people equally with a complete measure of his gift, the ability to operate all nine manifestation, the power of all in all.

Contemplating just the benefits of the power God gives to us in His gift, so that we can have an active relationship with Him and prevail over the circumstances of our life, should by itself be more than enough in my opinion to lead a reasonable person to conclude it is worth it to believe in Him, but there is even more.

Perhaps the most incredible benefit a person could possibly gain from deciding to believe in God is what is called the fruit of the spirit.

These are produced as the result of operating the manifestation of the gift of holy spirit, they are a by product of our growth and development in the use and understandings of the spiritual things available to all of us who believe.

Here is a list of them taken from the KJV, there are nine fruit of the spirit just as there are nine manifestation.

Begin:

Ga 5:22 - 23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance, against such there is no law.

End:

Who would not want the love of God as a byproduct in their life?

Could the whole world today use a little more joy and peace?

There is no need for me to describe the potential benefit of having the fruit of the spirit in your life, they are self explanatory.

What I have describe for you is the smallest sampling I can write of the potential profit a person can gain by believing in God.

Please consider carefully so you can make a more informed decision.

I do not believe in god, my mother was raised strict catholic and in my experience there is too much hypocrisy in religion. What is the point in it? I see no point, there is not one iota of proof about anything written in the bible. There is no proof of a god so until there is I won't believe in one. I refuse to have a church tell me what I should believe in or a book tell me what I should believe in.

Response to Newday:

"The promise of eternal life, if eternal death is the reality of our existence, should be considered a major potential positive point of personal profit, albeit not a gain that can be measured or realized immediately."

Be careful here...keep in mind that not ALL atheists believe that there is nothing after death. What I'm trying to say is that not all atheists have a monastic view of the world. Take me for example. I do not believe in anything that could be really called a god, therefore I am an atheist; I DO believe in life after death, therefore I am NOT a monist, therefore, I AM a dualist. Buddhism and Taoism are good examples (granted, debatable ones) of atheist world-views that are also dualistic.


"Another possible benefit that I think should be considered deeply when attempting to decide whether or not to believe in God, is the immediate and immeasurable profit that comes with the ability to manifest supernatural power from God"

Again, be careful...there are also atheistic world views that allow a person to draw power from external sources. Again, let's use Buddhism as an example. By opening oneself to the INSIGHT given by Buddha (NOT to Buddha himself) one can attain a state of complete peace, a state of perfect meditation.


"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance, against such there is no law."

These "fruit" are offered by nearly EVERY world-view...NEARLY ever world-view. That means that, in Pascal's Wager, most world-views will offer these same gains. Essentially, they cancel out, leaving us right back at the "judgement call" problem.

God is real and Jesus is alive and is the son of God. Life after death is a big gamable and how you spend it is your choice. I just rather live a life of happyness.

Originally posted by daniel191159


Be careful here...keep in mind that not ALL atheists believe that there is nothing after death. What I'm trying to say is that not all atheists have a monastic view of the world. Take me for example.

Why should I be careful, we are talking about possible benefits or losses to be had by believing in God?

Why should I care what kind of view of the world Atheists do or do not have, or any one has for that matter, belief in God if He exists is separate from religious or secular belief?

Why should I take you as an example?

What benefits or losses would you say there are for believing in God, as an example?

Originally posted by daniel191159

Again, be careful...there are also atheistic world views that allow a person to draw power from external sources. Again, let's use Buddhism as an example. By opening oneself to the INSIGHT given by Buddha (NOT to Buddha himself) one can attain a state of complete peace, a state of perfect meditation.

Again why should I be careful, what is that all about?

It is irrelevant what other people believe since the question is, "why not believe in God," which the question itself has nothing to do with religion of any kind, or the lack of it in any way?

I am talking about the ability to manifest the gift of God, to exhibit supernatural power, in nine specific, definable, measurable ways, as one of a number of possible benefits for believing in Him.

What argument do we have between us for loss or benefit in believing in God, if what you think the Buddhist think about manifesting spiritual power, is correct or not?

Wouldn't a Buddhist agree that a person should count the potential to personally experience the operations of supernatural miraculous power for themselves as beneficial, if it can be realized or made available as a result of believing in what they perceive to be true also, whatever the truth is that they teach, be it there is a God or there is not?

God is truth or He is not?

Originally posted by daniel191159

These "fruit" are offered by nearly EVERY world-view...NEARLY ever world-view. That means that, in Pascal's Wager, most world-views will offer these same gains. Essentially, they cancel out, leaving us right back at the "judgement call" problem.

Once again I fail to see your point.

What difference does it make what world-view someone may have or may not have?

Belief in God if He exists in reality is not a world view, anymore than belief in gravity would be if it exists, it is simply a belief in what is.

I think we have a misunderstanding, because we are using logic differently.

The way I am using logic here, is by first agreeing on a premise and then reasoning through things from that presupposition.

The premise is that God is real, if that is the case what could be the benefits or losses of believing in Him, to aid in the decision making process.

Your premise appears to be one that says God exists as a metaphorical or philosophical concept of the mind, and from there you are trying to logically establish possible benefits for believing in God.

I doubt you'll find many if you assume God is only a concept of the mind, and believing in him is only an acceptance of the idea of a God.

Philosophical concepts are the last thing people need more of, they don't normally provide a lot of real physical benefit to a persons life.

Response to Newday:

"Why should I be careful, we are talking about possible benefits or losses to be had by believing in God?"

I see the premiss of this not to be "what are the benifits or losses to be had by believing in God" but rather "what are the benifits or losses to be had by believing in god OPPOSED TO not believing in god". Again, a wager. In a wager, BOTH sides should be considered. I say "be careful" because the information was presented as if it was true in the case of believing in god but, through omission, NOT true in the case of atheism. Seeing as this thread deals with the atheistic perspective on the wager I think that the atheist side of the coin should be presented, which your post did not do. I just presented a possible "other side" of the wager that your post left out."


"Why should I care what kind of view of the world Atheists do or do not have, or any one has for that matter, belief in God if He exists is separate from religious or secular belief?"

I never said you SHOULD care. But, this thread IS asking that, in the context of Pascal's Wager (for the ideas of the original poster reflect those in Pascal's Wager), why do people who DO NOT believe in god choose not to believe in god.


"Why should I take you as an example?"

Simple, because the premiss of the thread applies to me. I am an atheist. The thread is directed at atheists. The thread asks for the opinions of atheists. Therefore, the thread asks for my opinion as well as the opinion of all other atheists interested.


"What benefits or losses would you say there are for believing in God, as an example?"

My post, the fourth post on page 3, details my view of the Wager.


"It is irrelevant what other people believe since the question is, "why not believe in God," which the question itself has nothing to do with religion of any kind, or the lack of it in any way?"

My reasons for bringing other specific religious views into the thread was because you presented a one-sided, "salesman's pitch" for the belief in god, more specifically, seeing the aspects of god you present, the Christian belief in god. Also, the premiss of this thread states that other's beliefs ARE relevant to this thread as can be seen in the original post that started the thread. "I would love to hear people explain there reasoning for not believing in God/the Bible/ etc. Then I would like you to check back and see my response to what you put. I'd like the opportunity to convince you otherwise or at least address some of the things you bring up. I urge other believers to help out in sharing information and answering questions that are brought up."-IAPremed.

Asking, "Why should I take you as an example?" in the context of this thread is, due to the premiss of the thread, self-defeating. You should take me as an example because I was welcomed onto this thread (as were my beliefs) by IAPremed through his original premiss, as was every other atheist and believer who posts. Basically, you have posted saying "here is what I believe, I don't care about what everyone else believes". On a board meant to discuss the beliefs of others and then try to change their minds, I hardly think this is productive.

I am an atheist. You are not. By the premiss of this thread, I am invited to post my opinion. By the premiss of this thread, you are invited to try and convince me that my opinion is incorrect.


"Belief in God if He exists in reality is not a world view, anymore than belief in gravity would be if it exists, it is simply a belief in what is."

The "belief in what is" is the very definition of "world-view" as used in my post.


"The premise is that God is real, if that is the case what could be the benefits or losses of believing in Him, to aid in the decision making process."

Actually, you are incorrect. "I would love to hear people explain there reasoning for not believing in God/the Bible/ etc."-IAPremed. This is a clear statement of premiss. If people are being asked for their reasons for not believing in God, then I think it is perfectly logical for them to state the reasons they DO have for believing in what they DO believe in. This would better facilitate the rest of the purpose of this thread: convincing them otherwise. For, how can one convince another if they don't know what they need to change their mind AWAY from.

I do appologize if this post seems like a rant that focuses on your post but I believe your post, particularly the parts "Why should I care what kind of view of the world Atheists have or do not have" and "Why should I take you as an example", to be unproductive and completely out of the original context of the thread. Essentially, you have dismissed the opinions of the very people this thread was meant to appeal to.


"Your premise appears to be one that says God exists as a metaphorical or philosophical concept of the mind, and from there you are trying to logically establish possible benefits for believing in God."

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Maybe I presented my opinion in such a way as to cause you to come to this conclusion. If this is the case, I ask you to help me see your reasoning. However, I do NOT believe that God is just a metaphorical construct of the mind, assuming that he does exist. What I DID do in my explaination of my view through Pascal's Wager is I put myself into two mindsets: one which believes in the existence of God...and me, one that does not. I then presented both sides of the Wager through the eyes of these two mindsets.


"Philosophical concepts are the last thing people need more of, they don't normally provide a lot of real physical benefit to a persons life."

The following is just my opinion and has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to discuss this further I would like to so with U2Us so as not to clutter up the thread:

I believe that philosophical concepts are EXACTLY what people need more of. They allow ALL people, atheists and theists alike, to construct their world view and validate it to themselves and others from their perspective. Essentially, philosophical concepts give a person a means to know themselves.

Well i dare anyone that believes in god prove he exists because so far in my life i have seen jack crap of him nor has he done nothing for me E.G family members dying prematurley family members dying of disease, most of population of africa dying, i tell you and i feel so strongley on this WHERE IS GOD WHEN YOU NEED HIM MOST ha ha i tell you where. NOWHERE, i feel that science has took over and has proved there is no god and he is just a figment of peoples imagination.
i must apologise again if i have offended anybody with my comments but its just the way i feel therefore is my own opinion like anyone else is entitled to there opinion

[edit on 7/23/2008 by altered_states]

Originally posted by daniel191159

I see the premiss of this not to be "what are the benifits or losses to be had by believing in God" but rather "what are the benifits or losses to be had by believing in god OPPOSED TO not believing in god". Again, a wager. In a wager, BOTH sides should be considered. I say "be careful" because the information was presented as if it was true in the case of believing in god but, through omission, NOT true in the case of atheism. Seeing as this thread deals with the atheistic perspective on the wager I think that the atheist side of the coin should be presented, which your post did not do. I just presented a possible "other side" of the wager that your post left out."

Once again why should I be carful, all of that paragraph you wrote above is meaningless to what you said?

The benefits and losses of believing in God, or the benefits and losses of not believing, can be discussed by anyone in any way they choose.

If you feel that the benefits and losses of not believing in God are not being adequately stated then state them yourself, don't tell outer people to be carful about what they say on the subject, or expect them to say things you would like to be said, that is ridiculous..

Both sides do not need to be considered, the question assumes there is no belief in God to begin with, it is only a consideration of the possible benefits or losses to deciding to believe in God.

The question, "why not believe in God." presupposes that the person deciding is already in a state of disbelief in God.

Originally posted by daniel191159

I never said you SHOULD care. But, this thread IS asking that, in the context of Pascal's Wager (for the ideas of the original poster reflect those in Pascal's Wager), why do people who DO NOT believe in god choose not to believe in god.

The notion of me caring is implicit to your command to me to be, "careful." it is a compound word made up of the word, "care," and, "full."

Once again why should I care?

I do not see this tread asking anything like why do people who do not believe in God choose not to believe in God, all you are telling me is the way you are interpreting the thread, which that is your right, just don't drag others into your subtractions.

State what you think needs to be said and stop trying to control what is talked about it is not your place..

The way I am interpreting the question is simply, "why not believe in God." nothing about why choose not to believe in God, not that I am or would be concerned with it anyway if you were to convince me that it was.

Originally posted by daniel191159

Simple, because the premiss of the thread applies to me. I am an atheist. The thread is directed at atheists. The thread asks for the opinions of atheists. Therefore, the thread asks for my opinion as well as the opinion of all other atheists interested.

That does not tell me why I should use your examples, it doesn't even offer any examples for possible benefits or losses for "why not believe in God," the way I interpret the question of the thread, or even "why choose not to believe in God," the way you interpret the question of the thread.

Same again why should I use your examples?

Does the thread ask for the opinion of believers as well as atheist?

I think it asks for everyone's opnion, that is part of what makes it a thread?

Maybe you should use some of my examples then?

Originally posted by daniel191159

My post, the fourth post on page 3, details my view of the Wager.

That is nice but I don't care about your view on the wager, any more than you care about mine.

I am offering detailed possible benefits for consideration for why not believe in God, such as the benefit of being able to manifest spiritual power if you were to decide to stop not believing and start believing in God.

The fruit of the spirit, love, joy, peace, eternal life etc, all potential benefits that are available to those who choose to believe in God.

If you think those things are available as potential benefits to people who decide not to believe in God, then list them as I have for your side of the argument.

You don't have to be carful about it, I give you permission to be whatever way you want to with it.

Don't even give any thought to what I think about it, no one should really care much at all about what other people say or think on a subject, what other people think is pointless really, all that matters is what we do in our own minds.

My question still remains, why should I care what the world view of an atheist is?

Why should I care in context of this discussion we are having, what the world view of anyone is?

Benefits are benefits they can be listed irrespective or a persons world view?

You seem to be having a difficult time grasping the idea of God existing in reality as a presupposition to the question.

All of what I have been discussing begins by assuming that God exists in reality outside of any religion or world view.

I know you are interpreting things differently but bear with me.

If God exists in reality irrespective of what we think or believe then ask yourself what would that mean, then you can see where I am coming from if you care to.

Just as you would say that there is no God because you don't see any evidence of Him, I would say there is, because of the evidence I have seen.

I am talking about factual benefit by the power of God in life and living, not an esoteric concept of a God, but a living and real creator that is capable of interacting in our day to day life and affairs, if or when we decide to believe in Him.

If you have the benefits of the internet in your life, you can enjoy those benefits by experiencing them, it is no different with God.

He is more willing and able to evidence his presence in our lives than we are willing to believe for Him to do it.

God either exists, and is alive and real, or it's a lie, it is that simple.

If you do not believe in Him then all I can do is tell you the ways I know you can benefit, if you decided to change your mind.

I have experienced some of the things that are gained as a result from having already changed my mind from one of disbelief to belief.

God does not have a religion and is no respecter of persons, He is as living and real as you or I are.

There is no need for me to tell you the benefits to not believing in God, I am sure you already know those and are well familiarized with them.

We all begin the same, in disbelief not in belief, and we all are familiar with the benefits of not believing in God, we can have no working understanding experientially of what it is like to believe in God until and unless we decide to try.

Response to Newday:

"The benefits and losses of believing in God, or the benefits and losses of not believing, can be discussed by anyone in any way they choose."

That may be so, but in order to keep to the topic of THIS thread, I feel that blatently promoting Christianity while not even considering the atheistic opinions posted has no place ON THIS thread. But hey, I'm not a mod. That's just my view.


"If you feel that the benefits and losses of not believing in God are not being adequately stated then state them yourself, don't tell outer people to be carful about what they say on the subject, or expect them to say things you would like to be said, that is ridiculous.."

My response to your original post was doing just that. You seem to be very hot-headed about my recommendation that you "be careful". I wonder if you truly grasp what I was saying. Correct me if I am wrong in this: you think I was telling you what to do.

To be honest, my words "be careful" while sounding like a command, were in fact meant to convey to ALL people, not just you, that for the continued purpose of this thread, I feel that both sides SHOULD be considered rather than blatently promoting one side and completely dismissing the other.


"The question, "why not believe in God." presupposes that the person deciding is already in a state of disbelief in God."

The title "why not believe in God" may have been the title of the thread but the premiss is more clearly stated in the author's first post. Do not mistake a title for a premiss (it would ruin a lot of good books )


"Does the thread ask for the opinion of believers as well as atheist?"

The thread asks for the opinions of believers in so far as to convince the atheists that they are wrong. To do this, the atheists opinion must be considered in order to be refuted...It has to be acknowledged...which you blatently refuse to do.


"Maybe you should use some of my examples then?"

In this you are correct...and I have I have read your original post and carefully evaluated it in relation to my world-view. I have considered the possibility that you may be right...but you may also be wrong. I have weighed the two sides and still come up with my opinion standing as the world-view I choose to accept. This is largely because it is relatively easy to defend against an opposing world view when the holder of the world-view acts as if I was invisible and ignores my world view and instead attacks the manner in which I present it


"That is nice but I don't care about your view on the wager, any more than you care about mine."

My view on the wager used my opinion as one of the sides of the wager. That was my reason for referring you to that particular post.


"I am offering detailed possible benefits for consideration for why not believe in God"

Yes, and that is much appreciated. You offered your opinion of why I SHOULD believe in God...now, in keeping with the original purpose of this thread, I ask you this, "Why SHOULDN'T I believe my world-view?"


"If you think those things are available as potential benefits to people who decide not to believe in God, then list them as I have for your side of the argument."

I agree, I didn't mention some of the things you have. My analysis of the wager was incomplete. However, it was incomplete NOT because I chose to ignore those items as you have chosen to ignore my opinion (ie: "why should I care"). Simply put, I didn't think of some of the things you listed, or, at least, I didn't remember them when I posted. Either way, their ommission was certainly not intentional.


"Don't even give any thought to what I think about it, no one should really care much at all about what other people say or think on a subject, what other people think is pointless really, all that matters is what we do in our own minds."

Then why are you posting on a thread whose purpose was specifically stated as wanting to convince others of the belief in god after they present their beliefs and reasons for NOT believing in God? You seem to be a bit out of place in this thread.


"If God exists in reality irrespective of what we think or believe then ask yourself what would that mean, then you can see where I am coming from if you care to."

In my original post, this was Idea A.


For the sake of keeping this thread on topic, can BOTH of us stop using the message board as a means of arguing presentation and move this discussion to U2U's. Thanks.

Originally posted by IAPremed
I noticed that a lot of members on this site stand firm in the belief that God is not real and religion is some kind of a controlling instrument. Then I was thinking, as a Christian, if I'm completely wrong and all those people are correct, then I'm in no trouble. Simply nothing will happen. But if I'm right, and these people are wrong, then they are in a world of trouble. So I'm wondering why people choose to deny God when there's really no incentive.

Why don't you believe in Allah of the Qur'an?

Originally posted by daniel191159


That may be so, but in order to keep to the topic of THIS thread, I feel that blatently promoting Christianity while not even considering the atheistic opinions posted has no place ON THIS thread. But hey, I'm not a mod. That's just my view.

Who is blatantly promoting Christianity, not me, and I see no reason that it even should matter.

Atheism presupposes there is no God in existence, and Christianity presupposes God exists only as an intellectual or philosophical concept, ie the divinity of a godhead, the existence of a trinity that is only one third God.

Christianity does not recognize the existence of God, it suggests the existence of something not fully God, but only God in part.

Christianity forwards only an idea of God, a philosophical construct of the existence of a God embodied in the teaching of the trinity.

There is nothing of Atheism or Christianity intrinsic to the question, "why not believe in God."

God has nothing to do with religion, if He exists in truth as the creator of all things, then He did not start religion, but rather He started life, men then turned the living of life into religious practices and dogma.

The question as I see it is, "why not believe in GOD," not why not believe in Atheism or Christianity.

The question presupposes that God exists, the same as if you ask the question, "Why not believe in bigfoot," that question presupposes that bigfoot exists, otherwise it would be a religious question.

If you believe in something that does not exist you cannot be correct in your belief you can only be incorrect.

All the losses and gains of believing in God are invalidated if He does not exist, just as all the perceived losses and gains of believing in bigfoot are invalidated if in fact no such creature exists.

If you begin your question, "why not believe in God," by assuming that no God exists in reality, then there is no valid gains or losses we can consider to be real and relative to the question, and therefore no reason to ask it.

That is why if you are an atheist you must set aside your belief in the idea that there is no God if you are going to consider the question, "why not believe in God," in ernest.

There are no valid gains or losses to be considered in the question, "why not believe in God," if no God exists, therefore you must suppose that God does exists and that the potential gains and losses to be had from believing in Him are valid and real also.

If you can not do that then your considerations are nothing more than a religious and philosophical exercise to determine which view best suits your tastes at the moment.

If no God exists in reality, then to ask the question."why not believe in God," is nothing more than an intellectual exercise, a personal evaluation of only ideas, an attempt at determining which philosophical flavor you might deem to be best suited to fit with your already predetermined personality, lifestyle, and beliefs.

It isn't honest in my opinion, because you already have a belief before you ask the question, that is a belief in the non existence of God, if you have accepted Atheism.

Why pretend as though we care by asking ourselves, "why not believe in God," if we already have a belief in God, such as there is no God in existence?

If we are going to ask the question, "why not believe in God," in ernest, and have any meaningful evaluation of the potential losses and benefits, we must set aside our predispositions and personal religious beliefs, and accept the premise that God exists in reality outside of all religion, belief, or disbelief, otherwise it is an exercise in futility.

By nature we fall into three situations with regard to our believing things, disbelief, belief, and unbelief.

All of us are born in a state of disbelief having only the potential to believe.

We chose to either believe God exists or believe God does not exist.

Once we accepted a belief we are no longer in a state of disbelief.

Unbelief is a form of apathy towards any belief a person may have, whether it is a belief in the existence of God, or a belief that no God exists.

Most people who are religious are either in a state of disbelief, having never actually believed either way, but only mentally accented to one or the other belief, or they are unbelievers in the sense they have become apathetic towards their belief..

Religion is a devolution of true spirituality, it develops as a result of the systematic denial of the actuality and availability to the individual of the power of God, discarding an active working relationship with the creator, and choosing instead to adopt a system of worship.

Religion breeds apathy towards God as He exists in reality, it builds dependence on dogma and ritualistic practices over personal choice in belief, severing any firsthand relationship which may have been established with the creator by the individual, alienating them from any life that is in God.

I see no need to move my posting to U2U's with you, and I disagree that both sides need to be presented it is a one sided question.

I also have no intention of taking up your suggestion to be carful on the subject, I am sure your feelings will recover from anything I may say that hurts them



[edit on 25-7-2008 by newday]