A scientific reason to not believe?

[Zen Badger]

Can anyone give me a scientific reason not to be a "believer"?

Read your bible, that's generally enough to kill belief in your murderous arsehole of a god.

[KichigaiNeko]

is this your intro thread??

I suspect it is also his exit thread.
He made it so he can go back to his fellow sheep and tell them how he vanquished the terrible atheists. I think its a right of passage.

The xtians are such petty small mind bumfucks eh DBPb??

Ah me. It is more and more about who has the biggest dick than who has the most intellectual capabilities... thank-you to ALL our religious try hard wannabes on these boards ...

Keep making fools of yourselves for our amusement and vindication.

Happy Holidays!
Your god hates you

[pocaracas]

Can anyone give me a scientific reason not to be a "believer"?

A Scientific reason: the observable fact that there is more than one religion.
These religions are, for the most part (at least) mutually exclusive. That means that, at best, only a small set of religions can be true.
Which means that all the others are wrong.
How did these come to be? hmmm... human imagination! There's no other way.

How do we figure out which religion, if any, is the correct one?
As far as I'm aware, we can't.
- Number of believers is just a measure of how gullible people are, or how aggressively the belief in that particular deity was enforced.
- Written word... completely falsifiable by humans.

- I'd expect some actual interaction of this deity with our world, but we see no such interaction.

If we can't decide on which religion is true, then.... the most honest option is that all are likely false and man-made!

[Norfolk And Chance]

You think I'm an annoying Christian.

I fucking know it.

[Napoléon]

Another patronising turd.

[Cyberman]

Null Hypothesis

There you go. Knock yourself out.

I learned nothing other than I already knew. Please, give me something useful.

That's up to you. You didn't ask for a scientific reason for being an atheist, nor even for a scientific reason not to believe. You asked if anyone can give you a scientific reason not to believe, which is what I did. What you do with what I gave you is nothing to do with me.

I feel like no one around here actually knows why they are atheist. It seems to me that its just a bunch of people with anti-religious sentiment talking about how much they hate religion for whatever reason. I don't see much real evidence for me to become an Atheist.

Now you're being patronising and insulting. Is there really any need for that, particularly when I was trying to help?

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's the trouble Howie. You were asked for evidence and you gave arguments. Now, four of your five arguments are variations on special pleading (the fifth is a bare assertion). That's a problem in and of itself..but suppose that it weren't? Suppose that you managed to offer an argument that did not defeat itself, a valid argument. You would still require evidence that it's premise and assertions are sound. Garbage in, garbage out. If your valid argument is built upon incorrect information you -may- reach a conclusion that is "correct", but it wouldn't be for the reasons offered. Nothing that you offered is proof of a god, unfortunate, but true. Meanwhile there remains a distinct lack of evidence. That's all that science deals in, evidence and explanations. You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to believe in any fairy tale, of any stripe, that's your own business, no one and no thing is beholden to you for a reason not to believe.

Handle your shit. Carry harder (hi lilly).

[Cato]

Another christian demanding evidence for the non-existent.

Howie,
You asked for scientific reasons for not believing, but only give philosophical arguments for believing. Start with Hume. His arguments are only 200+ years old.

Also, why do you assume we're not familiar with William Lane Craig? Here's a nice site that pushes through his tired arguments:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/

[genkaus]

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

Wrong. You are ignoring any and all self-initiated motion.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

Wrong. Its the same argument as the first one - just in different words.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

Wrong again. Absence of necessary being does not imply "there would've been nothing at some point". Further, even if there is such a thing as a necessary being, it may not be intelligent or sentient - ergo, not necessarily god.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

Wrong. See Marmoutiers' perfect island analogy as refutation of Anselm's argument 

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

Wrong. Circular reasoning. You assume an intelligent purpose behind the design from the get-go. The hole in the ground is not perfectly designed for the shape of the puddle in it.


What amazes me the most is the sheer stupidity and ignorance of religitards like you. These arguments are not new - in fact, they've been around for hundreds of years. And they have been summarily refuted since the moment of their conception - something you can easily find out by a simple google search. And yet you continue to present them again and again as if it is some new and amazing wisdom.

[Angrboda]

Can anyone give me a scientific reason not to be a "believer"?

A Scientific reason: the observable fact that there is more than one religion.
These religions are, for the most part (at least) mutually exclusive. That means that, at best, only a small set of religions can be true.
Which means that all the others are wrong.
How did these come to be? hmmm... human imagination! There's no other way.

How do we figure out which religion, if any, is the correct one?
As far as I'm aware, we can't.
- Number of believers is just a measure of how gullible people are, or how aggressively the belief in that particular deity was enforced.
- Written word... completely falsifiable by humans.

- I'd expect some actual interaction of this deity with our world, but we see no such interaction.

If we can't decide on which religion is true, then.... the most honest option is that all are likely false and man-made!

You neglect the much larger class of religions which nobody has invented, described or endorsed, but which hit on all the same cylinders as the exemplars provided. This class is not necessarily infinite, but it is so uncountably huge that the probability of any one religion - known and/or imagined, or neither - being the correct one, converges on zero pretty dramatically. If you were a betting man, you'd be more likely to collect on a wager that you'd be hit by lightning three times on your way to work than that you've chosen the right one. Yet people still leave their houses, and still find reasons to believe.