A scientific reason to not believe?

[pocaracas]

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.

Indeed I did neglect those, but since our OP is looking for scientific reasons, I'd think that the inclusion of not yet imagined beings would be a bit of a stretch.

[KichigaiNeko]

Notice that the little journey-man hasn't been keeping up with the discussion here. I thought theists were better??

[Cyberman]

Yes, a little simple acknowledgement would be nice, wouldn't it? Even if it's the standard "No your wrong la-la-la i cant here you", instead of the equally-standard 'pull the rope and abandon thread when things start getting sticky' ploy we normally get.

[Mister Agenda]

Evidence of a god, please.


And furthermore, evidence that it is the Abrahamic god and not MIGHTY THOR.

I agree with you that the God of Abraham is not Thor. Thor was a demi-god, not a god. I don't agree with you though that that was a real answer. I think that it was just a refutation to try and get me out of here. You think I'm an annoying Christian. And I find that sad. No one wants to have a real conversation. I thought you atheists were better than that. I thought I would be challenged by academic people. I guess not.

LOL, do you have any idea how many of you 'I thought atheists were better than that' people we get in a year? Stay a Catholic. This is not a site for talking you out of it. If it were up to me, there would be a test you have to pass before you can call yourself an atheist. If you want to have a real conversation, try really conversing instead of throwing out pathetic challenges and whinging about the responses. Especially since the very first response was perfectly adequate.

---

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.

You fail to establish that the series cannot be infinite. If it's not infinite, the first mover could be a quantum vacuum fluctuation. If you want to call that God, knock yourself out.

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.

Again, you have not estabished that an infinite series is impossible. You are basically just saying that you don't like the idea of an infinite series, therefore it cannot be so. Again, there's no reason why your 'First Maker' couldn't be a quantum vacuum fluctuation. You guys will worship anything, won't you?

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.

What property does nothing possess that prevents it from becoming something? In any case, physics leans towards philosophical nothingness being impossible and a quantum vacuum fluctuation always being possible. Apparently the necessary being is the default state of vacuum fluctuations being possible. Worship away.

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.

That we would have no such standards unless there was one being that was perfect in every way is mere assertion.

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.

We have very robust and fruitful explanations for the appearance of design. It turns out the designers are unconscious natural processes. You pagan, you.

PS: You keep using this word 'proof'. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Argument against the existence of God as usually defined #1: All arguments for the existence of God are either fallacious or rest on unfalsifiable premises.

[Kirbmarc]

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

You identity yourself as a Catholic, so I'll give you the main scientific reasons why your faith is wrong (starting from the most specific to the most general one):

a) the Transubstantiation is scientifically impossible. There is no such thing as a "substance" independent from the physical features of bread and wine. And you can't turn bread and wine into human flesh, unless you change the atomic nature of the components of bread and wine. And that's impossible without using an obscene amount of energy. There is no possible source for this kind of energy in a church.

b) Prayers don't work. This has been proven by several statistics.

c) the Resurrection is scientifically impossible. Dead bodies don't come back to life. It would be a violation of the law of entropy.

d) An intelligent, personal god contrasts with the chaotic nature of quantum mechanics and of the origins of the universe. Moreover, you don't need a personal creator to explain the origin and development of life: plenty of evidence (vestigial structures, "junk DNA" tells us that life evolved without a project.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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

The natural world is all there is.

Nothing non-natural exists.

We atheists know it, because what we can't detect with our scientific instruments doesn't exist.

[Gilgamesh]

what we can't detect with our scientific instruments doesn't exist.

This is incorrect.

And never again tell me what I do or do not know.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

what we can't detect with our scientific instruments doesn't exist.

This is incorrect.

And never again tell me what I do or do not know.

Never say never.

[overlord fombax]

This is incorrect.

And never again tell me what I do or do not know.

Never say never.

Never say Bieber.

[Cyberman]

Absolutely. To quote TJ, The Amazing Atheist:

I'm looking at [Bieber's] friends here [in a teen magazine 'article'], this is Ryan I guess and this is Chas. Ryan and Chas, you motherfuckers are dropping the ball as friends. 'Cos the minute that your buddy Justin starting singing in a high-pitched soprano voice about "There's gonna be one less lonely girl", you should've been like BAM! "Don't do that again!"