Reasons

[Ted1205]

I have a few reasons for not believing in god.

1. There is absolutely no evidence.
2. Within all of the religions that believe in a god, there are so many contradictions and just out right denials of reason.
3. Science doesn't really disprove the idea of god, but given the evidence it is very improbably that god exists.
4. If you do not tell a child about god, he/she has no idea of what god is. Now don't you think if there was an all powerful god that something like that would be indoctrinated into our brain.

[WWLD]

I have a few reasons for not believing in god.

1. There is absolutely no evidence.
2. Within all of the religions that believe in a god, there are so many contradictions and just out right denials of reason.
3. Science doesn't really disprove the idea of god, but given the evidence it is very improbably that god exists.
4. If you do not tell a child about god, he/she has no idea of what god is. Now don't you think if there was an all powerful god that something like that would be indoctrinated into our brain.

good points. I like the last one. I've thought about that a couple times myself.

By the way I love that quote

[Eilonnwy]

I agree with the video, but I think it totally misses the point, when facing serious question. I don't assert that you're narrow minded for not believing in God. I call you narrow minded for not entertaining anything not exactly describable by science, now or in the future. Essentially it's fatally flawed. You need to be gullible to think that is conclusive, which I guess supports my point.

No, it doesn't.

First, you're creating a strawman where you essentially assert that atheists close their eyes and go "There is not god! There is no god!"

Most atheists do not choose atheism, it comes from honestly questioning and criticizing your beliefs and then come to the conclusion that they are wrong. Atheists, especially skeptics, are usually the ones that have "entertained" other ideas and eventually come to the conclusion that science is the best method for finding what is true. And if something meets that criteria, it's true. If it doesn't, it's not true until new evidence comes to show it's true.

It is gullible to believe in something without substantial evidence. It is always better to not believe something until there is substantial evidence to change that opinion. We're the ones who are constantly asking for evidence, good evidence, and willing to change our opinion should that evidence come along.

One of my favorite analogies for atheism is to compare it to a trial. In order to be convicted you must present the evidence and show that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, you must conclude they are not guilty, but that DOESN'T make them innocent. That's what atheists and skeptics do, they're holding back belief in something to there is no reasonable doubt that would make that belief false.

I fully admit, that it is possible to not believe in something that is true and find out later that you're wrong. But until that evidence comes along it is always more reasonable to not believe but be willing to change your mind once the evidence shows it to be true. If you don't, then you're open to believing many false things.

It's you who display these attributes you accuse us of. When I pointed out contradictions in the Bible you dismissed them as not holding any water without bothering to even consider them or give your evidence for doing so, which only goes to show you've closed your mind to any contradicting evidence. You're dogmatic in your beliefs and THAT is narrow minded.

[fr0d0]

Just there Eilonnwy you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that without demonstrable proof you will not believe in God. Is that true?

If so, then that puts you in the group that will only consider reasoning with solid proof and not reasoning without solid proof. Your mind is closed to reasoning without solid proof, hence my statement, which applies then to you..

I did point out the problems with your supposed contradictions. That's an unfounded statement.

[Kyuuketsuki]

You don't get it. I have no problem with that. *shrugs*

Yes I do ... 13 years of Catholicism says so!

Again you completely avoid the point.

Everybody else seems to think I not missing the point, that I'm engaging with you in the discussion ... I recall you've already been warned about this kind of behaviour by Adrian.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Mostly Catholicism is precisely NOT Christianity IMO, and that's the opinion of every Christian I know, and every Christian I empathise with.

Not everyone else agrees with you. People here, none of them agreeing with my beliefs, think there's error on both sides. All I can say is that from my POV, I am being truthful. I try to see your POV, and I ask for clarification.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Mostly Catholicism is precisely NOT Christianity IMO, and that's the opinion of every Christian I know, and every Christian I empathise with.

Yes I've heard other cults say that ... I would like to hear some kind of reasoned justification outside of some kind of innate prejudice.

Not everyone else agrees with you. People here, none of them agreeing with my beliefs, think there's error on both sides. All I can say is that from my POV, I am being truthful. I try to see your POV, and I ask for clarification.

Who exactly has agreed with you then?

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Fr0d0

Hey if only considering belief in God if there were any real evidence and not giving it any special consideration... - only believing in God if there were actually any real evidence or 'sustainable proof as you say'... - if that means I'm close minded - then I guess I'm close minded...

As Dawkins says...its important to be open-minded but not so open-minded that your brains drop out.

If not believing in God until there's any real evidence or 'sustainable proof' means I'm close-minded then I guess I'm close minded. If being rational is more close minded than being irrational then I guess I'm close minded...

EvF

[fr0d0]

Mostly Catholicism is precisely NOT Christianity IMO, and that's the opinion of every Christian I know, and every Christian I empathise with.

Yes I've heard other cults say that ... I would like to hear some kind of reasoned justification outside of some kind of innate prejudice.

These things aren't biblical and aren't accepted by the wider church:

• Interercession of saints
  
• Mary as God/ Praying to Mary
  
• Worship of Idols & Idols in Church
  
• Priests as intermediaries for God
  
• The pope is a descendant of Peter
  
• That Peter was ever meant to lead the church
  
• That the Pope is the head of the church
  

Just a few things off the top of my head.

Not everyone else agrees with you. People here, none of them agreeing with my beliefs, think there's error on both sides. All I can say is that from my POV, I am being truthful. I try to see your POV, and I ask for clarification.

Who exactly has agreed with you then?

Kyu

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful I think.

---

As Dawkins says...its important to be open-minded but not so open-minded that your brains drop out.

That's a good excuse for not being open minded isn't it? Or to limit your open mindedness.

All that wordplay aside, you're saying then that you refuse to think about anything which doesn't concern itself with hard physical fact? I don't think Dawkins would be with you there.

[Eilonnwy]

Just there Eilonnwy you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that without demonstrable proof you will not believe in God. Is that true?

Yes.

If so, then that puts you in the group that will only consider reasoning with solid proof and not reasoning without solid proof. Your mind is closed to reasoning without solid proof, hence my statement, which applies then to you..

In order to decide what we will believe in, we MUST have a criteria with which to make those decision. The whole point of the video, which you have clearly missed, was to explain that that being open minded does not mean accepting anything with little or no evidence because then you're extremely susceptible to completely wrong ideas.

Yes, I require proof before I will believe in anything. That's NOT being close minded. Close minded is to not be willing to consider new evidence. I am always willing to consider new evidence. I have changed my mind MANY times based on where the evidence leads me.

If you want to say my mind is closed to reasoning without solid proof, then fine. That is true, but that doesn't make me close minded. It makes me logical since if I did accept reasoning without solid proof I would be free to believe in God, ghosts, psychics, free energy, 9/11 conspiracy theories (I, to my embarrassment, used to believe in this), aliens, detox diets, homeopathy, anti-vaccination, Acupuncture, Ear Candling, Astral Projection, Feng Shui, Dowsing, Numerology, Scientology, this list goes on.

There is a great article in the Skeptical Inquirer called What Open-Mindedness Requires. I highly recommend it, if you have a US library account you can read it here: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/sum...999883_ITM

I will however highlight one excellent quote:

"Open-mindedness, in brief, is not an invitation to give respectful and thoughtful consideration to pseudoscience, paranormal claims, Holocaust denial, and all manner of nonsense and flimflam; these ideas have failed the test of critical scrutiny, and rejecting them simply recognizes the outcome of open-minded inquiry."

I did point out the problems with your supposed contradictions. That's an unfounded statement.

You're right. I forgot where the conversation had gone after you dismissed my link, and I never replied to your response because I forgot. I'm a very busy person so I often just pop in and out of discussions without warning.