I am convinced that gods don’t exist.
I don’t think I’ve seen it expressed this way. Yes, it’s been alluded to, or said that way in a long narrative, but never as a stand alone statement.
I’ve seen this expressed as “belief”, but that word has some unintended baggage and seems to prompt the response “Prove it!”. I’m not sure “convinced” has that affect.
Further, it more accurately reflects my own posture – and I suspect many others.
So why isn’t this used more?
Probably because you have posited what seems to be an unfalsifiable idea. Thus the only the only rational position is to withhold belief from it. I am not convinced any deity exists, and thus don’t believe in any deity or deities, which makes me an atheist, and further I don’t believe a deity is possible, until someone demonstrates this with sufficient objective evidence. Epistemologically this is as far as I can go. Though I’d accept that the claim a deity exists is the larger claim, and thus carries the larger burden of proof.
On what are you basing your conviction? (This is the problem… you can either justify your position or you cannot.) Your choices are to justify your conviction, which you cannot do, or avoid the request to offer evidence. You are asserting what you believe to be true about the world around you.
Imagine this in another realm. I am convinced Biden is an idiot. (Did you hear the Biden supporters scream? “What. You like Trump!’ What’s your evidence.” “Why don’t you like Biden.” ) Now you can hate Biden, Trump, or anyone you like but when you make the claim that you believe ‘X is an idiot.’ you are in fact, asserting something about the state of affairs in the world ‘as you believe them to be.’ You can defend your position or walk away from the debate. Those are your choices. Walking away is cause for the other person to chalk up a win for their side. Obviously, you are stupid and your opinion does not matter because you could not defend it.
This is true of any belief you are convinced of, and opt to share. I am convinced Fords are great cars. I am convinced the carnivore diet is the best diet out there. As long as you keep the belief to yourself, you are correct. You don’t need to justify it. You also just don’t need to justify it at all. But no one is going to take anything you say seriously if you don’t justify it. You’re just shooting off your mouth and that is easy to ignore. (reminds me of a rat I know).
I don’t believe in god or gods. For all intents and purposes, I am at least 99% confident that I have no good reason to believe in God or gods. Hold a gun to my head and I might change my mind. LOL
You are in an extremely weak position if you try to defend the assertion. “There is no evidence?” “Black swan fallacy. The fact that you have not seen the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist.” “Evil in the world?” “Obviously, God is testing. All evil is due to man’s disobedience.” It does not matter where you wiggle, the apologists have a response.
This is why, when someone asserts that a god exists, we ask them how they know, which god, and to define the god they are talking about. The god concept is not defensible. The more information they give you, the more you can hold against them. (The reverse is true when you argue against a god.)
Okay, with that said, arguing against a specific version of a god is much easier. I believe that god does not exist and here is why. For example: A god that is both just and merciful does not exist. Mercy is the suspension of justice. The god can be merciful or just, but not both. A god that exists beyond time and space is a silly idea. Existence is temporal. A god that exists for no time and in no space is nonexistent. I certainly believe some gods don’t exist.
Now there is another set of gods that the deists propose. A creator god that creates and then vanishes to leave us on our own. There is no evidence for or against such a god. Everyone agrees. My assertion is, 1. I have no reason to believe in such a thing. 2. As it has no influence on the world and has produced no evidence, it is exactly like a nonexistent god. A deist god and a nonexistent god are the same thing. 3. How did the deist come to know the unknowable?
Okay, it’s late and I am tired and rambling. Hopefully, there is some sense in this. The stronger position is to always ask the theists which god they are talking about and why they believe in that god. It is not the job of the atheist to go about the world debunking all the various god claims. The burden of proof for such claims is on the believers. The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim.
I am convinced that I am unconvinced…🫨
But have you ever been wrong about one of your convictions? Being convinced isn’t a good model for understanding life the world and everything. I’m convinced you are god and trolling the forum to see who is naughty and who is nice.
Reluctantly I admit that once I was wrong…it was when I was convinced that I was mistaken…
Only a god would have made such a response. Follow the holy Skriten!
Yes, follow me …and be sure and bring your largest fishing tackle…
2 things:
If there were deities, then there wouldn’t be things that happen that shouldn’t and things that shouldn’t happen that do.
There has been plenty of time and plenty of attempts to prove their existence, but nothing credible has been put forth.
Yes, justifying my position, which I did above. I assume I don’t have to talk about “proving a negative” around here.
So I take issue with your assertion that I can not justify my conviction.
Taking this a step further, a lot has been said about the fact that one can not prove a non-existent deity. But proof is not needed for justification. Close enough is … ah … close enough.
You may not agree that that is “justification”, but that doesn’t change the fact that I think it is enough. I don’t have to justify it to you. I only have to justify it to myself - and I am convinced.
But going back to my question, why isn’t this stated this way more often.
How under god’s green earth did you conclude that you know how any deity would behave?
Your second point is an Argumentum Ad Ignorantium fallacy.
Why did you bring this drivel here if you don’t care what anyone else thinks about it?
What sorts of things are you claiming happen that shouldn’t. What mechanism/s have you used to determine that these things should not happen?
Have you examined all attempts? Are you asserting that nothing credible has been put forth for all folks or nothing credible in your specific opinion?
This would depend on the concept of deity being posited. For example desim posits a deity that where neither of those need be expected, ,but of course this is because the deity posited is very carefully indistinguishable from a non-existent one.
Whilst this is a reason to disbelieve any claim a deity exists, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to claim this assert this demonstrates a deity does not exist. This exactly encapsulates the difference between disbelieving such claims, which is how atheism is defined, and making a contrary claim. Though people making such claims would of course also be atheists, as they would by necessity lack belief in any deity or deities.
That’s not how debate works, and since you brought your claim to a public debate forum, then yes anyone is entirely justified in demanding you properly and objectively evidence the claim. Which you have tacitly admitted is impossible here:
This suggests your claim is an unfalsifiable one, and thus I would be justified in being agnostic about it, but withholding belief from it. Exactly the same as I would when theists posit an unfalsifiable deity.
As I said above:
Then justify it. How did you eliminate millions of gods? How do you know a deist god is not real? How have you checked every corner of the universe? (It really does not matter what you think. Your conviction “No god exists!” is impossible to demonstrate. You don’t have the means, the time, or the intelligence.
Please justify the position that “No God Exsists.”
No, close enough is “Close” and not a justified true belief. You can believe it, but if your belief is only close enough, you have to admit that it is NOT completely justified. (There may be an exception.)
Then, as in the examples above, you sound like a wind-blowing blow-hard with nothing backing up anything you say. To quote the Late Great Hitchens: “That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.”
Then justify it to yourself and don’t let people know what you believe. Never have a conversation about it and you are good to go. I believe you don’t understand skepticism, and so, you sound like an idiot, and I don’t have to justify my comments to anyone. I believe the moon is made of green cheese and I don’t have to justify my belief to anyone. I’ve got a question for you… "How flat do you believe the Earth actually is?’ You go ahead and believe your unjustifiable claims. What’s the ole saying? “Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot than it is to open your mouth and prove it.”
How many times do I need to go over the same response?
You have example after example sitting in front of your face. Believe what you want to believe but when you openly state it, you have made a claim about the way you believe the world to be. You can now defend your claim, or refuse to defend your claim. Refusing makes you look like an idiot who runs around making erroneous claims and never backing them up. Do that if you want to. It’s your life. You are throwing away your respect.
Ok, are we allowed to group gods together or do we have to do them one at a time?
Either way, at what point can we declare we’ve done enough because clearly we can’t do them all.
Help me understand why, then, are you posting in a debate forum.
Please reread your statement and consider whether you can ever do enough to come to your prior conclusion(s)…
If you insist on continuing with your position, then you will likely find very few who will care to entertain your notion of being convinced without any justification to do so.
Of course you are welcome to take any position you choose, but if you expect agreement here, or don’t care if anyone agrees, then