Why don't you believe?

. Certitude’s a wonderful thing, so comforting. I can still remember what it’s like from my years as a Catholic. They ended in 1968. …

HOWEVER please be aware if you make a claim like that on an atheist debate forum, you *will be challenged.

Unless thing changed over night, claims about gods cannot be tested. Neither the existence of god(s) nor their non existence has not yet been demonstrated in recorded history.

1 Like

Again there is a rational and epistemological difference between withholding belief from a claim, and making a contrary claim, as you’ve done here a second time.

As for sight and touch, well those senses can be deceived. I prefer to base belief on sufficient objective evidence myself.


Part 2;
So you don’t believe in gravity, radio waves, sound waves, electricity? What about thought and brain waves?

Did you perhaps mean you only believe in things which can be measured?

Expressing your ideas clearly is reasonably important here. At least until we get to know you well enough to work out what you mean.

Does the information in the link below express your position?

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.”


(Why don't you believe?)
Turtles; I don’t believe in turtles. Turtles are a plot by Big Reptile to get you to lower your guard against real reptiles! Think about it: turtles are portrayed in the fantasy “science” books as slow and not having teeth. But REAL reptiles are fast and have teeth! Don’t be fooled!!1!

1 Like

Love the analogy Ny.

Yes and the measurable, demonstrable evidence of “things”.

Maths may provide “proofs”. Time may be needed to demonstrate (eg. E=mc2) … but when the demonstrable evidence actually has an effect in my life and the physical world around us - that’s a beautiful thing :smirk:

Perhaps your wording is sloppy… regardless, a quick click to indicate you are an “atheist” would be great :+1:. It’s the honest thing to do since you claim “there is no god” - puts you right in that camp.

An odd one though because of such a definite, absolute claim of something which hasn’t even been demonstrated to “be”.

Could be you haven’t come to realize or understand that a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

1 Like

We’re all animals. So. Doesn’t offer evidence for proof or disproof of god.

It’s evidence of life on earth that has evolved in all its various forms meeting that particular form’s need to sustain its life.

The actions of predator to prey are neither moral nor immoral. Animals do not have a moral sense, they act from instinct, not reason.

Typically, predators prey on the weak; the old, sick, young. Generally speaking predators improve the species on which they prey. The weak are then less likely to be able to breed.

Of course there are exceptions. In Australia, introduced species can create havoc.EG the domestic cat kills small native animals and birds to the point of extinction.

Your observation raised a bigger issue; the existence of evil and suffering.
Each of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) speak of a god of infinite attributes. IE all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, with infinite love, forgiveness and compassion. With such a god, evil and suffering are impossible by definition, yet they exist.

I’ve often posted this quote here:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?”[3] (Epicurus) Greek philosopher (341-270bce)


What is your first language? Farsi? I speak no Farsi and about 10 words of Arabic.

. It’s common here to discuss complex ideas. I think your English is excellent. If there is anything you don’t quite understand, please ask.

Welcome to Atheist Republic Arash.

There is no “justice” in the natural world, that is a human concept. So if an animal kills another, morality is not involved, it is how the world works. Most of us have been tainted by the religious concept that a god dispenses justice, which is nonsense.

And in one of the greatest perversions of all, based on certain christian doctrines, Hitler went to heaven while Anne Frank went to hell.

But even if we examine this “god has no justice”, that does not disprove a god. If at all, it proves that religions accepting such doctrines got it wrong. There isn’t a god, or a god is not what they explain it to be.

I am of a like mind, I go by what this world presents to me, hot, cold, physical, measureable, and testable objects and energies. Unproveable “spirit” and supernatural stuff is not in my world, I do not waste time being afraid of the boogeyman.

In my opinion, I do not discount a god, I can not prove it does or does not exist. But based on probabilities, conflicting logic, and the complete lack of real evidence, I feel confident stating that the probability of a god is extremely small.

But I will never be foolish enough to state “there is no god” because I can not prove my assertion.


This was your original post. As I said, and others have pointed out, you’re making a claim, and that incurs a burden of proof. I’m not arguing for an extant deity, as I’m an atheist, it states this in my profile, and shows it next to my name.

Thank you, but my observations were not just subjective opinion. It’s an epistemological fact that a claim such as yours above, carries a burden of proof. I can and do, disbelieve in any deity or deties without making a claim of any sort.

You went further and made a claim.

Again I’m an atheist, and again your argument is poorly constructed, sorry. What you’re talking about is called theodicy. For millennia theologians and religious apologists have tried, and failed, to offer a rational argument for the simultaneous existence of an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, and the existence of suffering. In your example, because you didn’t define what type of deity you were arguing against, it would be rational to posit a deity that either didn’t care about suffering, or was powerless to stop it.

Ok one more time then, I’m not arguing that any deity exists, as I’m an atheist.

And your arguments against the existence of a specific type of deity, are not justification of an absolute claim like the one you made above. I’ve emboldened it in the quote, I was merely cautioning you against making claims you cannot sufficiently evidence.

Please be careful and understand some aspects of making a claim. When you do, you must be able to prove it, not just assert it.

There is a statement I assume you will like, and that is “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. Please understand the difference between “evidence” and “proof”. But even that position is not air-tight because of a fallacy known as “The Black Swan Fallacy”.

In Europe all swans were white, and everyone in Europe assumed all swans were white. But European explorers later discovered black swans in Australia.

Just because you have never seen something, do not assume it does not exist.

Black Swan Fallacy… I get that you are a non-native English speaker. I guess I must also assume that you have not actually been around many skeptics and are unfamiliar with the basic fallacies associated with arguments for the existence of god as you keep using the same arguments to justify your own position with regards to the existence of god.

I have never seen nor touched a black swan, therefore, black swans do not exist. The problem is, whether you have seen one or not, they do exist. You have not been to every single spot in the universe and have no idea at all what could be out there. You have no idea at all what is beyond our universe. And yet, here you are, pretending you know shit that you can not possibly know. A classic theistic blunder.,

The fact that you have never seen nor touched a God has no bearing at all, NONE, on its possible existence. There is a whole lot of shit you believe in that you have never seen and never touched.

As you are professing to be an atheist.,… allow me to give you a hand…(avoiding such fallacies.) Atheism is not a positive claim. Atheism is not the assertion “There is no god.”
Atheism is the evidence that the theists have not met the burden of proof in demonstrating that there is a god. “There is no reason to believe theistic claims without evidence for those claims.”

“God Exists” is a claim and it requires facts, evidence, and support if a person intends to make this claim.

“God does not exist” is also a claim and it also requires facts, evidence and support if a person intends on making this claim.

Atheism is the position of REJECTING the first claim as there is little to no evidence supporting it, and, being very carful about using the second claim. I might argue that someone’s specific version of a god does not exist “As they have defined it.” I would do this because ‘obviously’ as they have defined it, it is self contradictory or logically impossible. A perfectly Just God can not also be Merciful. Justice is the suspension of Mercy. This god does not exist. An all loving God, does not sit by and watch acts of Rape or Murder. This God does not Exist. (Not as 'all loving anyway.)

You may want to Google a list of fallacies and begin familiarizing yourself with them. It will serve you well.

Forming an argument is the basis for debate, and this is a debate forum, and discussion and debate are not mutually exclusive.

Beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, they can’t simply be asserted.

And I gave a detailed response of how they were flawed arguments. Best you address those.

Please don’t try to tell me what I can do, and I chose neither, as I can give counter arguments to yours, and if you offer absolute claims, as you did in the post I quoted, and without evidence, then I will dismiss it in the way it was offered.

Atheism is not a claim, nor a belief.

1 Like

Not sure what you mean.

Do you mean you don’t believe in evil as an objective reality, such as an evil being? Me neither.

Nor do I believe that evil occurs in nature, because nature nature is not a being with a moral sense, but simply the reality of existence. Nor can a disease be evil or cruel for the same reason.

Men commit deeds which we label evil because of the harm they do and suffering they cause.

I’m not even sure if there is a universally accepted definition of the word ‘evil’. I’ve simply posted my perception. I could be quite wrong.


Keep posting, that will help improve your English. Are you able to practice your spoken English? I encourage you to do as much as you can. With a native English speaker if possible. That will teach you to speak vernacular English, if that’s what you want.


“Grown-ups with imaginary friends are dumb”. I don’t believe in any god/gods because it’s all too good to be true. If the worst mass-murderer or pedophile can be “saved” by just asking for forgiveness at their moment of death, like some christians believe, then that god is immoral and can go pound sand you know where.

No it doesn’t. The reason is that it’s an argument from ignorance / argument from incredulity fallacy.

What he’s saying is " I’m too ignorant, lacking in imagination or stupid to think of anything else, therefore it’s silly/dumb."

The ‘too good to be true’ claim shows the same shallow thinking.

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

  1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
  2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one’s inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]


I lack a belief in any god. Therefore it is up to the theist making the god proposition to offer a definition. The thing is, every “god” definition I have encountered has not been proven or fails the simple test of rational skeptical logic.

I will offer an example. Some christians claim their god answers prayers. But a simple study reveals that prayers have poorer odds than a flip of a coin. Additionally, most prayers are never answered. Just go to the chapel of any hospital and note that many people pray there, and unfortunately, they are for those who are dying, and do die.

It’s pretty broad. I guess I’d say something like a non physical, superior, supernatural being.

There are thousands of religions and literally millions of gods people worship. (Hinduism alone has 15 million)

I do not believe in: God(s), the soul, heaven, hell, angels, djins, demons, ghosts, the supernatural, fortune tellers of all kinds, faith healers, mediums, the paranormal, divinely revealed truths of any kind , dragons, mountain trolls, or fairies at the bottom of my garden. I disbelieve in all those things for the same one reason; a lack of empirical evidence.

Oh, add alternative medicine to the list.----alternative medicine which works is called medicine. I just thought of another; Mohammed’s flying horse Buraq.

1 Like

Wrong again! Your brain is confined to one version of a god. Pantheism and asserts everything is god. Hinduism is pantheistic. A Hindu bows to the god within you as a greeting. All things are god and God is merely playing hide and seek with itself. Everything is evidence for god, even your doubt.

Deism asserts a god that created everything and left. This god exists someplace else and has no interest at all in its creation. It’s just out there someplace. Praying is futile. Of course you have no evidence for this god, it has left you on your own.

The shallowness of your imagination and the lack of understanding you have towards the arguments for the existence of gods are exemplified in each and every assertion you make. You may want to avoid sweeping generalizations.

I happen to believe that the argument from “lack of evidence is evidence for non-existence,” is one of the stronger positions with regards to many gods but the god must be properly identified prior to challenging it with this particular position.

That’s not strictly true, you presented an argument for the absence of a deity that had specific characteristics.

You are still not understanding the objections raised to your earlier arguments alongside your absolute claim 'no deity exists."