TL;DR
I not so much claim God doesn’t exist as I reject it. If God can only be “proven” by faith, then it equaly can be “disproven” the same way.
That’s why I have a different (although, in a very minor way) position.
From experience I see that God would be at best indifferent to people. Given the choice to believe in such God I see no logical reason to do so.
Either it exists and need to jump through hoops to get into heaven (especially if our concept of good is not the same) or it doesn’t exist I loose nothing by not believing. I don’t even want to go to heaven, I want to just live with my loved ones and then die. I hate the concept of eternal life, there is no part of me that would want it.
Now looking at christian God I not so much as disprove its existence as reject it. If God can only be believed in then it cannot really be disproven, so the next step for me is just to reject the concept the same way I am required to accept it. If God’s and my human moralities do not align, I do not need such God. Morality, by itself, does not require God or punishment to exist.
Moreover, I don’t want a God that requires belief for a reward. In no way I see it as fair and if God is not fair it’s no god of mine.
You’ve still added god to the picture for no particular reason. The universe doesn’t need a sentient cause there is absolutely no reason to believe it needs one.
Yes, a god is unnecessary. However, discussing religion and faith is inseparable from discussing God. Especially when we’re discussing whether it is good, evil or even exist.
My point is more that you cannot argue a god doesn’t exist with logic and Occam’s razor and whatnot when the other side of the discussion doesn’t operate on logic alone. If you’re arguing faith you have to reject it on the same basis, i. e. faith.
My personal belief is that there is no god. Humanity made up religion as tool for control, morality, education, etc. I see no proof that god should exist and on the premise that it could exist (neither claim is provable) I reject it.
TL;DR
I not so much claim God doesn’t exist as I reject it. If God can only be “proven” by faith, then it equaly can be “disproven” the same way.
That’s why I have a different (although, in a very minor way) position.
From experience I see that God would be at best indifferent to people. Given the choice to believe in such God I see no logical reason to do so.
Either it exists and need to jump through hoops to get into heaven (especially if our concept of good is not the same) or it doesn’t exist I loose nothing by not believing. I don’t even want to go to heaven, I want to just live with my loved ones and then die. I hate the concept of eternal life, there is no part of me that would want it.
Now looking at christian God I not so much as disprove its existence as reject it. If God can only be believed in then it cannot really be disproven, so the next step for me is just to reject the concept the same way I am required to accept it. If God’s and my human moralities do not align, I do not need such God. Morality, by itself, does not require God or punishment to exist.
Moreover, I don’t want a God that requires belief for a reward. In no way I see it as fair and if God is not fair it’s no god of mine.
You’ve still added god to the picture for no particular reason. The universe doesn’t need a sentient cause there is absolutely no reason to believe it needs one.
Yes, a god is unnecessary. However, discussing religion and faith is inseparable from discussing God. Especially when we’re discussing whether it is good, evil or even exist.
My point is more that you cannot argue a god doesn’t exist with logic and Occam’s razor and whatnot when the other side of the discussion doesn’t operate on logic alone. If you’re arguing faith you have to reject it on the same basis, i. e. faith.
My personal belief is that there is no god. Humanity made up religion as tool for control, morality, education, etc. I see no proof that god should exist and on the premise that it could exist (neither claim is provable) I reject it.