Reasons not to believe in God

[lightgigantic]

(By way of reminder, the following is in reference to my early life experience with a family that lost 3 children to a congenital birth defect. Each of the boys wasted away for several years, in such suffering that could only be characterized as cruel, if you actually believe God chose for this to happen to them -- particularly if you are a Fundamentalist who thinks God visits the sins of the parents upon the children. The parents were saintly people who could not remotely be categorized as sinners whose sons needed to be tortured and killed to teach them a lesson.)

For as long as one entertains the notion that one life is all there is, death certainly becomes hard to reconcile.

Otherwise death doesn't really present an issue regardless whether one is 1 minute or 101 years old

It must have been hard for ancient societies to accept that bad things could happen to them without cause. In the course of their development of superstitious explanations for suffering, sickness, injury and death, they must have come up with a pool of inexplicable causes which they tied up in a bundle and called God.

Like you say, life is a crap shoot, whether you talk about the biological processes that randomly mix to form gametes, and the subsequent randomness of fertilization, to the random way things can go wrong in the embryonic development, and from there all of the random ways infection and injury can ravage, maim, torture and kill individuals.

It would be easier to hold the Enlightenment view of the Deists, that there is a God who merely created the Universe, but who does not hang around after creation to mess with his little Frankensteins, wreaking havoc on them for arbitrary, unjust, angry and envious reasons.

The reason not to believe in God is not just that the model of God interfering with reality is so absurd. The reason is that all ideas of God stem from superstition.

On the contrary, its certainly hard for a conditioned living entity to understand that they (or anyone else for that matter) are not the body

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Actually, I said it was irrelevant, first, thief.

I looked through our discussion and didn't see that.
If I'm not wrong, an apology would be nice. Thanks.

The reason it is not relevant is that if we assume there was a pattern (A far-fetched assumption since, again, we are talking of evidence of a God and an invisible pattern is not evidence) that "pattern" would still contradict a Creation God since that pattern is based on trial and error rather than design.

Why a ''far-fetched assumption''?

Whenever you ask a modern atheist why they don't believe in God, they are most likely to say ''lack of evidence'', yet here you are clearly side-stepping anything that could imply at least some kind of intelligence. Why do I get the feeling that before you believe in God, hell would have to freeze over (FOS)?

Because observational evidence strongly supports it. It has been observed in bacterial cultures in the lab where generations of bacteria can pass rather quickly - think of it as an evolutionary high speed camera. The fossil record also supports that likelihood since eons are required to show variation and speciation.

And observational evidence sticks, right?
Maggots spontaneously spring from rotting meat, and the cell is gloop. Right?

No, it isn't. You seem to be claiming here that I actually believe in the FSM. I would like to think you know better than that...

No, I'm claiming that you are using it as a reason, meaning what you are accusing me of, I can accuse you of...

That's quite a stretch, just to hang onto a belief you hold that lacks evidence...

Yes, I did. You for some unknown reason claiming that I didn't does not mean I didn't- you quoted the answer. If you don't like the answer- tough. If you don't understand the answer- ask for clarification. But I did answer it and I think I answered it well enough.

The question was: Why don't you believe in [that] God (emphasis mine)?

Given that I used to be in the Ministry, I think you need to make less assumptions.

I thought I detected a certain warmth from you, despite the cold exterior you portray. Try not to lose that.

I'm not sure, however, why you think this means you have given alot of thought to ''God''.

Just because I reached a different conclusion than you have does not mean I gave it no thought.

What conclusion have you reached, apart from expressing the modern atheist spiel?
Give me an example within our discourse, of something that shows you have given thought to God.

Frankly, I would think I gave it more thoughtful effort than you have because you still believe in the absurd self-contradicting mass of myth.

So, because I haven't arrived at the same conclusion as you, I'm wrong?

jan.

 

[wynn]

For as long as one entertains the notion that one life is all there is, death certainly becomes hard to reconcile.

Otherwise death doesn't really present an issue regardless whether one is 1 minute or 101 years old

On the contrary, its certainly hard for a conditioned living entity to understand that they (or anyone else for that matter) are not the body

Oh, but even just considering that one may not be the body - that already takes almost all the fight out of human interactions! If one isn't the body, then what else is there to fight about? (Other than, perhaps, "God loves me more than you, therefore you need to subject yourself to me.")

And for many people, fighting is pretty much the only pleasure they have in life.

 

[wynn]

So, because I haven't arrived at the same conclusion as you, I'm wrong?

Isn't that obvious?!

Lol.

 

[wynn]

It must have been hard for ancient societies to accept that bad things could happen to them without cause. In the course of their development of superstitious explanations for suffering, sickness, injury and death, they must have come up with a pool of inexplicable causes which they tied up in a bundle and called God.

Must? Why must?

Who held guns to their heads or knives to their throats, threatening to kill them that unless they come up with superstitious explanations?

The reason not to believe in God is not just that the model of God interfering with reality is so absurd. The reason is that all ideas of God stem from superstition.

It's more like all of your ideas of God stem from superstition.

It must have been hard for ancient societies to accept that bad things could happen to them without cause. In the course of their development of superstitious explanations for suffering, sickness, injury and death, they must have come up with a pool of inexplicable causes which they tied up in a bundle and called God.

Like you say, life is a crap shoot, whether you talk about the biological processes that randomly mix to form gametes, and the subsequent randomness of fertilization, to the random way things can go wrong in the embryonic development, and from there all of the random ways infection and injury can ravage, maim, torture and kill individuals.

It would be easier to hold the Enlightenment view of the Deists, that there is a God who merely created the Universe, but who does not hang around after creation to mess with his little Frankensteins, wreaking havoc on them for arbitrary, unjust, angry and envious reasons.

The reason not to believe in God is not just that the model of God interfering with reality is so absurd. The reason is that all ideas of God stem from superstition.

It's interesting how the sense of entitlement backfires: people who feel entitled to have the Universe work as they please, also have convictions like "life is a crap shoot," "God is imaginary," or a fire-and-brimstone brand of theism.

 

[Balerion]

Anything but take responsibility for your perceptions and your intentions.

Bravo.

So in your world, how you are perceived by the rest of the world is everyone else's responsibility, and not your own?

I've heard of passing the buck, but this really does reach a new low in personal accountability. Is it really such an alien concept that you're responsible for how you present yourself? Really?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Complex? Not at all. All God has to do is make himself known as a physical being. He's God. He could figure out a way to do it. Just let all humans know he exists for starters. Then, once he's with us and working with us, how bout some solutions? Cure to cancer? Guaranteed protection of all babies and children until 18? Worldwide consensus on religion leading to peace and cooperation. The benefits of this scenario are obvious. Why couldn't he do it?

Something like a heavenly dictatorship? World wide consensus? Compulsory religious checks. Spiritual manipulations etc.
You are not suggesting that extreme view, but careful thought will bring all those issues up.

In the end if God is love then force will not come into it, hence freedom for sinners to do what they want and create their own dramas.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Thank you.



And yet it was no big deal for Moses, whom he spoke to face-to-face. Odd, that.



Jesus didn't float down, he was born like any regular person would be. The same "miracles" he "performed" happen nightly in a big tent somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line. I'm talking about literally floating down for all to see. We draw a pretty big crowd for a glittery ball in Times Square every year, I think the Lord descending from heaven could do big ratings.

Maybe not American Idol big, but still.



Mass hysteria is a real phenomenon, but we're talking about an event that could be recorded on video. We'd have proof. I mean, if a guy climbs to the top of the Empire State building, there's gonna be footage.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, nor do I particularly care. We're not talking about a reality in which everyone believes in God, we're talking about ways in which non-believers could be made to believe.



I'm talking about God floating to the earth and saying "Okay, I'm going to shut off the sun for five seconds. Ready?" The "foretold thousands of years before" stuff is just superstitious nonsense, and I'm not surprised people didn't buy it. Everything he did was done intentionally to fulfill the prophecy, so it's hardly fair to say he actually fulfilled the prophecy. It would be like if I rode into town on a donkey and claimed to be Jesus. Hey, I fulfilled the prophecy, therefore, by your logic, I must be Jesus.



Save your low-rent proselytizing for the echo chamber. It's not wanted here.



Accidents can be beautiful, you know.



More like God has damaged the mind and alienated it from reality. It's a shame your vision is so occluded. The world really is amazing, yet you're enthralled by the obscene ramblings of illiterate desert nomads from the Bronze Age. That would be like me saying that I really enjoy alchemy. (Which the folks who wrote your bible did, by the way)

A long standing prophecy is far more convincing than a local and temporary frenzy.

Only the shepherds and the wise men of the east found Christ.

"A wicked and perverse generation seeks after a sign."

 

[The Marquis]

When you get right down to it, no one needs a reason not to believe in god.

Quoting passages from the bible, commenting on world events and speculating on how god could allow the things men do, is all just fluff disguising a great anger at Him and a certain petulant rejection that he doesn't care as much as you do.

Those who actually don't believe in god, simply don't.

 

[elte]

Oh, but even just considering that one may not be the body - that already takes almost all the fight out of human interactions! If one isn't the body, then what else is there to fight about? (Other than, perhaps, "God loves me more than you, therefore you need to subject yourself to me.")

And for many people, fighting is pretty much the only pleasure they have in life.

Indeed, we should think about it as fighting against inferior ideas rather against the person. Unfortunately so many people pursue the thrill of conflict and dominance rather than the esteem from fighting harmful things like poverty, disease, and lack of knowledge.

 

[wynn]

So in your world, how you are perceived by the rest of the world is everyone else's responsibility, and not your own?

I've heard of passing the buck, but this really does reach a new low in personal accountability. Is it really such an alien concept that you're responsible for how you present yourself? Really?

Logical fallacies have always been your forte.

 

[wynn]

When you get right down to it, no one needs a reason not to believe in god.

Quoting passages from the bible, commenting on world events and speculating on how god could allow the things men do, is all just fluff disguising a great anger at Him and a certain petulant rejection that he doesn't care as much as you do.

Those who actually don't believe in god, simply don't.

Heh.
Before he converted, CS Lewis was an avid atheist, and in his own words, "angry with God for not existing."

 

[geeser]

Heh.
Before he converted, CS Lewis was an avid atheist, and in his own words, "angry with God for not existing."

Then in his own words he is stating he is not and never was an atheist. He claimed he became an atheist at 15, though he later described his younger self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing" he believed that religion was a duty and a chore. So no he was never an atheist. Just an anti-theist/anti-religious, a very different thing entirely.

 

[Magical Realist]

Something like a heavenly dictatorship? World wide consensus? Compulsory religious checks. Spiritual manipulations etc.
You are not suggesting that extreme view, but careful thought will bring all those issues up.

In the end if God is love then force will not come into it, hence freedom for sinners to do what they want and create their own dramas.

If the publically open existence of your God poses some kind of dictaorship or enslavement of human beings, then that's a problem with YOUR belief in a God. It merely provides us with another good reason not to believe such an absurd proposition: the very existence of an omnipotent being constitutes a violation of free choice for humans.

 

[lightgigantic]

When you get right down to it, no one needs a reason not to believe in god.

Quoting passages from the bible, commenting on world events and speculating on how god could allow the things men do, is all just fluff disguising a great anger at Him and a certain petulant rejection that he doesn't care as much as you do.

Those who actually don't believe in god, simply don't.

The moment one steps outside of the atheism of rocks and chairs, one most certainly does need a reason to not believe in god.

IOW when it comes to any world view, for or against, it is about reasons. There is no avoiding this.

 

[lightgigantic]

If the publically open existence of your God poses some kind of dictaorship or enslavement of human beings, then that's a problem with YOUR belief in a God. It merely provides us with another good reason not to believe such an absurd proposition: the very existence of an omnipotent being constitutes a violation of free choice for humans.

I think the problem is that you are neglecting to factor in the purpose of the material world in the first place. IOW its generally accepted as an "alternative" to heaven/the spiritual world (a place where you can do stuff that you just can't do in the spiritual world ... which then has the consequences of giving - usually bad - experiences that make the material world unique. Hence god constitutionally appears there as a mere "option" (through the avenue of ignorance/illusion of course).

IOW its not an effective argument to talk about god improving the material world by establishing modes of existence (free from pain, death and anxiety, etc) that are unique to the spiritual world

 

[wynn]

The moment one steps outside of the atheism of rocks and chairs, one most certainly does need a reason to not believe in god.

IOW when it comes to any world view, for or against, it is about reasons. There is no avoiding this.

It's not clear how this is the case.

"Reasons" seem to come up only as hindsight justifications for or against a particular premise.
Moreover, those reasons may be very specific to the social context in which they are brought up - for example, the reasons one gives for one's (a)theism to one's parents may be entirely different than those one gives to one's friends, and those again different from those one gives to one's boss if the topic comes up.

I really don't think that as far as spirituality/religion are concerned, there are people who list reasons for or against something, and then based on that list, decide to believe it or not.
Although I suppose typically atheists and those who don't believe in spirituality in any way, shape or form, do go about their non-belief or lack of belief that way.

Of all the theists I have talked to or read and who claim to believe in God for this it that reason, it always turned out after some discussion that they are just sophisticated agnostics.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not clear how this is the case.

"Reasons" seem to come up only as hindsight justifications for or against a particular premise.
Moreover, those reasons may be very specific to the social context in which they are brought up - for example, the reasons one gives for one's (a)theism to one's parents may be entirely different than those one gives to one's friends, and those again different from those one gives to one's boss if the topic comes up.

I really don't think that as far as spirituality/religion are concerned, there are people who list reasons for or against something, and then based on that list, decide to believe it or not.
Although I suppose typically atheists and those who don't believe in spirituality in any way, shape or form, do go about their non-belief or lack of belief that way.

Of all the theists I have talked to or read and who claim to believe in God for this it that reason, it always turned out after some discussion that they are just sophisticated agnostics.

The modes of nature explain why someone sometime may opt for lifestyle that gives rise to reasons (tamas) or reasons that give rise to a lifestyle (sattva) ... or even alternatively a lifestyle that conflicts with one's reason (rajas)

 

[wynn]

The modes of nature explain why someone sometime may opt for lifestyle that gives rise to reasons (tamas) or reasons that give rise to a lifestyle (sattva) ... or even alternatively a lifestyle that conflicts with one's reason (rajas)

Now that's a nice play of words you have there!

the modes of nature explain why someone sometime may opt for lifestyle that gives rise to reasons (tamas)

By this you mean people like armchair philosophers?

 

[lightgigantic]

Now that's a nice play of words you have there!




By this you mean people like armchair philosophers?

By tamas I mean that a person is a victim of their lifestyle - IOW because they lead a life that they do, all their subsequent ruminations on reason and world view stem from it. IOW they are powerless to change their way of life. Regarding armchair philosophers, I guess it would depend on what they did when they got out of the armchair