*Ahem* slight rant

TeddyTedson

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

Anyone else agree?

Excuse the crass nature of my post.

MagicMarker

Perfectly acceptable reason to not believe, I'd hope it's not the only reason though.

mehfesto

Yeah, I doubt it's the only reason for 99% of most atheists.

5uspect

I don't see where organised religion comes into this.

TeddyTedson

I don't know why I post these things when 5 mins later I start to disagree with myself :rolleyes:

UDP

I think it is that many atheists believe if there is a god then he is a d!ck.

TeddyTedson

But some people say the likes of the USA (stay with me on this, I'm not trying to say the USA is a God:pac:) should not interfere in a country like Libya and let the civilization there overcome the regime.
If there is a super natural perhaps it's similar thinking.

It's also the same on the nature channels where humans try not to interfere with wildlife as it could upset the habitat.

Dades

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

That seems a perfectly valid and very big reason to lack belief in the existence of a benevolent god. It is usually the precursor to the "mysterious ways" claim that sinks every theist argument.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

I can't imagine why. The problems with organised religion are completely separate to the god argument you mention.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Anyone else agree?

Not me anyway.

fitz0

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

Thats a bit of a jump. Bad things being allowed to happen just provides strong circumstantial evidence that the loves-you-all god doesn't exist. Polytheistic religions have gods whose duties involve regularly smiting their worshippers. It really helps with the fearful awe factor. If the loves-you-all Christian god exists, he's just being a bit of a twat telling us he loves us all then promptly ravaging all of Africa with disease and starvation, allowing NAMA to exist or inflicting SARS, HIV or some other god-awful (pun intended) plague upon us. If that god exists, I'm certainly not worshipping him/her/it or even being nice to him/her/it.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

That image always comes to mind when somebody talks about organised religion. Rebellion against religion is not always the cause of a persons lack of belief. It certainly wasn't for me. In fact it was looking deeper into religion in my mid-teens that made me realise how absurd it is.

A collection of contradictory desert myths as proof of some wrathful, jealous then all of a sudden very nice creator. Yeah, seems legit.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Anyone else agree?

I doubt many will, the regular posters all have well reasoned arguments for their lack of faith but I'll let them answer for themselves.

TeddyTedson

TeddyTedson wrote: »

But some people say the likes of the USA (stay with me on this, I'm not trying to say the USA is a God:pac:) should not interfere in a country like Libya and let the civilization there overcome the regime.
If there is a super natural perhaps it's similar thinking.

It's also the same on the nature channels where humans try not to interfere with wildlife as it could upset the habitat.

But this assumes some sort of detachment.
However we are also told that God loves us.

Think of someone you love, is there any way that you would allow this person to suffer in anyway if it was in your power to end or even stop the suffering before it begins?
And what about if you could end/prevent the suffering with as much effort as a word? (And as a continuation of this, what if you could totally end a strangers suffering with a word?)
And then what would you be if you refused to do that?

And since the answer to these is clear, there's no way anyone could accept that God is both loving and all-powerful at the same time. And if he's not all powerful or all loving, why call him God?

Further more, if you condemned someone you supposedly love to torture simply for not declaring their love for you enough (even though you never attempt to communicate with them) for even a few days, it's clear that you would be extremely ****ing evil.
God apparently not only does this, but does this to millions of people and for eternity.

As for the US and documentary makers, they don't interfere partially because they are not all knowing or all powerful and any action they could take could have adverse consequences, both known and unknown. This is not so with God.

But there are a few cases where people set stuff up, then allow events to play out without interference to see the results.
We call these experiments.
And do you really think that something that "loves" us would treat us like that?

But as has been mentioned this is only one of the myriad of reasons why I don't believe in God.

Michael Nugent

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

It's a good reason to conclude that the god that mainstream Christianity promotes today doesn't exist (all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good).

It's a poor reason to believe that the god of the Christian Bible does not exist, as he actively intervenes precisely in order to cause horrible things to happen.

As for other ideas of gods, I like George Carlin's theory of "What if there is a god, but he doesn't give a ****?"

That said, there are enough good reasons to believe that gods do not exist without relying on the fact that horrible things happen.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

Well, organized religion does cause many horrible things to happen, but we can't blame it for earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, diseases etc.

Organized religion can also seek to justify some of the horrible things that humans do, and thus help to perpetuate them.

But that's a different issue from whether a supernatural god exists.

Coriolanus

The arguement is usually used as a refutation of a kind and loving God, not a God/s in general.

The Sky

ya i would agree atheists i know dont look into god are just like to disrespect religion as that is what there friends do.

GLaDOS

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I don't know why I post these things when 5 mins later I start to disagree with myself :rolleyes:

The wonderful thing about science is, it corrects itself when new evidence is thrown into light

Galvasean

The Sky wrote: »

ya i would agree atheists i know dont look into god are just like to disrespect religion as that is what there friends do.

That is a fantastic attempt at a sentence.

GLaDOS

The Sky wrote: »

ya i would agree atheists i know dont look into god are just like to disrespect religion as that is what there friends do.

Galvasean wrote: »

That is a fantastic attempt at a sentence.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Northclare

Galvasean wrote: »

The Sky wrote: »

ya i would agree atheists i know dont look into god are just like to disrespect religion as that is what there friends do.

That is a fantastic attempt at a sentence.

Better than the sentence of living a life where you think your so perfect that you have to correct people on internet forums.

It looks like someone has control issues

yes, coming onto an atheist board to imply atheists just want to be cool and correct them is much better

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

Better than the sentence of living a life where you think your so perfect that you have to correct people on internet forums

"Your" should be "you're".

Thomas Eshuis

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

What pisses me off about theists is that they fail to understand what atheism is.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion. Anyone else agree?

That's what's called a persecution complex and since you posted this on an atheism/agnosticism forum you're not likely to get many people agreeing with you.

Northclare

Have a nice day

MagicMarker

Northclare wrote: »

Have a nice day

You forgot the full stop.

Northclare

MagicMarker wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Have a nice day

You forgot the full stop.

I put the full stop in with a magicmarker

POST EDITED BY MODERATOR TO CORRECT BROKEN QUOTATION FOR THE FINAL TIME

Northclare

It's always handy having a magic marker and free Editor's

Ickle Magoo

Now you've just hammed up the quotes...give up while you're behind would be my advice.

As to the original question - if people can decide based on nothing more than a warm fuzzy feeling that there "just is" a god - I'm not sure how questioning why an omnipotent being who apparently exists out-with the laws of physics that govern our universe is happy to sit back and watch millions of innocents die could possibly be viewed as unreasonable?

MagicMarker

Northclare wrote: »

You forgot the full stop.[I put the full stop in with a magicmarker]

You forgot the space after the full stop.

dahamsta

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

TeddyTedson wrote: »

But some people say the likes of the USA (stay with me on this, I'm not trying to say the USA is a God:pac:) should not interfere in a country like Libya and let the civilization there overcome the regime.
If there is a super natural perhaps it's similar thinking.

It's also the same on the nature channels where humans try not to interfere with wildlife as it could upset the habitat.

That's an interesting way to look at it, although the obvious counter argument is sometimes humans do interfere with wildlife with positive results (wildlife reserves and the like).

Unfortunately, our attempts to "save" nature invariably result from previous interferences, both destructive and benevolent.

Galvasean

MagicMarker wrote: »

You forgot the full stop.

I sometimes like to use a smiley as a full stop

sephir0th

The Sky wrote: »

ya i would agree atheists i know dont look into god are just like to disrespect religion as that is what there friends do.

Galvasean wrote: »

That is a fantastic attempt at a sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RgN9ijwE4

Davidius

I never did like the emotional reasons for rejecting the notion of a god. Things along the lines of "God was not there for me" or "God killed my dog" give fuel to eejits who want to say atheists are just angry at God.

Sure enough the amount of pain and suffering present is pretty indicative that any god that exists doesn't really care that much about your feelings. If there were such a supernatural entity I could still imagine it would see it as mostly inconsequential in the grand scale, especially with eternal life. It makes a lot more sense to reject the notion because it's unfounded and unmotivated.

HUNK

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It’s just common sense.

Sarky

I guess someone herped when they should have derped.

TeddyTedson

Meanwhile, back on topic!

Just to clarify my position. I don't believe in god myself. But who knows. The whole thing is too hard to even fathom. I sort of feel that having an opinion is the matter is a waste of time. All we can do is guess.
I realise I've really contradicted myself in this post but that's just how I roll :P

mooliki

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Meanwhile, back on topic!

Just to clarify my position. I don't believe in god myself. But who knows. The whole thing is too hard to even fathom. I sort of feel that having an opinion is the matter is a waste of time. All we can do is guess.
I realise I've really contradicted myself in this post but that's just how I roll :P

I wouldn't say there's anything negative about having an opinion on the subject. It's when you base that opinion on emotion and value it over others, that's when it becomes an issue. In which case, I'd suggest that someone not believing in a god purely because they feel neglected/offended/ashamed by it wouldn't be able to offer a valid argument on the subject.

In saying that, a major upheaval of a person's belief systems can easily be expected to stem from some emotional crisis. I'd think its generally with challenging experiences or personal reflection that a person might question their beliefs. The thing is then to follow up on that questioning through logic and education.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's an interesting way to look at it, although the obvious counter argument is sometimes humans do interfere with wildlife with positive results (wildlife reserves and the like).

Personally I wouldn't think wildlife reserves qualify as a positive interference. Though that says more about people's relationship to wildlife. In that it's generally considered good to not kill things. Surely that's just.....decent. I would struggle to think of a situation where humans have a "positive" interference with wildlife. I think at our best we might manage to undo a minor fraction of the harm we cause. For example, creating wildlife reserves so we don't drive a few more species into extinction. But that's a far cry from postive results. Just a lessening of the negative results. (end of mini rant!)

Hotblack Desiato

TeddyTedson wrote: »

The whole thing is too hard to even fathom.

That's what the theists want you to think...

Oranage2

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What pisses me off about some Atheists is that they seem to come to the conclusion of there being no god or super natural due to the fact that horrible things are allowed to happen in the world without any divine intervention.

To me it seems like a rebellion towards organised religion more than an individuals conclusion.

Anyone else agree?

Excuse the crass nature of my post.

Have to agree with ye Teddy, the people that believe this just dont understand God

Sarky

But you know why he sits back and allows obscene horrors happen to most of the world, right? You understand why it's ok for him to be the leading cause of abortions worldwide ever since a living creature could get pregnant? If you have explanations for why god acts exactly like utterly unmagical natural processes with no concern at all for what people actually believe, we'd love to hear them.

Are you one of those people who automatically skips over Concern ads without looking at them in case you see something?

Oranage2

I dont understand God really either but it's not God that does all the evil - it's man/woman, science/nature and greed that allows all the bad things happen.

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

I dont understand God really either but it's not God that does all the evil - it's man/woman, science/nature and greed that allows all the bad things happen.

Well of course it's not god, god doesn't exist.

Ickle Magoo

So it's nature at fault? Not the omnipotent being you believe created nature exactly the way it exists....riiiiiiiggghhhht...

Oranage2

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So it's nature at fault? Not the omnipotent being you believe created nature exactly the way it exists....riiiiiiiggghhhht...

Well congratulations you wiped the floor with an argument I didnt make -


But God did create nature and death is a part of nature. But greed isnt nature, greed is man made - But didnt God create man and greed, I hear you say?

Well yes he did but God gave us all these things and we have the choice to use them for good or bad. YOu can choose to use your hands for helping others or you can kill somebody with them.


Edit: I'm pretty much done with this forum it just isnt for me.

Ickle Magoo

Oranage2 wrote: »

YOu can choose to use your hands for helping others or you can kill somebody with them.

x100000000 for an omnipotent being then? Pity your god must have chosen the latter.

Rain for africa or kill billions? Create a stable world or one where tsunamis and earthquakes kill millions...hmmm....toughy....it's almost like...there isn't a god at all... :eek: :pac:

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well congratulations you wiped the floor with an argument I didnt make -


But God did create nature and death is a part of nature. But greed isnt nature, greed is man made - But didnt God create man and greed, I hear you say?

Well yes he did but God gave us all these things and we have the choice to use them for good or bad. YOu can choose to use your hands for helping others or you can kill somebody with them.


Edit: I'm pretty much done with this forum it just isnt for me.

But god is omniscient, he knew before hand that people would be bad, so why not just make everyone good?

If god exists then he's the root cause of everything, including evil.

Oranage2

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

x100000000 for an omnipotent being then? Pity your god must have chosen the latter.

Rain for africa or kill billions? Create a stable world or one where tsunamis and earthquakes kill millions...hmmm....toughy....it's almost like...there isn't a god at all... :eek: :pac:

Well not really a 'toughy'. Over population is a real problem, if they didnt die then we'd all die and as Bono says "thank god its them instead of us", and billions dont die because of no rain either. I hope this has been educational for you.

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

I dont understand God really either but it's not God that does all the evil - it's man/woman, science/nature and greed that allows all the bad things happen.

And so then when a parent leaves a baby out in a snow storm, it's not the parent to blame, it's the weather?

Ickle Magoo

Has the usual uncharitable wriggling and apologetic nonsense been educational? Unsurprisingly no...

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well not really a 'toughy'. Over population is a real problem, if they didnt die then we'd all die and as Bono says "thank god its them instead of us", and billions dont die because of no rain either. I hope this has been educational for you.

What's population got to do with natural god made disasters?

Oranage2

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's population got to do with natural god made disasters?

It's similar to the Lotka–Volterra equation, basic predator - prey equation of when there's plenty of prey there's plenty of predators.

Human beings are on the top of the food chain so we have no predators so things like disease and man made disasters are introduced to stop our population spiraling out of control.

Delirium

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well congratulations you wiped the floor with an argument I didnt make -


But God did create nature and death is a part of nature. But greed isnt nature, greed is man made - But didnt God create man and greed, I hear you say?

Well yes he did but God gave us all these things and we have the choice to use them for good or bad. YOu can choose to use your hands for helping others or you can kill somebody with them.


Edit: I'm pretty much done with this forum it just isnt for me.

but we were made in God's image, or does that only apply when we do good things? Because God wouldn't murder the first-born of a city......

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's similar to the Lotka–Volterra equation, basic predator - prey equation of when there's plenty of prey there's plenty of predators.

Human beings are on the top of the food chain so we have no predators so things like disease and man made disasters are introduced to stop our population spiraling out of control.

So god purposely murders people? Well that's an interesting theory...

Instead of killing people so we don't over populate, why didn't he just ensure that women could only have one child? Why didn't he just make the entire planet hospitable for humans instead of making it 2/3's water?

This god fellow doesn't sound too bright.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure if you are joking or you actually believe this stuff...

Do I have this right? An omnipotent being created the world; created a planet that takes lives and causes untold misery through natural disaster - and they did so in order to control a population that they, as an omnipotent super-being knew in advance and also as a being who is capable of creating our universe could surely control without making anyone suffer?

Niiice.