nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

LambsEye

I myself know that I don't believe in God and I'm pretty against organized religion itself. I do believe in some sort of energy but I haven't quite figured it out yet.

I'm just curious: what was it that first started all of you questioning God and the church? Was there a defining thing or like me, did you just decide you didn't buy it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

strobe

hick wrote: »

when people talk about "energy"

It's there for anyone that wants to to read.

I believe (cos I think I'm one of em) it's just a way of trying to wrap your head around the whole existence thing, as in how we all and everything came to be here

I don't know. That's ok, for me, for now. I hope someone comes up with an explanation. That would be nice.

it's human and scientific nature to want to be able to understand the action that caused the reaction and who or what started the ball rolling, so for those that say there's no evidence, explain the first spark that caused existance!

You first, please. Without bastardising the conservation of energy and Newtons laws of motion.

But I firmly don't believe in Religion as a concept, it's done a bang up job at generally fu@cking up society all over the world, and typically it's built on greed or flat out despicable people using others for their own twisted needs.

Agreed.

that said i do recognize the good people and their work associated with religious orders, it's a shame for them they can be regularly associated with the filth we've come across so many times in history, from the spanish inquisition to the ferns inquiry.

I disagree. People do good and bad sh1t. Why even mention religion?

God is just a name for something no one can understand, some think it's an entity or a energy, a power, a feeling, whatever. I think it's funny that someone who flat out says they don't believe in god can do it almost as fervently as those who do, having a faith that there is nothing without proof is just as pointless as believing in something purely on faith.

Ok. I don't know any one personally that does that. I'm sure there are some. What about the people that don't "flat out say" anything at all? 99% of the non-religious I have ever known, for example.

But what galls me more than anything are those that think they are within their moral rights and more than that, should be revered, in the belief that anyone not believing in their god deserves to die. now that's just stupidity of on a monumental scale.

If tempered with sanity the above is religion 101. "What I say is right, disagree and you will suffer, it says so here".

Dades

hick wrote: »

it's human and scientific nature to want to be able to understand the action that caused the reaction and who or what started the ball rolling, so for those that say there's no evidence, explain the first spark that caused existance!

Just finished Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design. He makes a pretty good case for how the universe came about, and expressly excludes the need for a god.

hick wrote: »

I think it's funny that someone who flat out says they don't believe in god can do it almost as fervently as those who do, having a faith that there is nothing without proof is just as pointless as believing in something purely on faith.

When you refer to someone who "flat out says they don't believe in god" are you really referring to someone who 'flat out' says there is no god? Because they are very different statements.

liamw

hick wrote: »

I think it's funny that someone who flat out says they don't believe in god can do it almost as fervently as those who do, having a faith that there is nothing without proof is just as pointless as believing in something purely on faith.

I think it's funny that someone who flat out says they don't believe in fairies can do it almost as fervently as those who do, having a faith that there is nothing without proof is just as pointless as believing in something purely on faith.

seamus

King Mob wrote: »

I think when people go on about "energy" like that, they think it's more like the Force from Star Wars than the actual definition of the work.

Pretty much. It's a tough one to measure because the very definition of what it is that they're doing isn't really agreed upon by people doing energy work. In fact, some people will claim to work with some kind of human-emanating "energy field", others will claim to draw from some kind of universal ether, others will claim to work with some kind of mish-mash of both.

I would be of the opinion that there are a lot of (non-mystical) things which our brains are capable of doing subconsciously and when they happen, either by accident or on cue, people tend to go "whoa!" and attribute some form of spirituality to it. To be fair if it's your own brain generating experiences for you, then I suppose that makes it far more "spiritual" than going to Mass. Brains are insanely complex, and while I don't believe that we're capable of moving matter with our minds, some of the complex and insane abilities of (some) people with autism or other mental differences shows the possible capabilities of the mind.

From the (genuine) people that I know who do "energy" stuff and enjoy it, the bulk of the benefit comes from simple relaxation, meditation and open discussion moreso than any mystical energy fields.

Handsome Bob

I think most of my issue would stem from a sociological perspective as well as emotional intelligence. I'm not exactly a whiz at the scientific related arguments.

:pac:

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Just finished Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design. He makes a pretty good case for how the universe came about, and expressly excludes the need for a god

The 'torpedoes' make for some amusing reading too..

In the Scientific American, John Horgan is not sympathetic to the book: "M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the "Alice's restaurant problem," a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: "You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant." Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything... The anthropic principle has always struck me as so dumb that I can't understand why anyone takes it seriously. It's cosmology's version of creationism. ... The physicist Tony Rothman, with whom I worked at Scientific American in the 1990s, liked to say that the anthropic principle in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called CRAP. ... Hawking is telling us that unconfirmable M-theory plus the anthropic tautology represents the end of that quest. If we believe him, the joke’s on us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_%28book%29#Critical_Reactions

Des Carter

My take on the whole energy thing is that if "God" exists "he" would be so complex and outside of our experience that it would be impossible for humans to begin to understand, let alone prove.

I think the whole giant man in the sky thing was just a way to portray "God" to people in a way they could comprehend. Since then it has been proven that he isnt a giant man in the sky so "a form of energy" is a step up in that it makes him easier to understand yet still hard to disprove - like a giant man in the sky was for ancient people.

Galvasean

Des Carter wrote: »

My take on the whole energy thing is that if "God" exists "he" would be so complex and outside of our experience that it would be impossible for humans to begin to understand, let alone prove.

I think the whole giant man in the sky thing was just a way to portray "God" to people in a way they could comprehend. Since then it has been proven that he isnt a giant man in the sky so "a form of energy" is a step up in that it makes him easier to understand yet still hard to disprove - like a giant man in the sky was for ancient people.

Exactly. The Gods used to live on Mount Olympus. Once we climbed the mountain they took refuge in the sky. We built flying machines which intruded on this new domain. Now they hide among sub atomic particles.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The 'torpedoes' make for some amusing reading too..

The torpedoes have valid points. Hawking's seemed at pains to point out how current thinking suggests no need for a designer or creator or God as he keeps calling it. As suggested by some reviewers this isn't really the realm of physicists, but philosophers. (Although SH suggests, and I'm loathe to disagree, that philosophy is dead...) Maybe he just got really pissed off with the ID crowd and decided to get off the fence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_%28book%29#Critical_Reactions

Maybe the first two detractors shouldn't be The Bishop of Swindon and the Rev. Dr. Fraser N. Watts. Not exactly objective

smokingman

Why don't I believe in god?

....I don't listen to hip-hop!

Choochtown

I haven't had a bereavement within the last 2 weeks and my IQ is above 50

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

The torpedoes have valid points. Hawking's seemed at pains to point out how current thinking suggests no need for a designer or creator or God as he keeps calling it. As suggested by some reviewers this isn't really the realm of physicists, but philosophers. (Although SH suggests, and I'm loathe to disagree, that philosophy is dead...) Maybe he just got really pissed off with the ID crowd and decided to get off the fence.

I have the distinct impression of Hawking's as occupying a rarified athmosphere in which only he and a few others can begin to understand the intricacies of the tower they've constructed. Everyone else (and I mean no disrespect) stands at ground level admiring the structure - without having any idea whether it won't be blown over by the first wind that happens along.

God has never prevented men building towers of Babel - man being permitted to sustain intellectually satisfying disbelief if that is his bent. Choice demands it.

Maybe the first two detractors shouldn't be The Bishop of Swindon and the Rev. Dr. Fraser N. Watts. Not exactly objective

Everybody has some or other axe to grind. That doesn't mean a degree of objectivity is impossible - although I'd be somewhat doubtful in the case of the wiki articles main cheerleader - one Richard Dawkins.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has never prevented men building towers of Babel - man being permitted to sustain intellectually satisfying disbelief if that is his bent. Choice demands it.

Why does this comment remind me of the Pope and Galileo?

Honestly, would you harbor such ill-feeling towards pioneering physicists if they left all mention of "God" out of their findings?

cavedave

Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

The Black Eyed Peas

QED

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has never prevented men building towers of Babel -

erm... If I remember the fable right, I'm pretty sure he did.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

erm... If I remember the fable right, I'm pretty sure he did.

"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children built."

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has never prevented men building towers of Babel -

[...] I'm pretty sure he did.

"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children built."

Quoth Genesis 11:5-8:

The LORD wrote:

The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Why does this comment remind me of the Pope and Galileo?

Persecution complex?

Honestly, would you harbor such ill-feeling towards pioneering physicists if they left all mention of "God" out of their findings?

I don't mind them mentioning God - or the lack of need for Him - when the pioneering science permits it. It appears he's claiming a gap or two filled = the filling of all gaps.

Now I know that frustrates some - they want to declare the jigsaw complete before all the parts are in place.

Mind the gap

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Quoth Genesis 11:5-8:

Can we conclude that God permits the building of towers - but not their completion? Like A&E reaching to become like God but being cast out of the garden before they managed it.

seamus

Wow, I just read that one. Let me know if I've got this right:

So humanity united, living in peace and in harmony, all speaking in the same language, all freely able to communicate. So they build up a big tower (or a big city, whatever) in order that they may all continue to stay in the same place and don't have to migrate and become distant.

So God comes down, and says, "Eh, none of this peace, harmony, community and love stuff, if they get too big for their boots they might become as powerful as me", and scatters them all over the earth so that they may speak in different languages, be unable to speak to eachother and therefore will end up conflicting with eachother and humanity's development is forever stunted.

Nice guy, really. But he loves us and it's all for the best. Free will? Yes, but only so long as you don't exercise it.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can we conclude that God permits the building of towers - but not their completion?

As seamus says, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus seems to have felt that a world united in peace and harmony constituted some form of geopolitical threat to himself, so he annihilated the place.

These aren't the actions of a "god of love", but more the kind of thing that a school-yard bully would do. The same kind of "Respect me or I'll kill you" nonsense that Jesus shows up with again much later in the NT.

[Deleted User]

And If memory still serves weren't they building the tower so they could survive in case God decides to wipe out all life.... again?

liamw

The authors of the Bible should have really got together on a conference call once a week to make sure they were in sync.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't mind them mentioning God - or the lack of need for Him - when the pioneering science permits it. It appears he's claiming a gap or two filled = the filling of all gaps.

Did you... really... just accuse scientists of incorrectly filling in gaps in our knowledge? :pac:

What Hawking was saying was that, if our current understanding is correct, then the God that had been shoved into that particular gap is unnecessary.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now I know that frustrates some - they want to declare the jigsaw complete before all the parts are in place.

Again, you totally misrepresent the actual position. What scientist investigating the origins of the universe would ever claim the "jigsaw complete"? (Answer: none). This kind of loose language is not helpful.

[Deleted User]

liamw wrote: »

The authors of the Bible should have really got together on a conference call once a week to make sure they were in sync.

Well they couldn't do that as apparently God is not too keen on people working together.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

As seamus says, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus seems to have felt that a world united in peace and harmony constituted some form of geopolitical threat to himself, so he annihilated the place.

I dunno. What could be more lethal to mankind than a unified and uber-capable mankind? It might have taken a while to recover from the scattering but hasn't what was said then become fact in this advanced and unified era? We're capable of doing just about anything we set our minds to. At the cost of great suffering and unsustainable damage to the earth we inhabit perhaps - but there can be no doubt about our fantastic abilities.

These aren't the actions of a "god of love", but more the kind of thing that a school-yard bully would do. The same kind of "Respect me or I'll kill you" nonsense that Jesus shows up with again much later in the NT.

What do you suppose lies ahead when 3 or so billion consumerists ( 1 billion already well addicted and another 2 billion injecting the consumer drug into their arms for the first time) come up against the immovable object of diminishing resources. Hint: look to the past.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dunno. What could be more lethal to mankind than a unified and uber-capable mankind?

Well the dudes at Babel seemed to be working together fairly well and weren't exactly building something to kill anyone.
In fact they were building something to help them survive another genocide...

Maybe if we get to the point where we cure cancer or AIDS or any of the other horrors God gives us, he decide that we've gone too far and it'll be Babel all over again.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dunno. What could be more lethal to mankind than a unified and uber-capable mankind? It might have taken a while to recover from the scattering but hasn't what was said then become fact in this advanced and unified era? We're capable of doing just about anything we set our minds to. At the cost of great suffering and unsustainable damage to the earth we inhabit perhaps - but there can be no doubt about our fantastic abilities.

That sounds exactly like the type of solution that someone who we could credit with creating this mess would come up with.

Like shooting someone in the face to stop them being sad.

Downbato

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God"
The issue is pretty simple;
Either there is no God in which case we and the universe are just a gigantic cosmic coincidence.
Or
There is a God which involves a certain amount of planning ie killing off dinosaurs etc and laying down oil and gas over billions of years for us, right now.
Personally I'm inclined to believe the latter. But everybody to their own beliefs

seamus

Downbato wrote: »

There is a God which involves a certain amount of planning ie killing off dinosaurs etc and laying down oil and gas over billions of years for us, right now.

Exactly. And why go to that effort? If you are going to go to the effort of creating a living species to worship you, then why go to such elaborate lengths to make it appear like you never existed at all? Sure, if you're god the laws of the universe don't apply - humans could be immortal and never need sustenance and he could show us the facts of existence in an instant.

So why would he pretend that he doesn't exist at all and then punish humans when they doubt his existence or indeed punish them or ignore them when they attempt to prove his existence?

Doesn't that sound like the most bizarre thing you've ever heard?