Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

robindch · 27-10-2010 03:57PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Jesus in a huff?

27-10-2010 04:04PM

robindch wrote: »

Jesus in a huff?

Pretty much.

Number of times we've wiped ourselves out: 0
Number of times God has wiped out most of humanity: 1 with another on it's way, depending who you ask.

CerebralCortex · 27-10-2010 04:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

...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...

Oxymoron alert!

Ghost Buster · 27-10-2010 04:39PM

Downbato wrote: »

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

Are you quite sure you have used the word coincidence correctly there?:)

Scarinae · 28-10-2010 08:57PM

I was just never brought up to be religious, it wasn't something that my parents ever tried instilling in us because they weren't that bothered really. We had religion classes in school, of course, so that's where most of my knowledge of Bible stories etc came from. To me, god was something I believed in as a child simply because that's what I was told in school, but as I got older I realised how little sense it made and I grew out of it in the same way I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

My mum told me that I used to ask her questions about religion that amused her greatly. For example, my great-grandmother was widowed quite young and remarried; when she died, I asked my mum if great-granny would be still be old and sick in heaven or would she be young, and which husband would be her husband in heaven? (thinking about it now, I would love to try getting an explanation from someone who is religious - surely you can't be a bigamist in heaven?)

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 12:01AM

irishh_bob wrote: »

my dad was standard religous and my mother is a very religous person , i went to mass every week untill i was 21 although i was never over religous myself , at age 21 , i had a life changing event happen to me and not of the good kind , at that point i started to think and ever since ive realised how aboslutley useless religon or the notion of god is , i have no interest in worshiping an alleged all powerfull being who turns a blind eye to thousands dieing every day from war , hunger and disease , oh and i dont buy the arguement of free will , a three month old child in the congo who is hiv and dieing with malaria has fcuk all free will

i wouldnt say im an out and out athiest ( more an agnostic ) as i couldnt say for sure whats out there but even thier is a god , i have absolutley no interest in him or her

Do you turn a blind eye to thousands dying every day from hunger? Not picking on you personally.

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 12:04AM

seamus wrote: »

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?

Can you elaborate. What do you define as 'God' in the example above that you have given?

mikhail · 29-10-2010 12:12AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Do you turn a blind eye to thousands dying every day from hunger? Not picking on you personally.

You really want to hold God's morality up for comparison with some punter from Drimnagh?

And do you really want me to quote Spiderman to you?

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 12:17AM

mikhail wrote: »

You really want to hold God's morality up for comparison with some punter from Drimnagh?

And do you really want me to quote Spiderman to you?

1.Yes

. There is a gist to my point...why blame God, when we live in a world where we let thousands of people die from starvation

2. And yes please I can't imagine which one

mikhail · 29-10-2010 12:22AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

1.Yes . There is a gist to my point...why blame God, when we live in a world where we let thousands of people die from starvation

Except poor Seamus can't exactly wave his hand and fix everything, can he? God, on the other hand...

2. And yes please I can't imagine which one

I was thinking of the one that crops up about every three minutes in any version I've ever watched, "With great power comes great responsibility."

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 12:29AM

Except poor Seamus can't exactly wave his hand and fix everything, can he? God, on the other hand...

Can God? Is that what you think?

I was thinking of the one that crops up about every three minutes in any version I've ever watched, "With great power comes great responsibility."

You'll have to excuse me, it has been a few years since I've seen it:D, are you a fan?

Galvasean · 29-10-2010 12:39AM

Dades wrote: »

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

That made me smirk.

Downbato wrote: »

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

I was going to leave you well alone, but you've gone and mentioned the D word. Why would he, in his infinite wisdom, create dinosaurs only to kill them off so man would have a nice dinosaur free planet to live on. Seriously, why bother with them in the first place?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Can God? Is that what you think?

We're talking about the same God that created the entire universe in all of it's mind boggling complexities in his spare time?

mohawk · 29-10-2010 01:13AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Can God? Is that what you think?

So god can create to universe and people etc but he/she/it is unable to intervene at all?? But how do you explain Jesus, or the 10 comandments where we are suppossed to believe god acted. Does god only intervene in life on earth when he has a new rule for humans to follow?

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 01:21AM

Galvasean wrote: »

That made me smirk.

I was going to leave you well alone, but you've gone and mentioned the D word. Why would he, in his infinite wisdom, create dinosaurs only to kill them off so man would have a nice dinosaur free planet to live on. Seriously, why bother with them in the first place?

We're talking about the same God that created the entire universe in all of it's mind boggling complexities in his spare time?

t'wouldn't be my definition of God, no.

Is that what you think of as 'God' when you argue against the idea?

Again, I'm not being smart, I'm curious about what exactly you are thinking of as 'God'.

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 01:23AM

mohawk wrote: »

So god can create to universe and people etc but he/she/it is unable to intervene at all?? But how do you explain Jesus, or the 10 comandments where we are suppossed to believe god acted. Does god only intervene in life on earth when he has a new rule for humans to follow?

And who says we are supposed to believe the ten commandments? I, for instance, don't believe the ten commandments.

mohawk · 29-10-2010 01:51AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And who says we are supposed to believe the ten commandments? I, for instance, don't believe the ten commandments.

Some religions believe in them. There is more then one religion after all.
I was using it as an example of some religious people believing that god directly acted here on earth.

Leaving aside that god supposedly created everything, how can you say that god can't act all the terrible things that happen in the world if he is able to impregnate Mary? Instead of impregnating mary could he not focus his time on some nice drought resistant crops or change the weather patterns so that there are no droughts. (Just thinking outloud here but how about picking up Ireland and moving us somewhere nicer while he is at it)

thebullkf · 29-10-2010 02:04AM

there are gods all around us.

some will never die.

gods of truth. greed. power.money.

i don't believe in a self flagelating way in god.

as me old teacher used to say the answers always in the question.

why don't we believe in god.? . ....[anymore]

because the god of the bible has been replaced by other gods.

we're addicts swapping one addiction for another.
there are people rabid:

about Dawkins. just as much as jesus.

about tyrannical ambition just as much as mary magdelene

about destroying the earth for future generations just as much as they scoff at padre pio.

the greater the advances in communication,the more disconnected we become.

anyways.. god? muhaahahahahhaha!!!

god didn't abuse those kids..men did.

god didn'tsave those miners. men did.

Zillah · 29-10-2010 03:16AM

thebullkf wrote: »

there are gods all around us.

some will never die.

gods of truth. greed. power.money.

i don't believe in a self flagelating way in god.

as me old teacher used to say the answers always in the question.

why don't we believe in god.? . ....[anymore]

because the god of the bible has been replaced by other gods.

we're addicts swapping one addiction for another.
there are people rabid:

about Dawkins. just as much as jesus.

about tyrannical ambition just as much as mary magdelene

about destroying the earth for future generations just as much as they scoff at padre pio.

the greater the advances in communication,the more disconnected we become.

anyways.. god? muhaahahahahhaha!!!

god didn't abuse those kids..men did.

god didn'tsave those miners. men did.

A masterpiece of discordance.

strobe · 29-10-2010 07:05AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

t'wouldn't be my definition of God, no.

Is that what you think of as 'God' when you argue against the idea?

Again, I'm not being smart, I'm curious about what exactly you are thinking of as 'God'.

We mean an omnipotent being that created the universe, sometimes the one that appeared in the Bible, sometimes not, depending on the context. Do you mean something different when you speak of 'God'? If so, what? An impotent being that created Wicklow and doesn't appear in any text?

goingpostal · 29-10-2010 08:34AM

Originally Posted by midlandsmissus
t'wouldn't be my definition of God, no.

Is that what you think of as 'God' when you argue against the idea?

Again, I'm not being smart, I'm curious about what exactly you are thinking of as 'God'.

This is always the last tactic of the defeated theist. Ooooh thats what you mean by "god". Well when I use the word "god" I mean < indecipherable, semi-coherent, wishy-washy, vague, more-elusive-than-an-eel, nebulous, miasmic 'definition' of god>. Trying to nail a DIY, pick-and-choose, "Oh I'm growing spiritually, with all this spiritual work I am doing on myself" theist to a specific definition of what they think is god is nye on impossible. They will usually try and turn it back on you and get you, the atheist, to define 'god'. I would define god as non-existent and file him under the same heading as pixies, fairies, goblins, Santa, Mother Goose, the Easter bunny and Puff the magic dragon. I reject and disbelieve any and all claims for the existence of a superstitious, supernatural realm, which only special people can see. That is what defines me as an atheist.

Ghost Buster · 29-10-2010 10:34AM

goingpostal wrote: »

Originally Posted by midlandsmissus
t'wouldn't be my definition of God, no.

Is that what you think of as 'God' when you argue against the idea?

Again, I'm not being smart, I'm curious about what exactly you are thinking of as 'God'.

This is always the last tactic of the defeated theist. Ooooh thats what you mean by "god". Well when I use the word "god" I mean < indecipherable, semi-coherent, wishy-washy, vague, more-elusive-than-an-eel, nebulous, miasmic 'definition' of god>. Trying to nail a DIY, pick-and-choose, "Oh I'm growing spiritually, with all this spiritual work I am doing on myself" theist to a specific definition of what they think is god is nye on impossible. They will usually try and turn it back on you and get you, the atheist, to define 'god'. I would define god as non-existent and file him under the same heading as pixies, fairies, goblins, Santa, Mother Goose, the Easter bunny and Puff the magic dragon. I reject and disbelieve any and all claims for the existence of a superstitious, supernatural realm, which only special people can see. That is what defines me as an atheist.

Nail on head mate!
And if you think thats all a bit discordant and vague just wait til AudreyHepburn wanders into this thread and claims shes a cathoilic..... again......

Rabidlamb · 29-10-2010 10:40AM

A far greater man than I once said this:

I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me superman. ...

Dades · 29-10-2010 10:47AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And who says we are supposed to believe the ten commandments? I, for instance, don't believe the ten commandments.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Can God? Is that what you think?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

t'wouldn't be my definition of God, no.

Is that what you think of as 'God' when you argue against the idea?

Again, I'm not being smart, I'm curious about what exactly you are thinking of as 'God'.

With all due respect, midlandmissus, you pretty much made your own version of the Christian God, so we're hardly going to be talking about that one.

However, "official" religions usually credit their god with creating everything, so hence those gods are deemed to be powerful enough to interfere in ways that they should.

DailyBlaa · 29-10-2010 11:18AM

For me I see religion as sort of poly filler. People use it to fill over the cracks in their knowledge. I was raised Catholic and was in a Christian Brother school (primary and secondary). The more I studied science the more I began to question everything I was taught.

If you look at Religion as a mathematical function, it can be seen that it is nothing more a function of geographical location and your parents upbringing than anything to do with some deity. For me this is one of the biggest problems with organised religion.

I can understand why people choose to believe, some seek comfort in it others out of fear. It always pissed me off when your were told it you don't do this or that you go to hell. Using fear to force people to act a certain way seems a very sinister way to control people. I get asked if you call your self an atheist how to function morally? How do separate right and wrong? For me that question is easy, if I didn't want someone to do it to me I won't do it to them (yes I know it is very similar to teachings in the Bible, smacks a bit of hypocrisy). But with that simple rule (provided you aren't some psycho) life it straight forward and enjoyable.

Was very funny the other day had some religious Americans call to my door trying to convince to convert to some religion they were offering. When I said the bible is like Aesop's Fables they told me I would go to hell, I very much enjoyed a good laugh. Maybe next time I will offer them a copy Darwin's Theory or Newton's Principia Mathematica. I think it would be a very fair trade, I would get a good laugh and they would gain knowledge.

strobe · 29-10-2010 11:44AM

DailyBlaa wrote: »

How do separate right and wrong? For me that question is easy, if I didn't want someone to do it to me I won't do it to them (yes I know it is very similar to teachings in the Bible, smacks a bit of hypocrisy).

I wouldn't worry about that to be honest. Jesus was being far far from original when he came out with that one. "Do onto others........" has been doing the rounds at least as far back as ancient Egypt. Not hypocritical at all. It's just how normal people manage to function together in society. Fair balls to Yeshua for encouraging people to live by that motto but he certainly can't take credit for coming up with the thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 12:08PM

strobe wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about that to be honest. Jesus was being far far from original when he came out with that one. "Do onto others........" has been doing the rounds at least as far back as ancient Egypt. Not hypocritical at all. It's just how normal people manage to function together in society. Fair balls to Yeshua for encouraging people to live by that motto but he certainly can't take credit for coming up with the thing.

Er.. Jesus summed up all the law and the prophets with his two golden rules (amongst which 'do unto others'). Given that it was an Old Testament principle and that Old Testament folk were scattered abroad into places like Babylonia and Eygpt...

Perhaps the Eygptians did lick it off a stone - we don't know where Moses' tablets ended up

-

Note that Jesus' teaching carries a warning to the unbeliever. "Live like this or else.." Which is designed to have the unbeliever run to Christ realising that he cannot live according to this 'rule'.

strobe · 29-10-2010 12:09PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note that Jesus' teaching carries a warning to the unbeliever. "Live like this or else.." Which is designed to have the unbeliever run to Christ realising that he cannot live according to this 'rule'.

That would be the "free will" thing I keep hearing about in action that prevents God from stopping little kids being tortured to death would it?

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 12:28PM

strobe wrote: »

That would be the "free will" thing I keep hearing about in action that prevents God from stopping little kids being tortured to death would it?

I think a modification of God wins(sic) Law is in order

"As an online theological discussion grows longer, the probability of the introduction of infants and idiots approaches 1."

29-10-2010 12:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. Jesus summed up all the law and the prophets with his two golden rules (amongst which 'do unto others'). Given that it was an Old Testament principle and that Old Testament folk were scattered abroad into places like Babylonia and Eygpt...

So which part of this do unto others bit includes the hatred of the gays?
Or the no ****?
Or the no shellfish?

I think a modification of Godwins Law is in order

"As an online theological discussion grows longer, the probability of the introduction of infants and idiots approaches 1."

Yea, because God both allows millions of kids to die horribly every year and has directly killed thousands of them himself.

I mean why would we bring something like that up while discussing the simple fact that your concept of god is inherently self contradictory.

ColmDawson · 29-10-2010 12:38PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think a modification of God wins(sic) Law is in order

"As an online theological discussion grows longer, the probability of the introduction of infants and idiots approaches 1."

Why do you continue to grumble about infants being brought up, instead of actually offering a counter-argument or explanation?

Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

Comments