Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

29-10-2010 12:42PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

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

Because then he'd have to try and justify both wanton murder of children and the criminal neglect of children so God can still be "loving".

gbee · 29-10-2010 12:46PM

AS an RCC upbringing, when they changed the Adam & Eve story which had previously been taught to us as 'infallible' and now they made a mistake?

Light Switches on!

strobe · 29-10-2010 12:47PM

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."

The thread has been discussing the reason god doesn't intervene when bad things happen. Should we now stop talking about this because Skep doesn't like it? Is that because Skep has no explanation? Why not just use Christian stock response that answers nothing #1 "He has a plan, it's all part of His plan, who are you to question the plan" or if you feel like throwing out Christian stock response that answers nothing #2 "God created you, He owns you, He can have you tortured or anything else He wants, but He still loves you".

So which will it be Skep 1 or 2?

Keith186 · 29-10-2010 12:53PM

I don't feel any presence of a god and never have.

The whole concept is very far fetched and laughable really.

There is no higher spiritual power its all in your head.

Dades · 29-10-2010 02:37PM

strobe wrote: »

Why not just use Christian stock response that answers nothing #1 "He has a plan, it's all part of His plan, who are you to question the plan"...

That'd be the "mysterious ways" argument.

The last time I had the "natural disasters" talk with someone about this in the Christianity forum it effectively ended with this. It can be paraphrased as "I don't have an answer to your arguments, although I still refuse to admit the flaws in mine".

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 04:22PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

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

I'd have no problem if the response was "okay, I can fully understand the righteousness of sinners being nuked but what I don't understand is the babies suffering the same fate"

That's not what happens though. As a way of wriggling out of the above statement, the ball is kicked, without comment/acknowledgement to Babies and Idiots touch.

(a pound to a penny that the response that follow with run along the lines of "okay then, so tell us about the babies. It will ignore the issue at hand: diverting to babies and idiots as an escape hatch)

Galvasean · 29-10-2010 04:38PM

Okay, I can fully understand the righteousness of sinners being nuked but what I don't understand is the babies suffering the same fate.

ColmDawson · 29-10-2010 04:38PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd have no problem if the response was "okay, I can fully understand the righteousness of sinners being nuked but what I don't understand is the babies suffering the same fate"

That's not what happens though. As a way of wriggling out of the above statement, the ball is kicked, without comment/acknowledgement to Babies and Idiots touch.

(a pound to a penny that the response that follow with run along the lines of "okay then, so tell us about the babies. It will ignore the issue at hand: diverting to babies and idiots as an escape hatch)

The only wriggling I can see is yours. If you don't like the way the baby issue has been arrived at, fine, but you still haven't addressed it other than to sneer at its inclusion in the discussion.

Edit: Nice little hidden message there. However, expressing derision at the presence of a topic does not constitute an argument nor a relevant response.

Galvasean · 29-10-2010 04:42PM

The baby issue is quite relevent to the thread considering it's called 'Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God '.

29-10-2010 04:49PM

Antiskeptic: Can either killing thousands of innocent children in their sleep or ordering your troops directly and purposefully to kill all women and children in a town ever be justified?

Dades · 29-10-2010 04:50PM

Galvasean wrote: »

The baby issue is quite relevent to the thread considering it's called 'Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God '.

+ 1.

Forget the Bible, The God Delusion, evolution, cosmology, and what-have-you... the stark cruelty and downright unfairness of the world has always been a clincher for me.

At least as far as any interventionist god of "love", is concerned.

Caoimhín · 29-10-2010 04:50PM

WesternNight wrote: »

I was lucky enough to not have been brought up with religion like most others were, so not believing in god is sort of my default position. Nothing I've heard since has in any way convinced me of the credibility of the existence of any god.

Lucky you. I was indoctrinated from an early age. Still, I wont give reasons, to me it seems self evident.

ColmDawson · 29-10-2010 04:51PM

Henry: "Look, I got an A+ in my maths exam."
John: "But I saw you cheating, you didn't really earn that A+."
Henry: "Oh for goodness' sake, I knew you'd immediately bring up the fact that I cheated. Well done. Really, is that the best you can do? I got an A+."
John: "Well, it's a fairly important factor in the issue of whether or not you deserved that result."
Henry: "John, you're so predictable. You resort straight away to pointing out that I cheated. I knew you would."

Henry wins! Yeah?

gbee · 29-10-2010 05:17PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, I can fully understand the righteousness of sinners being nuked but what I don't understand is the babies suffering the same fate.

Why? Assuming we are all God's creations, leave religion out of it, all souls are his, I'm sure he treasures them all equally as they are all doing his will, both the evil and the good.

Add in religion and we get on one hand a variety of punishments like purgatory and hell for a crime that is rewarded by 40 Virgins in Paradise on the other hand.

decisions · 29-10-2010 05:31PM

I don't see why I need to have a reason.

I just don't believe.

Mark Hamill · 29-10-2010 06:00PM

decisions wrote: »

I don't see why I need to have a reason.

I just don't believe.

Surely it should be a situation where you need a reason in order to believe in a god, not vice versa (and in my case, I simply haven't found one).

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 06:09PM

Dades wrote: »

Forget the Bible, The God Delusion, evolution, cosmology, and what-have-you... the stark cruelty and downright unfairness of the world has always been a clincher for me.

Yet the world is as chock full of love, compassion and fair dealings as it is cruelty and unfairness.

At least as far as any interventionist god of "love", is concerned.

Seeing as wrath and love are interventions of the biblical God, you're objection can be seen as imcomplete.

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 06:17PM

strobe wrote: »

So which will it be Skep 1 or 2?

Skep is dealing with one claim here: God (if he exists) is sadistic. Skep is less interested in talking about babies and more interested in how, in a world in which both good and evil would be attributed to the condemned God above, the claimant plumps for the condemnation only. God gets it in the ear for the bad he does and gets no credit for the good.

The basis for this so far seems to be that the bad is so bad it cancels out any good. Which would be fine if a way to ground that claim could be found.

Supposing the bad to be on a par with the rape of a child and the good on a par with buying that same child a lollipop is not that grounding. It's supposing your way to the result you'd like.

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 06:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

Antiskeptic: Can either killing thousands of innocent children in their sleep or ordering your troops directly and purposefully to kill all women and children in a town ever be justified?

I can't think of a time when such a thing would be justified, no. But then again, I'm not God and don't own the life in order to take it back (which is what the death of anyone effectively means).

-

Dades · 29-10-2010 06:26PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as wrath and love are interventions of the biblical God, you're objection can be seen as imcomplete.

Who ever describes their god these days as cruel, wrathful and loving?

If Christians admitted that their God was bipolar the arguments would less "why do you believe?" and more "why do you worship"?

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 06:28PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, I can fully understand the righteousness of sinners being nuked but what I don't understand is the babies suffering the same fate.

Let's consider the gaps seeing as you're in such reasonable form.

1) No problem with the death of persons of post-reasoning age. This on the basis that they are all sinners.

2) You should have no problem with the death of pre-reasoning age children per se - even though they won't have committed conscious sin. Such a childs death merely means God has removed them from the game in so far as it is played out on earth. Death in itself isn't a comment on that persons eternal destination. Everyone leaves the game at some point of God's choosing: earlier or later isn't the biggest deal.

3) You might still have an objection to a pre-reasoning age child suffering but not dying or suffering whilst dying - but not in the death itself.

Assuming you agree globally so far, you've got a situation were you can accept the justness of Gods action w.r.t. to the death & suffering of 99.5% of the population who've ever been born. Wouldn't that be sufficient gap filling to suppose a just God?

antiskeptic · 29-10-2010 06:32PM

Dades wrote: »

Who ever describes their god these days as cruel, wrathful and loving?

When it comes to an atheist forum, not me. Describing God as cruel in a place like this would result in people jumping to the unrighteous sense of the word, just as they'd jump to the unrighteous, green-eyed monster sense of the word were I to describe God as a jealous God (which he says he is).

When pain inflicted is righteously inflicted it isn't cruel as cruel is usually understood. Cruel as usually understood is associated with an unrighteousness. An Amon Goth of Schindlers List for example

As to bipolarity? Seeing as you yourself can be love and wrath I don't see the problem. Do you love children? Then you'll hate the actions of a paedophile. You can't have one without the other.

Dades · 29-10-2010 06:42PM

Again, you are not answering the question. Just dodging about.

For what reason does God allow the completely innocent (prime example: children) suffer horribly, while terrible people live long, affluent lives?

Everyone understands the concept of righteous infliction - but the infliction of this world is anything but righteous.

Forget babies even for a moment. The animal kingdom is a very cruel place. Nature is just savage. Of course a lot of it is very beautiful to look at, but tell that to the zebra with the limp being watched by a pride of lions.

strobe · 29-10-2010 07:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Skep is dealing with one claim here: God (if he exists) is sadistic. Skep is less interested in talking about babies and more interested in how, in a world in which both good and evil would be attributed to the condemned God above, the claimant plumps for the condemnation only. God gets it in the ear for the bad he does and gets no credit for the good.

The basis for this so far seems to be that the bad is so bad it cancels out any good. Which would be fine if a way to ground that claim could be found.

Supposing the bad to be on a par with the rape of a child and the good on a par with buying that same child a lollipop is not that grounding. It's supposing your way to the result you'd like.

First of all, "God gets it in the ear for the bad he does and gets no credit for the good." LOL, seriously?

=========================================================

Ok let's ground it. If I stopped my 5 year old son being raped, tortured and murdered by a psycho in the morning by clapping my hands (this is my magic superpower) and then in the afternoon, knowing I could stop my 5 year old daughter being raped, tortured and murdered by some lunatic simply by clapping my hands I refused to clap my hands and stood there watching the whole thing while it happened. Would you consider me good, bad or neutral? Would you think I was a nice guy? Would you think I acted in a loving way towards my daughter?

and remember, no using #1 or #2 without at least acknowledging that you are using one of them

29-10-2010 08:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't think of a time when such a thing would be justified, no.

So then how can you call God loving and just when his books shows him clearly and gleefully do both with nary a scrap of remorse?

antiskeptic wrote: »

But then again, I'm not God and don't own the life in order to take it back (which is what the death of anyone effectively means).

Ah that's how you justify it, by changing the definition of words.

So ordering your soldiers to brutally massacre women and children in likely horrifying and brutal ways is just "Just taking life back"?
Killing children while they sleep leaving the thousands of grief stricken and equally innocent parents to mourn without an explanation as to why their child had died is ok cause the child "didn't own the life".

Seriously this exact thinking is one of the reasons I am an atheist.

thebullkf · 29-10-2010 10:44PM

strobe wrote: »

First of all, "God gets it in the ear for the bad he does and gets no credit for the good." LOL, seriously?

=========================================================

Ok let's ground it. If I stopped my 5 year old son being raped, tortured and murdered by a psycho in the morning by clapping my hands (this is my magic superpower) and then in the afternoon, knowing I could stop my 5 year old daughter being raped, tortured and murdered by some lunatic simply by clapping my hands I refused to clap my hands and stood there watching the whole thing while it happened. Would you consider me good, bad or neutral? Would you think I was a nice guy? Would you think I acted in a loving way towards my daughter?

and remember, no using #1 or #2 without at least acknowledging that you are using one of them

but if by not stopping it,by allowing it,highlighting it,and if it somehow stopped 5 other people being raped,tortured,murdered then i would say you acted in a loving way.

thebullkf · 29-10-2010 10:46PM

Dades wrote: »

Again, you are not answering the question. Just dodging about.

For what reason does God allow the completely innocent (prime example: children) suffer horribly, while terrible people live long, affluent lives?

Everyone understands the concept of righteous infliction - but the infliction of this world is anything but righteous.

Forget babies even for a moment. The animal kingdom is a very cruel place. Nature is just savage. Of course a lot of it is very beautiful to look at, but tell that to the zebra with the limp being watched by a pride of lions.

he doesn't though. he doesn't allow anything.

because he can't.

because of free will. {maybe}

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 11:22PM

This is always the last tactic of the defeated theist.

Defeated theist? I just joined the conversation! If this was the last tactic of a defeated theist, why would I bring it up straight way?

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.

I haven't mentioned what I think of God in this thread. If you want to ask me you are free to, however my question was what atheists think of as 'God' when they are arguing against it.

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

.

But what do you think is God! You can't say 'God doesn't exist', and have no thoughts whatsoever on what you consider not to exist. What definition are you arguing against?"

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.

I respect your views, we are merely breaking things down a little further here.

midlandsmissus · 29-10-2010 11:27PM

Dades wrote: »

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.

All respect taken

I wouldn't say that I made up any version of God, I just steered away from any organised religion, as alot of other people have.

Again, that is the religion's stance, in the example you used above.

fisgon · 29-10-2010 11:50PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't think of a time when such a thing would be justified, no. But then again, I'm not God and don't own the life in order to take it back (which is what the death of anyone effectively means).

-

This is a pretty good summation of why I am not a believer, this type of bizarre belief from believers. There are so many that to me seem, and have always seemed, simply codswallop, nonsense, idiocy, horsesh1t, and the one above is a perfect example.

To be specific, the belief that this great being in the sky 'owns' our lives, and can do with them what he will, is the attitude of a slave, and someone who is happy to be a slave. In this belief we are powerless in the face of a capricious deity, who gives and takes on a whim, and has to be appeased and fawned over in case he gets mad. Really similar to how the Aztecs approached their gods, or the Romans, for that matter. The idea that we are all the property of this god, and subject to his moods is pathetic, slavish, cowardly. It also means that you can't call your god 'benevolent', though you insist on doing so.

Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

Comments