Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

It's nice that you feel you can make snide reference to the 'child/idiot' issue, after failing to address it in any substantial way.

Just offsetting the overused tendency of folk to head in that direction. For the purposes of focusing the discussion, prevention is better than a cure. Indeed, when faced with folk who have trouble with the idea of a creators ownership of sinful adults, there is little point in dealing with the more complex issue of 'innocent' children

fisgon

antiskeptic wrote: »

The vast bulk of your post isn't relevant to the discussion. The discussion takes an objection you have and counters it. Seeing as it isn't necessary for God to exist in order to object to him, it isn't necessary for him to exist in order to counter that objection. Naturally I'll counter using the biblical God. If anyone else want's to counter using some other god then so be it.

Isn't relevant to the discussion? Have you read the title of the thread? The reason I give in my posts for not believing is that there is nothing there to believe in, and that the arguments of believers for the existence of god are so clearly deluded, mistaken and self serving that I would be as likely to believe in the existence of unicorns.

"If anyone else want's to counter using some other god then so be it."
Here you are conceding my point. In America - depending on the church you go to - you have a god of prosperity who wants you to be rich, you have Glen Beck's god who hates redistribution of wealth, you have a god who wants you to give your money to the poor, you have an environmentalist god, a god who believes humans should do with the earth what we want, in Islam you have a god who abhors alcohol, in Catholicism a god who turned water into alcohol......The list of the variations on the god myth is endless, and of course you haven't addressed my point in any way, which, despite your banging on about reasoning, is completely reasoned and to the point of the OP. Your particular view of god is one of thousands, millions, and has no more reality than any of the others.

antiskeptic

fisgon wrote: »

Isn't relevant to the discussion? Have you read the title of the thread? The reason I give in my posts for not believing is that there is nothing there to believe in, and that the arguments of believers for the existence of god are so clearly deluded, mistaken and self serving that I would be as likely to believe in the existence of unicorns.

Here are the arguments I've been responding to.

fisgon wrote:

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.

Response summary: what else would this great sky being do but own us?

fisgon wrote:

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.

Response summary: this isn't how the biblical God is seen to work

fisgon wrote:

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.

Ditto the first response

fisgon wrote:

It also means that you can't call your god 'benevolent', though you insist on doing so.

Response summary: God isn't called only benevolent.

"If anyone else want's to counter using some other god then so be it."Here you are conceding my point. In America - depending on the church you go to - you have a god of prosperity who wants you to be rich, you have Glen Beck's god who hates redistribution of wealth, you have a god who wants you to give your money to the poor, you have an environmentalist god, a god who believes humans should do with the earth what we want, in Islam you have a god who abhors alcohol, in Catholicism a god who turned water into alcohol......The list of the variations on the god myth is endless,

If the objections can be dealt with by one or more gods then your objections don't work in relation to that/those god/s. And so your reasoning wrt that god won't be seen to stand up. There is no point in having a theory that only works some of the time - ditto objections to God.

and of course you haven't addressed my point in any way, which, despite your banging on about reasoning, is completely reasoned and to the point of the OP. Your particular view of god is one of thousands, millions, and has no more reality than any of the others.

The (non)existance of 10,000 false gods doesn't in any way impinge on the existance of 1 true God (if he indeed exists). Your objection needs to deal with all gods in order to stand.

So far you're not dealing very well with the biblical God.

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take it up with the OP - he's the one asking reasons for disbelief. And so, anyone who suppose to have a reason for disbelief would want to ensure it's reasoned. Otherwise it isn't a reason.

Did you see the 'reasoning' I was responding to? What did you think of it?

I think the OP is looking for reasons for rejecting the claims put forward by theists. Otherwise, the OP is illogical. I think you know this, but I can see why you would like to interpret it this way.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

the christian deity is believed to have required the standard (as a president), set the standards and punishments (as a legislature), interpreted the standard (as a court), captured the wrongdoer (as a police force) and implemented the punishment (as a prison system). This is an absolute dictatorship and reflects the kind of dictatorship that christian societies give rise to.

Such is creation. It can't be helped.

robindch wrote: »

[...] a "sovereign god" who [...] can't help what his little creations do?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course he could help it.

Religious logic at its finest :rolleyes:

Galvasean

I see a pattern here. He's dancing around in a circle. No point chasing him. We should just stand here and wait until he passes by again, then grab him.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

what would from existence make you think that God doesn't exist.

A couple of things spring to mind:

1. Existence? He cannot be heard, touched, smelt, tasted and he is invisible.
2. Arguments which purport to explain this invisibility are likewise see-through.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course he could help it. He could confine their will by removing all means of it's expression (although that would effectively remove their will). Or he could confine their will to express in one direction (although that would effectively remove what we term 'freewill').

So what about the free will of the children he murdered while they slept?
Or their family's free will?

Or what about the people who he ordered to massacre civilians?

How can you possibly honestly use both a "Divine retribution" argument and a "free will" argument at the same time?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Religious logic at its finest :rolleyes:

Perhaps you're mis-reading my intent. A creator God is necessarily sovereign (with all of the 'governmental' activities listed in your first statement being a part of his remit if he chooses not to abdicate responsibliity).

Sovereignty (represented by those governmental activities you list) is intrinsic with the act of creation. Sovereignty intrinsic - such is creation might have been a better way to frame it.

That God could prevent his creation running astray (by removing/imprisoning their freewill) is neither here nor there. He chooses not to imprison it so, leaves it free and and establishes government activity so as to deal with the problems that ensue.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

rather he is asking what would from existence make you think that Unicorns doesn't exist.

Throwing around the no evidence line doesn't really convince unicornists such as myself who believe that there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of Unicorns.

Jakkass, can you please construct a valid argument against the existence of a clearly fictional creature?
And remember you can't use the no evidence one.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So what about the free will of the children he murdered while they slept?

Murder is understood to be an "unrighteous killing". Could you tell me which court of appeal you are going to appeal to to deem his killing unrighteous?

Or their family's free will?

"Freewill" is intended by me to encompass the terrain of "personal decision making in the realm of right and wrong". It isn't a matter of freewill that you can't fly on flapping your wings. Nor is it an impediment to your free will if someone kidnaps your baby.

Or what about the people who he ordered to massacre civilians?

What about them?

How can you possibly honestly use both a "Divine retribution" argument and a "free will" argument at the same time?

I'm not sure what you think these arguments are.

Suffice to say that God zapping a man and removing him from the game because he is about to go a step too far doesn't impinge on all the freewill decisions the man has made in his life.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Murder is understood to be an "unrighteous killing".

It's actually not, but regardless you said killing children can never be justified. So by your own logic God killing children is unrighteous killing, therefore murder.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you tell me which court of appeal you are going to appeal to to deem his killing unrighteous?

I honestly though it would be clear to you why killing children in their sleep would be... you know, evil.
But I suppose it's just a great example of how religions can twist stuff sometimes.

So please explain to us why God had to murder children in Egypt...

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Freewill" is intended by me to encompass the terrain of "personal decision making in the realm of right and wrong". It isn't a matter of freewill that you can't fly on flapping your wings. Nor is it an impediment to your free will if someone kidnaps your baby.

According to your stories He purposefully came down and ended people's lives. He directly intervened to do horrible things.
You say the reason he doesn't intervene to make good things happen or intervene to prevent bad things because intervening would infringe on free will.

Can you honestly not see how this is contradictory?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about them?

So a direct order from what you believe is their unquestionable and total sovereign who could snuff out their lives at a whim is somehow compatable with free will?
Really?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think these arguments are.

Suffice to say that God zapping a man and removing him from the game because he is about to go a step too far doesn't impinge on all the freewill decisions the man has made in his life.

So then why doesn't helping a man get back into the game also not impinge on all the freewill decisions the man has made in his life?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

It's actually not, but regardless you said killing children can never be justified. So by your own logic God killing children is unrighteous killing, therefore murder.

By what measure would you claim that God killing a child is unjustified? "Never is" needs to be attached to something concrete somewhere.

(remember that killing, in all cases, involves the switching from the earthly realm to the eternal realm. If this is beneficial for the child then why would you see it negatively?

I honestly though it would be clear to you why killing children in their sleep would be... you know, evil. But I suppose it's just a great example of how religions can twist stuff sometimes.

So please explain to us why God had to murder children in Egypt...

As a lever to persuade Pharoah release a nation from captivity. Pharoah, as representitive head brought wrath down on his people.

According to your stories He purposefully came down and ended people's lives. He directly intervened to do horrible things.
You say the reason he doesn't intervene to make good things happen or intervene to prevent bad things because intervening would infringe on free will.

Can you honestly not see how this is contradictory?

I didn't say he doesn't intervene?

I think he intervenes both for benevolent reasons and for wrathful reasons. And whilst this may impinge on a persons freewill at that moment you're only speaking of the boundaries of their freewill being other than infinite.

So a direct order from what you believe is their unquestionable and total sovereign who could snuff out their lives at a whim is somehow compatable with free will?

Really?

You don't seem to appreciate the believers position. He wouldn't mind his life being snuffed out given what that entails. And the unbeliever doesn't have any problem dieobeying God.

So then why doesn't helping a man get back into the game also not impinge on all the freewill decisions the man has made in his life?

It doesn't. All the decisions a man makes freely are free. All that are influenced by God are not (to the extent that they are influenced)

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass, can you please construct a valid argument against the existence of a clearly fictional creature?
And remember you can't use the no evidence one.

God isn't clearly fictional, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't clearly fictional, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The Christian god is indistinguishable from a fictional character, as is the Greek gods, the Norse gods etc

The fact that you think he is real means little more to us than the fact that a person in ancient Greece thinking Zeus was real would mean to you. Zeus to you is clearly fictional. God to us is clearly fictional.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't clearly fictional, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Jakkass, do you really really want me to go and find and link you to people who believe unicorns are real?
Do you want to be that depressed?

So assume for the sake of argument that I profess a belief in Unicorns similar to you belief in god. if you would like I would also posit that they create rainbows and are the only viable explanation for the existence of rainbows.
It's pretty much the same position.

So unless you are insane you do not believe in unicorns.
So then without using the "no evidence" argument, construct a case against unicorns.

philologos

King Mob: You can do whatever you wish, but they're really incompatible. One concerns the material, and the other concerns the metaphysical and immaterial.

The main point of my post was that saying "There is no evidence" ad infinitum won't do any good particularly when others are convinced there is an abundance of evidence.

Philosophers have managed to put across clear and concrete reasons why they don't believe in God rather than resorting to this laziness. Therefore I think it is also possible for you to answer the OP's question properly.

Wicknight: My point was, if it were so clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd all agree. Indeed, on a global level it appears that it isn't very clear to a huge proportion of people. (N.B - Before anyone says this is an ad-populum argument, this isn't about truth, but about clarity. Therefore it is reasonable to say it isn't as clear as you are making it out to be in this way.)

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

By what measure would you claim that God killing a child is unjustified? "Never is" needs to be attached to something concrete somewhere.

Because he didn't actually need to?
Are you now saying that killing children in their sleep can be justified?

antiskeptic wrote: »

(remember that killing, in all cases, involves the switching from the earthly realm to the eternal realm. If this is beneficial for the child then why would you see it negatively?

Ok cool, then it's totally ok for me to kill children because I believe they are going to a better place?

So what about the families of the children who have been murdered?
I was under the impression that losing a child is the worst pain you can go through.
And what about the children in the cities where he ordered his troops to massacre them? That's not exactly a painless and gentle way to go.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a lever to persuade Pharoah release a nation from captivity. Pharoah, as representitive head brought wrath down on his people.

So then why didn't he not just kill the Pharoah? Or do a Jedi mind trick on him? Or make all the israelites invisible? or just teleport them out of Eygpt?
Or any of the literally infinite number of things an all knowing and all powerful being could have done that didn't involve murdering children in their sleep.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say he doesn't intervene?

I think he intervenes both for benevolent reasons and for wrathful reasons. And whilst this may impinge on a persons freewill at that moment you're only speaking of the boundaries of their freewill being other than infinite.

So then why doesn't he?
Why does he let millions of children die from horrifying diseases he created?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to appreciate the believers position.

I don't appreciate the believers because apparently it allows you to justify the most horrible ****.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He wouldn't mind his life being snuffed out given what that entails. And the unbeliever doesn't have any problem dieobeying God.

So if your god told you to murder women and children, you'd have no problem with that?
And remember this has happened in your fables many many times.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't. All the decisions a man makes freely are free. All that are influenced by God are not (to the extent that they are influenced)

So then from whence the ebola virus? Or AIDS?

How can a God who loves us allow these things?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: You can do whatever you wish, but they're really incompatible. One concerns the material, and the other concerns the metaphysical and immaterial.

Well Unicorns are also metaphysical and immaterial creatures.
Seriously I am not making this up, people believe it.

Jakkass wrote: »

The main point of my post was that saying "There is no evidence" ad infinitum won't do any good particularly when others are convinced there is an abundance of evidence.

And there are people convince that there is evidence for unicorns. And psychics and Alien abductions.
The actual problem is that this evidence never seems to materialise and when it does it falls apart under scrutiny.

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophers have managed to put across clear and concrete reasons why they don't believe in God rather than resorting to this laziness. Therefore I think it is also possible for you to answer the OP's question properly.

You mean like I did on the second page?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68674581&postcount=17
And like how loads of others have?

So I'd imagine you'd likewise have a ton of other reasons to not believe in unicorns, right?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Well Unicorns are also metaphysical and immaterial creatures.
Seriously I am not making this up, people believe it.

Not really. Unicorns were held to be species on the earth. God of necessity if He is creator from the universe would need to be separate (but nonetheless involved) from the Creation. It makes a lot more sense really. There is strong reason why one would believe in God, therefore I can justify my belief. If I see that someone could do the same in respect to unicorns I'd be all ears.

King Mob wrote: »

And there are people convince that there is evidence for unicorns. And psychics and Alien abductions.
The actual problem is that this evidence never seems to materialise and when it does it falls apart under scrutiny.

It's available to you and others at any time. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee that you will be open to it.

King Mob wrote: »

So I'd imagine you'd likewise have a ton of other reasons to not believe in unicorns, right?

I've explained why they aren't comparable.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't clearly fictional, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I dare you say that in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy Forum!

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I dare you say that in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy Forum!

I don't see why I would given that God cannot reasonably be said to be fiction or fantasy

optogirl

Jakkass wrote: »

is strong reason why one would believe in God, therefore I can justify my belief. If I see that someone could do the same in respect to unicorns I'd be all ears.



It's available to you and others at any time. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee that you will be open to it.

So you have evidence but only if our minds are open to it will we understand it? Handy.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. Unicorns were held to be species on the earth. God of necessity if He is creator from the universe would need to be separate (but nonetheless involved) from the Creation. It makes a lot more sense really. There is strong reason why one would believe in God, therefore I can justify my belief. If I see that someone could do the same in respect to unicorns I'd be all ears.

Easy, just switch unicorns with god and the universe with rainbows.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's available to you and others at any time. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee that you will be open to it.

Just like you need to the open to the evidence fro psychics or aliens or any number of other nonsense.
The thing is being "open to it" usually involves the suspension of critical thought.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained why they aren't comparable.

You haven't, you just gave a pathetic dodge.
But since you did dodge the question I can assume that the only reason you don't believe in Unicorns is the exact reason you are claiming is "lazy".

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: My point was, if it were so clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No, that works under the assumption that you wouldn't believe something that is clearly fictional is real. That is obviously not the case. People do this all the time, for reasons other than it isn't clearly fictional.

I used the Greeks to demonstrate that just because someone believes in something doesn't mean it isn't clearly fictional. We can all look at the Greek gods and say they were clearly fictional, yet people still believed them.

Your clarify is being muddied by other factors (such a desire to believe), not the obviously fictional nature of your god.

philologos

optogirl wrote: »

So you have evidence but only if our minds are open to it will we understand it? Handy.

It's the same with anything.

I've never been to Australia. I could deny every piece of evidence that Australia exists. I could say that images of Sydney Harbour could very well have been doctored. I could say that Australian people whom I have met could very well be lying, or could be really from somewhere else.

I could very well deny all of these things, despite all being very good evidence that Australia exists.

Even if I arrive in what is referred to as Australia, I could very well argue that all the street signs were merely false and this in all reality was not really Australia at all. Or indeed, my senses could well be deceiving me about Australia.

Misplaced skepticism can be wholly irrational. I could even deny all evidence of Australia existing, even if I was in what people called Australia.

Of course, based on all sound evidence I believe Australia exists. Indeed, and based on all sound evidence I believe that God exists, and that His word is true.

In the same way that seeing Australia, and going there would be testimony to the fact that Australia exists for most rational people. Seeing God at work in the world, and entering into a relationship is adequate for most rational people who seek out the opportunity to do so.

King Mob: Honestly how you've answered the OP is really a "pathetic dodge". It doesn't satisfy the question in the slightest. Pathetic in comparison to much atheistic philosophy of religion that has actually got me thinking.

optogirl

Jakkass wrote: »

It's the same with anything.

I've never been to Australia. I could deny every piece of evidence that Australia exists. I could say that images of Sydney Harbour could very well have been doctored. I could say that Australian people whom I have met could very well be lying, or could be really from somewhere else.

I could very well deny all of these things, despite all being very good evidence that Australia exists.

Even if I arrive in what is referred to as Australia, I could very well argue that all the street signs were merely false and this in all reality was not really Australia at all. Or indeed, my senses could well be deceiving me about Australia.

Misplaced skepticism can be wholly irrational. I could even deny all evidence of Australia existing, even if I was in what people called Australia.

Of course, based on all sound evidence I believe Australia exists. Indeed, and based on all sound evidence I believe that God exists, and that His word is true.

In the same way that seeing Australia, and going there would be testimony to the fact that Australia exists for most rational people. Seeing God at work in the world, and entering into a relationship is adequate for most rational people who seek out the opportunity to do so.

King Mob: Honestly how you've answered the OP is really a "pathetic dodge". It doesn't satisfy the question in the slightest. Pathetic in comparison to much atheistic philosophy of religion that has actually got me thinking.

There is no very good evidence that god exists

philologos

optogirl wrote: »

There is no very good evidence that god exists

I guess the question needs to be asked, what have you looked at?

optogirl

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess the question needs to be asked, what have you looked at?

In terms of evidence that there is a god? Nothing because there is none.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's the same with anything.

I've never been to Australia. I could deny every piece of evidence that Australia exists. I could say that images of Sydney Harbour could very well have been doctored. I could say that Australian people whom I have met could very well be lying, or could be really from somewhere else.

I could very well deny all of these things, despite all being very good evidence that Australia exists.

Even if I arrive in what is referred to as Australia, I could very well argue that all the street signs were merely false and this in all reality was not really Australia at all. Or indeed, my senses could well be deceiving me about Australia.

Misplaced skepticism can be wholly irrational. I could even deny all evidence of Australia existing, even if I was in what people called Australia.

Of course, based on all sound evidence I believe Australia exists. Indeed, and based on all sound evidence I believe that God exists, and that His word is true.

In the same way that seeing Australia, and going there would be testimony to the fact that Australia exists for most rational people. Seeing God at work in the world, and entering into a relationship is adequate for most rational people who seek out the opportunity to do so.

King Mob: Honestly how you've answered the OP is really a "pathetic dodge". It doesn't satisfy the question in the slightest. Pathetic in comparison to much atheistic philosophy of religion that has actually got me thinking.

Evidence of Australia > Evidence of God
much like
42 > 0