• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I used a wet mop yesterday. And no the mop didn't talk. As I'm not a forums theist coder who secretly is watching life. And is who makes snide comments. Just to remind me they are watching me.

And Mr fat man in black car who pulled up after cattle were let out. At venue farmer said his type of cattle don't get out as a pre snide coerced comment. Is still just the fat man in his black car...fat.

And yes I do realise you're doing it.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
I used a wet mop yesterday. And no the mop didn't talk. As I'm not a forums theist coder who secretly is watching life. And is who makes snide comments. Just to remind me they are watching me.

And Mr fat man in black car who pulled up after cattle were let out. At venue farmer said his type of cattle don't get out as a pre snide coerced comment. Is still just the fat man in his black car...fat.

And yes I do realise you're doing it.
What ya talkin about, Willis?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Indeed -- And that God left his "perfect children" unattended was in itself an unwise decision.

This is answered in the link I posted. God’s handling of the issues required His non-involvement.
But He left us a letter — over 1500 pages long — telling us how we should act while He stayed out of things.
I try to follow it pretty closely… it requires a lot of self-control, but I’m happy.
How’s your life?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
your religion …. your religion
Nope, not mine. I’m no part of Christendom. Most of them think Jesus is God. However, Jesus stated that “the true worshippers will worship the Father”. (John 4:23) Who, then, do the false ones worship?

Your attempt to antagonize me failed, my cousin.

They did so through what they read in the Bible and through the authority of God

Nope. They ignore it.



Do you act morally through the authority of God too?
Well, I try to live by & follow Christ’s direction. And I’ll tell you this… if a war ever arises between the country I live in and your country, none of us — no Jehovah’s Witnesses — will be shooting a gun at you. And none of my brothers who live in your country, will be shooting at me.


Already spotted that one -- Everything that the serpent said would happen happened... exactly as it said it would.

No, Satan told Eve, “You positively will not die.” They died.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The theme men humans as origin bad criminal behaviour...just humans too but rich lying enslavers.

On gods earth planet earth.

Invented a humans thesis pretending when no light existed.

As the rational I can think without indoctrination human. It means a human is living is a man human. With men agreed owned king plus lord status. Self entitled being bad behaviour of humans.

Owned to theory built pyramid temples and wanted to activate power.

Theme only a human aware in night times coldest gases knows when no light existed. Thinking.

As life today is threatened by those same men. Irrational theme when no light exists thinkers. Lying. Humans only with conscious use human thoughts.... is law light first does exist and it is constant owning no number.

Acting as if not just a man but a God man...satanic science beginnings. Is the thinker man plus thesis.

Machine position non functioning. No power. No machine first.

Rational thinking. As I wanted to use a working machine to convert earths mass as dusts chemicals. Technology in civilisation purpose only. I needed a pre power source.

Theorising they said without machines I will use clay pots as they leech fluid seal then hold water.

Water isn't a power in a clay urn.

Urn in life meaning is where I put the dead. Combusted body gone of life with earth energy and not a dust.

Held liquids.

Liquids such as grapes to be acidic. To own a battery power to run a machine they invented the first battery.

And they did.

Applied converting science temple machine blew up machine and life. Pretty basic science of men humans is evil.

As humans did not invent why the presence of created creation existed. Science a theory hadn't and did not own why created creation existed. The you're just a human warning.

Intelligent humans owning a natural mind use had to say a statement why no man is a God.

To men who first said they were as a man human Satan the cloud angel God body type.... When they weren't.

Cloud mass is a cloud. Images in the clouds mass aren't separate from being the cloud.

A mind view....clouds are rolling smoking cooling mass. One statement. Second observation clouds have images in them. Two thoughts about one natural body.

Is not separate from being clouds...an image. Theists cause natural life to be destroyed.

As clouds naturally form in natural mass. No human owns why a cloud exists. Just because images emerge in clouds...clouds are just cloud mass.

Humans hence have to be told you aren't mass a reaction nor do you own gods Satan position.

When you are taught what irrational theism of a human did. Thoughts separated advice into categories that are unreal.

Why they attacked and nearly destroyed all life on earth. By false comparison using a humans thought against a humans natural body type survival.

Humans own blood water and bones inside bio flesh the teaching no man is God.

Don't get conned teaching.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Having an open mind is one thing; ignoring the facts is quite another.

The Book of Genesis was written by the Jews, for the Jews.
For the Jews, "Satan" was an angel who reported human delinquencies to God -- not "The Devil" per se, because...
Judaism doesn't believe in Satan as "the Devil." Jewish theology sees "evil" as an abstraction, with no need for an omnimalevolent personification.

After all, the only times Satan is presented in the Old Testament is in the books of Job and Zechariah -- and both times, he is presented as a loyal employee of the Most High...
The accepted Bible cannon as a whole, is 66 books, which includes the Greek Scriptures. You have to use much of the Greek Scriptures (NT) to explain the Hebrew Passages (OT). And vice versa.

Example: the Genesis account tells us nothing about how an animal , ie., the serpent, was talking. It’s only in the *Last* book, Revelation, that we are informed of what intelligence was behind it.
Another example is the prophecy of Genesis 3:15… we can’t explain that, without an understanding of the Greek Scriptures.
And on and on….
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I think we can apply that to lots of religions, even the Baha'is. They've accepted the Baha'i teachings as true, and it feels good to them. They see things shaping up the way the Baha'i Faith has predicted. But JW's can say that. Evangelicals can say that. Jews can say that. And, I think, most any religion can too.

I think there is "legitimate" reasons to doubt God and religions. And, for believers, there are legitimate reasons why they believe their religion. I have my doubts about, and usually aim my questions at, religions that think theirs is the only true way. And even though Baha'is say they don't, I think that is exactly what they believe.
Legit I mate.

Mates. Man woman one species two of. Legal first natural only.

State...

Even though the legal testimony said all human babies born are innocent. I'm still human naturally aware. I don't just agree in life with bible testimony.

I know homosexual man is humans evil life threat.

So I won't concede to a legal argument as I'm in law equal mutual a natural paired human life first.

Why they argued legality. It says all babies innocent of inherited life mind changed.

And are correct.

As it's the Satan mind man who said in a theory fake that his anal sex gave him the power of Satan. Falsely.

Brain defected by his theist technology brother who theories Satan for machines reactions only first.

Proven realisation before. Legal is natural law first.

Human legal had to deal with satanic science history human criminality behaviours.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The consequence of this, is that you condemn billions of believers in God to be irrational. :)

First, this is unfair.
Not all god beliefs are equal in terms of rationality.

Let's just look at one religion: christianity.

On the one hand, we have guys like Ken Miller. Renown biologist and a christian.
On the other hand, we have Ray Comfort. A YEC.
I shouldn't have to explain how and why these guys' beliefs aren't equal in terms of rationality.


I cannot believe for one moment that this is true .. whether God exists or not !

You must also realize that "people" aren't rational or irrational.
People are people and can hold both rational and irrational beliefs.
Theists and atheists alike.

Beliefs can be rational or irrational. People are just people.
When Ray Comfort believes that brushing his teeth is a good idea, he isn't being irrational.
When an atheist believes that covid vaccination is an international conspiracy to make people infertile, he is being irrational.

No human is immune to holding irrational beliefs.
We all do it, one way or the other.

[ God must exist for me, as without God, nothing at all would exist ]

And that is your religious belief, for which you have no evidence.

That is why your kind of atheism is extreme, imo.
A person who says they don't know for sure, but is nevertheless an atheist, does not consider belief irrational.

I do.
I can't know buy definition, because gods are unfalsifiable and hence unverifiable / untestable. There can't be any evidence either way by definition. And without evidence, I have no reasons to believe.

I will also note that in the above, you are lumping all non-atheists together as if you are all in the same camp. But the vast majority of them don't share your beliefs at all. In fact, YOU are an atheist concerning all the gods you do not believe in.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The diverse structures of living organisms, and life itself.

There’s your evidence.

Bare claims aren't evidence.

And the scientific enterprise has demonstrated long ago that the diverse structures of living organisms does not require any gods.

I'll also add that science is well on its way to tackle life itself also. And even if that fails, not knowing how something comes about does not mean a god was required for it.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human man said twice a lie.

First he says a human man owns the thesis why created creation came into being from nothing. As if he invented it. Just by thinking.

Reason. You don't theory unless you want to copy.

Theme. No such status as copying.

Consciousness. The human owned life. An adult human thinking. AI heavens copied them. Our life. Image one cell in water mass and voice.

Humans not a one celled image now lie.

As in the circumstance constant bio life in attack we constantly are notified we still live saved by the living one cell causation. Still present. It's just natural advice.

The second lying human theory when earth never existed suddenly it did by my human say so. Yet he lived on earth the theist.

Two lies said by just a human thinking.

All created creation does exist. Even earth one mass owns so many variables it's list is huge.

The earth a very small example that created creation everywhere is also diverse.

It doesn't exist in its form by a humans opinion.

So as a human baby life born into indoctrination I saw you.

Father. Drunk asking my mother for money. Never knew me personally as a daughter... liked to abuse me and my siblings.

Along comes the religious priest. A drunk. He scared us in church as children by his demeanour. He too asked my struggling mother for money.

Hence I truly believe human men have a lot to answer for about their just a human and just a man ego. Twice.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
This is answered in the link I posted. God’s handling of the issues required His non-involvement.
But He left us a letter — over 1500 pages long — telling us how we should act while He stayed out of things.
I try to follow it pretty closely… it requires a lot of self-control, but I’m happy.
How’s your life?

I'm happy too, thanks for asking.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
No, Satan told Eve, “You positively will not die.” They died.

God told them "On that day you will die." They didn't.

The Serpent said, "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen. 3:5

And lo and behold, a few bites later, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened..." Gen. 3:7.

Even the Bible's author made a point to show that the serpent was right by using its exact words...
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
The accepted Bible cannon as a whole, is 66 books, which includes the Greek Scriptures. You have to use much of the Greek Scriptures (NT) to explain the Hebrew Passages (OT). And vice versa.

Slight but crucial correction here: YOU have to use the NT to read the OT, and vice versa, because your religious doctrine demands it. I am under no such requirements.

Reading the Bible as historical literature, I can take into account the religious, social, political, etc., situation of the time the authors lived, and use that as a basis to speculate as to their purpose, intended audience, available resources, and methodology to communicate their ideas.

Example: the Genesis account tells us nothing about how an animal , ie., the serpent, was talking. It’s only in the *Last* book, Revelation, that we are informed of what intelligence was behind it.
Another example is the prophecy of Genesis 3:15… we can’t explain that, without an understanding of the Greek Scriptures.
And on and on….

Same slight but crucial correction -- YOU can't explain it without help, but it makes perfect sense to me as is.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hey IANS, it’s been awhile since we last spoke… hope y’all are doing well.

Fine, thanks, and the same to you.

The diverse structures of living organisms, and life itself. There’s your evidence.

Life is evidence that life is possible and exists on earth. Those are two sound conclusions one can draw from observing life. But not why it exists. Creationists dismiss the naturalistic alternative out of hand. They offer no argument more than that life looks too complex to them to exist undesigned and uncreated, which is a classic incredulity fallacy.

There's also a special pleading fallacy implied. One looks at a cell and say that this thing could not exist without a creator, and then posits a creator magnitudes of times more complex than a cell to rescue nature.

God’s handling of the issues required His non-involvement.

How often do we read that? Whenever we are told God did something, we can't find evidence of the god, as with life when we are told God created it. Where's the evidence that it didn't self-organize? We have none other than it seems too unlikely. And with miracles like walking on water and the loaves and fishes. All we have are claims that such things happen.

But when a god could actually manifest itself in some way that confirms its existence and presence, such as to write a holy book so fine no human being could have written it, we get answers along the lines of God has his reasons for not doing what no man could do. Why does God give man free will? It pleases him, although he will punish those who use it to defy commandments. Why doesn't God prevent or cure gratuitous suffering? He has his reasons, probably because without suffering we couldn't know joy.

I understand that from within the faith, none of that matters. The belief in a god is not derived from the application of valid reason to evidence (empirically). It is based in a psychological state in which some need is met with belief. If the believer lost this need, he'd cease being a believer, like everybody who leaves religion permanently.

This is what happens with some kids, who accept their parent's religion on faith based in an instinct to see parents as all-knowing and a need for their guidance and protection. Then, they get older, and begin to question their parents. They've been challenging them all along, testing limits, but now they're testing the quality of their ideas and how they resonate with them. If they feel no need for theism, some will retain it anyway because of the cultural and social benefits, but others will cast it off once nothing is interfering with an open-minded evaluation of the evidence and arguments for belief.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We are part of the universe, as are all creatures. We are not aimless, so nether is "the cosmos".

But isn't a car also a part of the universe? If the whole and the parts must all share the same characteristics, shouldn't the car also be conscious? Or, if you think the car is unconscious and without purpose or intent, then by your argument, so is the universe. If cars are not purposive, neither is the cosmos.

"The fallacy of composition occurs when one makes the mistake of attributing to a group (or a whole) some characteristic that is true only of its individual members (or its parts), and then makes inferences based on that mistake."

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. ..so it all comes down to the source of the authority. That is what needs to be established.

The source is not relevant regarding whether a proclamation is dogmatic or not, just the nature of the claim.

Regards your "birth control" objection, where is the source of authority for this "fatwa" or ruling?

You didn't quote what you are referring to. My only mention of birth control to my recollection was naming it among the measures instituted by the church to keep fertile wombs pregnant. Forbidding birth control was one element of that program. I listed over a half dozen others previously (forbidding divorce, homosexuality, rhythm method, masturbation, withholding sex, and later, contraception and abortion):

"Pope Pius XI declared that contraception was inherently evil and any spouse practicing any act of contraception “violates the law of God and nature” and was “stained by a great and mortal flaw."

we are all human, and I think we shouldn't be too hasty in thinking others are inferior because they "turn to God".

I don't see too many humanists judging believers for being believers. For example, I've never indicated that I consider you to be an inferior person for being a believer. My criticism of you has been your unwillingness to explain why you considered the ideas of mine you reject incorrect. You're content with some variation of you just don't see it that way. And I don't demean you for that, either. I just tell you that the debate is over whenever you make that choice, that it ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which is always mine given that you never rebut.

I consider that a less effective way to resolve differences, because it doesn't do that, and I consider critical analysis a superior way to do that - really the only way - but it's not a judgment of character.

I consider them to be the lucky ones.

I see it the other way around. I count myself fortunate to have escaped religion and found atheistic humanism (one can be a humanist with a god belief, but he has to reject most if not all religious dogma).

There's another RF poster with whom I have this discussion from time to time. He had some personal problems that he resolved with a 12-step program and found God in the process. I don't begrudge him that, and wouldn't take that from him if I could. But he's frustrated that people like me just aren't interested in becoming a theist with him, because to him, it saved his life. I eventually had to explain to him that he was like a guy whose vision benefitted from glasses, and with them he could see in focus, and thought everybody needs a pair. I explained that refractive lenses would degrade the vision of the person who already sees clearly without them. Like you, he considers himself the lucky one. But I see it the other way around. As lucky as it is to get glasses you need, it is preferable to have no need that glasses could meet.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
I've heard about this, itisn't consciousness in the typical description. Some plants respond to environmental phenomenon.
Mmm .. awareness then. You are thinking of the conscious/unconscious properties of creatures..

You avoided my question, most likley because it doesn't help your religious claims. Do you understand what I was saying about kicking a rock versus kicking a dog?
Of course I do .. I am not really making "claims" about rocks being able to speak or feel pain etc.
I just don't rule it out, and see everything in black and white.
i.e. no brain, no awareness

Irrelevant when your claim is that because we humans, and some other animals, have brains and consciousness that it represents consciousness in the whole universe...
I never said that it did "represent" cosmic awareness .. more that it is a part of it.
You want everything in neat boxes .. awareness is generated by brains .. the rest of the universe is dumb.
It really doesn't matter if it were true, awareness is still present in the cosmos [ meaning material and non-material concept ]
Of course, material concept consists of swirling particles and is equivalent to energy.
Scientific definition is observation of what we are able to detect.


It's you that seems to think it is inferior to need religious belief to cope.
If you say so..

Tell that to a three year old child diagnosed with Luekemia. Tell that to her parents when she dies soon after five. This was the daughter of some cliemts of mine. That girl didn't deserve cancer, nor dying. Explain your God in cases like this..
Yes, this is a finite mortal world. We all must die.
Believers have some hope in life after death.

This God accepts prayers, but won't act on them..
I think you mean "won't act on them" in an instant manner, and what we see as beneficial to us.

It surely is a cruel world. The believer tries their best not to cause suffering to others.
However, believers are human like anybody else, and are capable of evil and selfishness.

You cite evil and suffering as a reason to disbelieve.
I personally do not see how that helps a suffering person.
 
Top