Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[samtonga43]

Is the word "evidence" confusing to you?

Well, I don’t believe that the concept of evidence and belief is as simple as you may think it is. Is it possible, in your opinion, that the available body of facts or information will be seen differently by the different types of people mentioned below?

The concept of evidence is central to both epistemology and the philosophy of science. Of course, ‘evidence’ is hardly a philosopher's term of art: it is not only, or even primarily, philosophers who routinely speak of evidence, but also lawyers and judges, historians and scientists, investigative journalists and reporters, as well as the members of numerous other professions and ordinary folk in the course of everyday life.

Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[samtonga43]

Bible Verses About Fear of God

“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ’God is a consuming fire.’”
Hebrews 12:28-29
This reverence and awe is exactly what the fear of God means for Christians. This is the motivating factor for us to surrender to the Creator of the Universe. Christians have no reason to be afraid of God. We have His promise that nothing can separate us from His love

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38–39

For the unbeliever, the fear of God is the fear of the judgment of God, but for the believer, the fear of God is the typical biblical sense of reverence and awe.

 

[samtonga43]

There's you, a Christian, and there are Baha'is and a Muslim here. Each one says they believe in God. How much do you really believe is true about these other religions? Since neither believes that Jesus is God, is it even the same God that each is claiming to be real?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hockeycowboy believes that Jesus is God either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For the unbeliever, the fear of God is the fear of the judgment of God, but for the believer, the fear of God is the typical biblical sense of reverence and awe.

That may be so, but it also explains why this is why believers don't convince many unbelievers with this argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I observe many Christians act in ways contrary to your quotes from the Bible.

As I noted there have been Christians who tortured and executed people for witchcraft,

Yep, they weren’t Christian, were they? As Jesus called them at Matthew 7:23: “workers of iniquity.”

I didn’t say it, he did.

Although I’m sure to you, anyone calling themselves a Christian is a Christian. But that’s not what Jesus said, is it?

Sorry but that is just an argument from ignorance.

Not at all! It’s an argument based on the facts, and what we know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yep, they weren’t Christian, were they? As Jesus called them at Matthew 7:23: “workers of iniquity.”

I didn’t say it, he did.

Although I’m sure to you, anyone calling themselves a Christian is a Christian. But that’s not what Jesus said, is it?

Doesn't make the people they killed any less dead.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Doesn't make the people they killed any less dead.

I agree. Christendom is very bloodguilty. But you can’t blame Jesus for Christendom’s failure to obey his words.

 

[F1fan]

Yep, they weren’t Christian, were they? As Jesus called them at Matthew 7:23: “workers of iniquity.”

I didn’t say it, he did.

So I take it you believe yourself to be a "true Christian", and as such you believe you are able and allowed to judge those who consider themselves Christian, even though Jesus taught NOT to judge others lest you be judged?

You don't see the dilemma and hypocrisy in your beliefs?

Although I’m sure to you, anyone calling themselves a Christian is a Christian. But that’s not what Jesus said, is it?

Are Catholics Christian? How about all the versions of protestants that Martin Luther started? Christianity is a huge collection of sects, and none can claim to be the only true version.

Where does Jesus define what a "true Christian" is? You already got caught violating one of his DIRECT teachings so you might not be as Christian as you believe.

I agree. Christendom is very bloodguilty. But you can’t blame Jesus for Christendom’s failure to obey his words.

Right, look how easily you failed to obey Jesus, and you probably didn't become aware of it until I pointed it out.

It is easy for Christians to assume they are moral and upright yet so easily fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, they weren’t Christian, were they? As Jesus called them at Matthew 7:23: “workers of iniquity.”

I didn’t say it, he did.

Although I’m sure to you, anyone calling themselves a Christian is a Christian. But that’s not what Jesus said, is it?


Not at all! It’s an argument based on the facts, and what we know.

Nope, they were definitely Christian. Arguably by the illogical standards that you just used I could claim that you are not a Christian. The worst sort of "Christians" tend to be the born again type. You would not believe how many of them honestly think that they can no longer sin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree. Christendom is very bloodguilty. But you can’t blame Jesus for Christendom’s failure to obey his words.

Can't I? An all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity isn't just responsible for his actions, but also his inactions.

 

[samtonga43]

Some religions, like the Baha'i Faith and many sects of Christianity, put their followers in a no-win situation. They are never going to be perfect and not do things that disobey the rules they believe came from God. So, what do they do? Do they feel guilty and repent? Which means they shouldn't do that particular sin anymore, but they probably will. So, they haven't really repented. After a while, if they continue with that same sinful behavior and are going to ever stop doing it, what do they do? Ignore it, and accept that they can't ever live up to God's rules? Or ignore their God and expect him to put up with them and those few sins that they do? Or do they live with the guilt that they can't stop doing some things that their God objects to?

I’m not sure if this is true, CG. I don’t think that feeling guilty and repenting means they would never sin again; repentance is a lifelong process.
When Peter asked Jesus whether we are obligated to forgive a person who sins against us seven times (Peter’s “seven times” more than doubled the rabbinic prescription), Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times”.

 

[samtonga43]

That may be so, but it also explains why this is why believers don't convince many unbelievers with this argument.

Oh yes, I am very aware of this. But I'm not trying to 'convince' anyone. It would not have convinced me when I was an unbeliever.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So I take it you believe yourself to be a "true Christian", and as such you believe you are able and allowed to judge those who consider themselves Christian, even though Jesus taught NOT to judge others lest you be judged?

You don't see the dilemma and hypocrisy in your beliefs?


Are Catholics Christian? How about all the versions of protestants that Martin Luther started? Christianity is a huge collection of sects, and none can claim to be the only true version.

Where does Jesus define what a "true Christian" is? You already got caught violating one of his DIRECT teachings so you might not be as Christian as you believe.


Right, look how easily you failed to obey Jesus, and you probably didn't become aware of it until I pointed it out.

It is easy for Christians to assume they are moral and upright yet so easily fail.

I fail all the time.
But I’ve never purposefully killed anyone; nor have I put myself in a situation where I might have had to.
And I’m glad I belong to a religion that refuses such a course.

People judge themselves by their own actions.

IMHO, you’re misapplying Jesus’ words.

Is it really judging, to say that killing innocent people is loving?

 

[CG Didymus]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hockeycowboy believes that Jesus is God either.

But many Christians are taught that Jesus is God. Either they are wrong and the Baha'is and Muslims are right or I'd even question whether any of them define God the same. And then the God they all supposedly believe in should be the same as the God as defined by Judaism. But maybe even Jews vary by how they define God. But, since this is a thread started by a Baha'i, we should go by their definition of God and see if the other religions agree with it.

The Bahá’í Faith teaches that there is one God who is unknowable in His Essence, and about Whom all human concepts fail to contain.[1][2] Bahá’u’lláh states that because "there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven."[3] The Manifestations of God, referred to by Bahá’u’lláh as that pure and stainless Soul, perfectly reflect all of the light, qualities, power and glory of God to mankind in the same way that a mirror can reflect the light and qualities a sun.[4]
​

Do all religions believe that? If not, then how do they define God? The one thing I'd question is that God can only be known through these "pure and stainless" souls, the manifestation. I don't think that some of the people that Baha'is believe to be manifestations were "pure and stainless". I think they some of them are shown in the Scriptures of their religion to be ordinary humans. A lot of the things that religions use to define God are too general and I'm sure are common to lots of religions. But, when we get into the finer details, I think the different religions diverge. But it's all just unprovable beliefs, so what does it really mean?

To get back to Jesus being God, I think that's a great example of the power of having a belief that something is true. Those Christians, I'm sure, feel the power, the love, the presence of Jesus and God in their lives. But if Jesus is not God, then what they are feeling is all in their minds and is make-believe.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Can't I? An all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity isn't just responsible for his actions, but also his inactions.

First of all, Jesus is not the “all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity” many claim. I believe he is God’s son, not God.

Secondly, (here’s the condensed version,) due to the issues relating to rulership raised in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), Jehovah has let man rule himself, to prove his inability to govern himself. This issue is just about settled. Once for all time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’m sure to you, anyone calling themselves a Christian is a Christian. But that’s not what Jesus said, is it?

Why would he let Jesus define Christian for him? The unbeliever generally has no behavioral test for the Christian. There is nothing he must or must not do to be one. I do have a doctrinal requirement - certain core beliefs that must be present - but just like a census taker or poll taker, I don't test people who tell me that they're Christian to see if they hold them.

"As of the year 2020, Christianity had approximately 2.4 billion adherents and is the largest-religion by population respectively."

How do you suppose that number was determined? Not with either doctrinal or behavior tests.

If the universe is "aimless", then why aren't we?

We're conscious. The universe is unconscious as best we can tell - certainly at the scale of human experience. Unconscious matter is purposeless. The earth revolves purposelessly about the sun because of it's momentum and because gravity pulls it (it takes both to keep it from flying into the sun or out of the solar system).

I had written, "If you believe in gods, you have not done so using reason. There is no evidence or sound argument that gets us to, "therefore God." So no rebuttal then? Shall we consider the matter resolved? Can we assume that if you had such an argument, we would have seen it by now? I do.

A combination of the above, and the existence of the Divine discussed in the Bible and Qur'an.

That was in response to, "Once again, show me the reasoning. These claims have no persuasive power without a sound argument preceding them." Your response included no reasoning. Can we assume once again that that is because you have no reasoning to show? I do.

Your opinion.

I had written, "Religion is dogma - insufficiently supported claims offered as undeniable fact."

Yes, it's my opinion, but I also contend that it is correct. Show me a religion that doesn't contain dogma. My worldview, humanism, contains no dogma, but it's also not a religion.

As always, in the absence of rebuttal, as the last plausible, unrebutted statement, the claim stands. If it cannot be rebutted, it may be correct. Though falsifiable, correct ideas cannot be falsified - that is, they could be shown to be incorrect if they were, but never will be, because they correct.

Although correct ideas cannot be successfully rebutted, merely being unrebutted doesn't make a comment correct. Another thinker might come along and successfully rebut the idea. But until you or he does that, the claim can be considered provisionally correct.

 

[TLK Valentine]

First of all, Jesus is not the “all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity” many claim. I believe he is God’s son, not God.

Traditional Christianity would indicate that he is both. If you don't subscribe to that doctrine, fair enough. But substituting "God" for "Jesus" changes nothing about my point. Someone is clearly asleep at the wheel with regards to all these atrocities done in His name.

Secondly, (here’s the condensed version,) due to the issues relating to rulership raised in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), Jehovah has let man rule himself, to prove his inability to govern himself. This issue is just about settled. Once for all time.

And yet, Jehovah had no problem interfering in man's ruling of himself countless times... arguably the entire Bible is a record of those interferences. Many of those interferences required the setting aside of the laws of nature -- I believe the layman's term for those phenomena would be "miracles" -- and He was praised for them, as they were commonly interpreted as manifestations of His will.

Now the miracles have stopped, and the laws of nature continue on free of interference. Again, if a God's actions are seen as signs, so then must be his inactions.

As for man's inability to govern himself, that was well-established long before the first brick was laid in Washington, DC. ( ) -- the issue has always been man's inability to save himself. God established a Covenant with Abraham, which the Jews follow to this day. Again, traditional Christianity says that that Covenant turned out to be a bust, so a New Covenant was formed when Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Two thousand years later, and one is left wondering if the New Covenant is any less of a bust than the old one... perhaps the time has come for a Third Covenant?

 

[F1fan]

I fail all the time.
But I’ve never purposefully killed anyone; nor have I put myself in a situation where I might have had to.
And I’m glad I belong to a religion that refuses such a course.

Why are you brining up murder? I pointed out how you judging your fellow Chriostians for not following the Bible was you ignoring what Jesus taught. Are you bringing up not being a murderer as some sort of distratction from my point, and that you might be a good Christian after all?

People judge

themselves by their own actions.

Feel free to judge yourself all you want, but when you judge others, well, you are defying what Jesus taught.

IMHO, you’re misapplying Jesus’ words.

Your humble opinion? That is self-serving. But I notice you offer no correction to my supposed error. Do you agree that Jesus taught not to judge others?

Is it really judging, to say that killing innocent people is loving?

This isn't the issue.

 

[Trailblazer]

What did you mean by physical niceties, if not a warm place in which to live, money to buy food and cars, and friends to talk to,
?

That is what I meant by physical niceties.
Physical niceties = a warm place in which to live, money to buy food and cars, and friends to talk to,

People who are in dire need, the child who has lost her mother and father in Ukraine, the victims of terrible abuse (often from their own family members) do not have the physical niceties.

A person can have the physical niceties and suffer more than a person who does not have all these physical niceties. That is because suffering is a psychological state, not a physical state. I have often heard of people who have very few physical niceties and are even in dire need of food, shelter, and clothing who are nevertheless happy, and they are grateful for what they have, even though they have very little. Conversely, there are movie stars and rich people who have more than enough by way of physical niceties, and they also have friends and family, yet they are miserable and some even commit suicide.

Happiness is not only a psychological state, it is also a spiritual state. The Prophets of God suffered physically yet they were supremely happy.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the unbeliever, the fear of God is the fear of the judgment of God, but for the believer, the fear of God is the typical biblical sense of reverence and awe.

That is true, generally speaking.