Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[samtonga43]

Really. What do atheists assume.I have a feeling that you will get it wrong.

I have a feeling that you would not understand if I told you.

Especially since you appear to be somewhat lacking in comprehension.

Maybe read my post again...?

 

[joelr]

Oh yes, consider yourself an expert on ancient religions .. and I see that the gods have physical forms and are worshiped.
G-d says not to do that. It has nothing to do with him.

Brahman is the ultimate God in Hinduism, all other deities are part of him. I have studied Hinduism. In your myth God says not to, don't care.
Gabrielle gave revelations to Muhammad so the angel was in some form even in Islamic theology. So you are not even correct about that. Gabriel appeared before him and EMBRACED him, so had physical form.
Looks like your religion is also lilke Hinduism.

In Hinduism, Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][3][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

That is one of your false assertions, yet again.
There is evidence, but you don't rate it. You assume them to be deluded or fraudulent.

It's a claim. Just like Joe Smith and Mormonism or the Cargo Cults. When Gabrielle shows up and says he gave revelations and is studies in a lab we'll talk. For now the evidence is anecdotal claims. No chance they are real.

Deviation !
Discuss anything but the Qur'an.

If you cannot discuss your religion don't respond. The claims are not supported by evidence. The OT is 100% mythology, even borrowed stories from Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Pure assumption. Assumption that scripture about G-d is all fraudulent or deluded.

No we actually don't need a "why". That is a fact. Of course it's fraud. No evidence? Uses older mythology. Thinks the OT is real? Sorry that is a mythology.

If I claim a book is written by Krishna or any supernatural thing I need evidence. If I claim I have new updates from any God I need strong evidence. It doesn't exist. This is why religions claim faith is needed.

..atheists claim so..

Do you EVER have an actual argument? You believe claims and only make claims. Yes atheists say this because they are correct and YOU AGREE. You agree hinduism isn't real. You agree Inana wasn't the supreme God.
You agree Mormonism isn't the only way to heaven. Same with J. Witnesses. So you also don't buy many stories and claims.
Your religion also has no evidence, apologetics that are lies, proven in past posts and all claims of revelations have not been true.
There is no reason to believe your claims either.

Why is anything in it?

Well now you are avoiding the question? But people write books and claim they were revelations all the time. This is what the Bahai religion is doing. Claims that God updated him. A man in Austrailia right now claims to be Jesus and is updating his message. But if it isn't a science book why does it talk about science so much. Why do apologetics say it IS A SCIENCE BOOK?? Shall I link to a video of apologetics that lie?

It's subjective .. I wouldn't expect you to "see" what I see.
It applies to me, and not you. I see that returning to disbelief, is just as life-changing as when I became a Muslim .. except that I would be returning to greater uncertainty .. why would I do that, unless I was running away?

Why? Maybe you became more concerned about what is actually true? Uncertainty doesn't equal truth. Christians have certainty, Hindu have it, Scientologists have it, cults have it. So?
Just because you joined a movement and bought into the claims and got certainty doesn't demonstrate it's true? All cults provide this, it's why they are so popular.

So what?
Belief doesn't exclude anybody from catastrophe, including severe disability and illness.

So what? It demonstrates no deity is changing outcomes for people. Probabilities embedded in reality are playing out exactly as they should. Nothing is changing events. No magic being is changing outcomes.

Yes .. you can't find a good reason to believe, but you then assume that nobody else can have.
We all make different conclusions from "the data" and our own experiences in life.
There is no "one size fits all" rational conclusion.
That is the result of black & white thinking, amongst other things.

I was a believer. Then I decided to ensure I could defend my beliefs against skeptics. Turns out my beliefs were not justified and I had to accept that.
This isn't a case of you having different reasons. You have already had multiple chances to explain your reasons. They are no different than any other believer. You accept claims.
There is one size fits all rational conclusion. Is the Earth flat or round?
Are germs real or fake?
Does the sun revolve around the sun or are we the center of the solar system?
Is everything made of atoms? Is the law of thermodynamics true? 2nd law.

Do Christians have rational reasons to believe Jesus is the son of God and said in Matthew he is the only way to heaven, through him or no other?
Do Hindu have rational reasons to believe they will be reincarnated and never go to hell despite ignoring the Quran as fiction?
Not really. Neither do you. It's faith. Faith is a terrible method for knowing truth.

There isn't a good reason to believe. You would have led with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a feeling that you would not understand if I told you.

Especially since you appear to be somewhat lacking in comprehension.

Maybe read my post again...?

Run away! Run away!

 

[muhammad_isa]

..No, you haven't demonstrated any Gods are real..

I was replying to your saying that I believe Christianity and Judaism were made-up.
i.e. why I don't think they were

Regardless the Quran is making unsupported supernatural claims like all the others..

Your opinion, but it is ~1500 years old and not of unknown author. Furthermore it is claimed to be a direct revelation, as you know.

So you say. Yet you have sourced nothing except a myth. I am sourcing actual experts..

Appeal to human authority ... versus the Qur'an.

After the Persian occupation Satan changed to be exactly like the Persian devil. At war with God and humanity and a final battle at the end of the world will settle everything..

I think you refer to 'dajal' or 'the beast' 666.

Are Shaitan and Dajjal the same in Islam? - Quora

In 2 Samuel 24, Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval.[16] 1 Chronicles 21:1 repeats this story,[16] but replaces the "Angel of Yahweh" with an entity referred to as "a satan".[16]

So much wrong here.
1)Prove the Eden story is wrong using scholarship, not mythic stories

Scholarship?
I do not give a hoot about your scholars, and neither do you give a hoot about what the Qur'an teaches.
The OT is comprised of ancient texts that are unreliable.
Nevertheless, it is more about interpretation than outright "wrong". it is not impossible to understand that G-d created satan, and that he tests mankind. The assumption that satan is an angel who "works for G-d" is however, misbelief.

G-d allows His created beings to engage in evil, as He wills.

I do not care about Jewish and Islamic mythology arguments. They are both fiction..

If you take that stance, then why assume angels are capable of sin?
..or is it only particular angels?
It doesn't really matter one way or the other, because G-d is aware of all things.

God sent Satan to inflict 2 plagues killing 140,000..

What about covid?
Did G-d "send satan" with that too?

Interpretation is all. Exact mechanisms of origin and transmission are debatable.

Where in scripture does it say that. If that is in the Quran I do not care about cultural myths..

Yes, it's in the Qur'an.

Uh, Judaism started around 1200 BCE. There were many many underworld devils and demons in myths before that. Do you just believe anything?

No, but I believe in the "last testament" .. the Qur'an.

I do not believe in "historical scholarship", in as much that one can know with certainty the origin of myth.

 

[samtonga43]

Run away! Run away!

You did not re-read my post, did you?

 

[samtonga43]

Why? Because you can't find or demonstrate one? There is nothing known to exist that isn't physical. The concept is incoherent. To exist is to be located in time and space and to be able to interact with other things that exist in time and space. The collection of all such things is reality, and reality is physical (energy, matter, force, space, and time).

This is why I try to resist saying “God exists”. Rather, I would say that “God IS”.

You believe, as I did for many years, that rationality/critical thinking is that than which there is nothing greater.
I believe that God is that than which there is nothing greater.

I believe that God is supra-rational.

 

[Balthazzar]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

What if it's true what the bible states: That we are gods.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Gabrielle gave revelations to Muhammad so the angel was in some form even in Islamic theology. So you are not even correct about that. Gabriel appeared before him and EMBRACED him, so had physical form.
Looks like your religion is also lilke Hinduism..

Rubbish !
Muslims don't worship angels or "images of gods".

In Hinduism, Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][3][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

..all very interesting, but not representative of Divine guidance due to its age and mix of tradition/polytheism.

It's a claim. Just like Joe Smith and Mormonism or the Cargo Cults. When Gabrielle shows up and says he gave revelations and is studies in a lab we'll talk. For now the evidence is anecdotal claims. No chance they are real..

I know it's a claim .. but not all claims are equal .. FSM bla bla.

No we actually don't need a "why". That is a fact. Of course it's fraud..

I wonder why so many people don't agree with you?
We must all be daft, I suppose.

No evidence? Uses older mythology. Thinks the OT is real? Sorry that is a mythology..

No need to be sorry. You are entitled to your opinion, but the scholars you follow do not impress me. They cannot make me an atheist with their academic disclosures and conclusions about ancient history.

You agree Mormonism isn't the only way to heaven. Same with J. Witnesses. So you also don't buy many stories and claims.
Your religion also has no evidence, apologetics that are lies, proven in past posts and all claims of revelations have not been true.
There is no reason to believe your claims either.

That is what you perceive.
I believe that sincerity is the most important thing, and not denomination.
What about a "sincere Hindu" you might ask?
Many Hindus are in fact atheists, so the answer is not straightforward.
Can atheists "go to heaven"?
Anybody might be successful. G-d knows who is sincere and who is not, and has something to hide.

Well now you are avoiding the question?

Not really .. it is not a science book, although it might refer to planets orbiting, for example.

Why? Maybe you became more concerned about what is actually true? Uncertainty doesn't equal truth. Christians have certainty, Hindu have it, Scientologists have it, cults have it. So?
Just because you joined a movement and bought into the claims and got certainty doesn't demonstrate it's true?

No it doesn't .. it's subjective..
..and G-d guides whomsoever He wills.

Of course, an atheist cannot believe that G-d will guide them.
They prefer to think that the universe does not have an author .. that it has no cosmic significance.

So what? It demonstrates no deity is changing outcomes for people. Probabilities embedded in reality are playing out exactly as they should. Nothing is changing events. No magic being is changing outcomes.

I don't see how you can know that.
How can you tell if God intervenes or not?
..just because He does not seem to give us what we would like in this life?

A believer believes that this life is as "a blink of an eye" compared to the life hereafter.
..but it certainly is not easy to keep one's faith in times of hardship .. that is for sure!

I was a believer. Then I decided to ensure I could defend my beliefs against skeptics. Turns out my beliefs were not justified and I had to accept that..

You might be right .. maybe your beliefs were not sound or coherent .. I don't know.
..but totally turning away from God is not beneficial, from what I can see.

This isn't a case of you having different reasons. You have already had multiple chances to explain your reasons. They are no different than any other believer. You accept claims.
There is one size fits all rational conclusion. Is the Earth flat or round?
Are germs real or fake?
Does the sun revolve around the sun or are we the center of the solar system?
Is everything made of atoms? Is the law of thermodynamics true? 2nd law.

Scientific observations have led to the conclusion that these are established fact.
The existence of God cannot be observed in the same manner, but that does not mean that God does not exist.
One would conclude that, if they have decided that the Bible and Qur'an contain deluded or fraudulent text.

Do Christians have rational reasons to believe Jesus is the son of God and said in Matthew he is the only way to heaven, through him or no other?

That's right .. Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, and nobody can come to God except through him.

Having discovered the Qur'an, I can interpret verses differently.

1. First of all, we cannot be sure that the author of a text has not put their own "spin" on it .. ie. it is third hand quoting.
2. son of God is used in the OT in a figurative sense, and does not mean anybody is God
3. Jesus was addressing a Jewish audience, and it would actually mean that none of them could achieve success and piety if they refused him as Messiah.

Muslims do not refuse Jesus as Messiah. Nor do they refuse John the Baptist, Moses ...

Do Hindu have rational reasons to believe they will be reincarnated and never go to hell despite ignoring the Quran as fiction?

I don't know .. you'd have to ask a Hindu.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is why I try to resist saying “God exists”. Rather, I would say that “God IS”.

Those are synonymous to me.

Have you ever heard of kangaroo words? They're pairs of words, one the kangaroo, the other the joey. Here are some examples from the Internet. You can probably tell what they have in common and why they are called that:

alone, one
arena, area
blossom bloom
curtail cut
deception con
devilish evil
encourage urge

You believe, as I did for many years, that rationality/critical thinking is that than which there is nothing greater.

There is no other way to generate correct statements (sound conclusions) about how the universe works.

I believe that God is supra-rational.

That term has no meaning to me. Nothing is suprarational, nor infrarational, juxtarational, extrarational, transrational, microrational, hyperrational, holorational, nor quasirational. None of these words have any meaning. Thought is either rational or irrational. Irrational is undesirable when thinking about how reality is, but perfect for experiencing and enjoying it. When we deem an idea or object moral, beautiful, precious, funny, etc., we are making irrational judgments, since they aren't the result of reasoning. But for deciding what is true, irrational thought is a bust.

Here's something from Pat Condell. I apologize for the provocative language (peddlers, hustlers), but this expresses my sentiment nevertheless.

"Faith-peddlers like to put themselves beyond question by claiming that their faith transcends reason, the very thing that calls it to account. How convenient. Yes, faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law. The word "transcendent" is very popular with religious hustlers because they never have to explain precisely what they mean by it, other than some vague superior state of understanding more profound than mere reason, which is crude and simplistic next to the subtleties and profundities of belief without evidence. If you hear a senior clergyman (and you will) using the word “transcendent" to explain the nonsense he claims to believe, then you know two things: one: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and two: he doesn't want you to know what he's talking about either. Faith doesn't transcend reason at all. Faith sidesteps reason. It runs away from reason because reason threatens its cozy bubble of delusion, so faith disqualifies reason the way a Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth, and witnesses, and for much the same reason."

 

[Trailblazer]

What if it's true what the bible states: That we are gods.

The Bible says that?

 

[Balthazzar]

The Bible says that?

Well, it's stated (written) a couple or three times, so yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a feeling that you would not understand if I told you.

Especially since you appear to be somewhat lacking in comprehension.

Maybe read my post again...?

I did. You would still need to support your claim. You tried to put a weak conditional claim in your post. It would only fool the ignorant.

You don't seem to understand how your accusation works. If you are talking about only a small percentage of atheists then you should have noted that. If you are only talking about a minority. for example if I talk about YEC's I do not say "Christians, not all, are blatant deniers of reality" I would be in the wrong. An accusation as you posted needs a better qualifier than you gave to it.

It looks like you just wanted to smear a group that you did not like and when challenged you ran away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says that?

There are several places, especially if one reads out of context. This article covers some of them , though it relies on rather poor apologetics at times to CYA:

17 Bible verses about Men As Gods

Of course cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is thought to be okay by Christians to support their beliefs. When they claim "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies on Jesus" one knows that they are quote mining. Yet they oddly complain when I do the same "There is no God" source the Bible. One can get the Bible to say almost anything if one is willing to quote mine it hard enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are several places, especially if one reads out of context. This article covers some of them , though it relies on rather poor apologetics at times to CYA:

17 Bible verses about Men As Gods

Of course cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is thought to be okay by Christians to support their beliefs. When they claim "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies on Jesus" one knows that they are quote mining. Yet they oddly complain when I do the same "There is no God" source the Bible. One can get the Bible to say almost anything if one is willing to quote mine it hard enough.

The Bible, what a great book.
As I have always said, one can pretty much make the Bible "say" anything they want to "believe."
Oh, and the beauty of it is that you cannot be wrong...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well all supernatural ideas cannot be proven or disproven? Santa Claus cannot be proven or disproven. There are many concepts of God. Yahweh is one. Brahman is another.

The etymology of Yahweh is very suspicious, starting out as a Canaanite warrior deity and becoming the Go of Israel, remaining a warrior until the theology developed. The Persian theology appears in Christianity and later Greek theology. So it looks a bit made-up from other made up concepts.

Brahman may share similarities to God but is not the same. Brahman has, for example, traits such as the insistence that Brahman is consciousness. I don't use the term 'Yahweh' as the entity it referred to in Canaanite times ceased to be what the letters were used for. The original usage was even forgotten. Many centuries later came the concept of God which was not this either. Therefore I think the etymology of 'Yahweh' is tangent to the subject at most.

All testable ideas may be proven or disproven. God's existence is not one of them. Perhaps Brahman's is or 'Yahwehs'. Santa Clause definitely can be proven or disproved because he has traits that allow for it, such as the ability to deliver toys all over the world one night per year.

Sounds like you have been learning history from apologetics and a christian church. This isn't what the peer-reviewed historical field says at all?

Borrowing imagery from Greece doesn't make it the same thing. I am speaking briefly, but I appreciate what you're saying. You're thinking that all of this is the origin of God though, and it isn't. Paul could be gone and Jesus, too. These would not affect the existence of God.

No Hellenistic deities are about salvation. They usually die/undergo a passion and resurrect often in 3 days providing salvation to followers. The things he was preaching were Hillelite Judaism which predates Jesus.
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

Dr Carrier PhD

Sounds like that Greek salvation isn't repentance but about extending the life of a person. That is why stories about Jesus are not mere copies. Borrowing the imagery is not the same as copying the story. What we have in the NT are stories as much a departure from those as the story of Noah is from Gilgamesh. Jesus dies and is resurrected in the stories, yet the authors of every gospel make him Israel. It is true children think of Jesus as a man, but he is plainly Israel. Every time a gospel says Jesus fulfills something it is telling us this: the hope of Israel will revive, Israel has not been destroyed for nothing. Any scholar who cannot see this is not to be trusted.

'Salvation' in Jewish writing is not about saving the lives of individuals from eventual death. The individuals always die. Abraham dies old and full of years, for example; but he's saved from being a monster, saved from the ways that he has put behind him.

They are personal salvation cults

Hence not the same, though it is irrelevant or tangent to our topic about God. Jesus and Paul both teach denial of the self and dissolution into Christ. James points out: "The flower falls, and its beauty is destroyed."

Versions of God are just syncretic creations. Nothing original or actual revelations. Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian stories and the God is no different than older versions.

'God' is not a concept available in ancient Mesopotamia. The most similar thing would be the Early Etruscan formless gods, but these also can be proved or disproved. To begin with they have a number, are not omnipresent. They are, however, invisible and intangible. They take form, but they can change form. God does not take form. They also have personalities.

This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it?

Sure, but it doesn't change God. Christians can become pagan without realizing it, but that doesn't make God provable or not. Defending Christianity is not my job, and I'm simply talking about the OP. God is not like gods, and part of it is that God cannot be proved or disproved.

...As Professor Fransesca Stravopolou talks about, the 2nd T.P. is when the Judahite Kings returned from exile and the OT was re-branded and changed, assembled and focus on monotheism began. Ashera Yahwehs consort was believed to be the cause of the trouble in Israel. This is in scripture.
Obviously the Persian myths had huge impact on Judaism and Christianity. Greek influence came in the last century BCE.

I've no interest in entrapping you into any religion or belief. If you feel like you have found a freedom that you have needed, then I want to help you not get in your way. The same has been done for me by others, and I can do no less. This information about Christianity, though, does not tag 'God'. God does not owe anything to Christianity, does not depend upon it, is not supported by it. God is either discovered or invented, but you cannot say which it is. It is separate from all of these things about Judahite kings and so on.

Yes but you also seem unaware of the historicity of the theology.

It has a long and complex history, but I know bits that you don't and you know bits I don't.

Truth is a different topic but the truth here is these are syncretic stories, mythology designed to teach what these people thought were good morals and ethics.

That's all fascinating but not related to whether God can be proved or disproved. You have cited gods and things that are similar to God but not the same as. The very philosophical derivation of God makes it difficult or impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[samtonga43]

The Bible, what a great book.
As I have always said, one can pretty much make the Bible "say" anything they want to "believe."
Oh, and the beauty of it is that you cannot be wrong...

And you are an expert at attempting to make the Bible say anything you want to believe.

 

[samtonga43]

Of course cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is thought to be okay by Christians to support their beliefs.

You need a determiner between 'by' and 'Christians'. I wonder if you know why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need a determiner between 'by' and 'Christians'. I wonder if you know why?

That is true, but in this case it does appear to be the majority, unlike your case where you used a determiner improperly.

 

[samtonga43]

That is true, but in this case it does appear to be the majority, unlike your case where you used a determiner improperly.

It appears to you that the majority of Christians think that cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is OK to support their beliefs?

Any evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears to you that the majority of Christians think that cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is OK to support their beliefs?

Any evidence?

This is the last question you get to ask without answering some of their own. The only examples that I can site are those that try to defend the faith on internet forums. The average Christian is probably woefully ignorant about the poor arguments that are used to defend their beliefs. This would be a case of ignorance being bliss. Unfortunately for you that makes your earlier statement even more indefensible.