Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss....

[McBell]

I was hoping someone may have done an in depth theological research journey and could tell me all the contradictions in the bible, all the mistakes, theologically, historically etc. But alas most answers have been "no reason too"

Perhaps you should have just flat out asked about contradictions, mistakes, etc.?

You asked a rather generic question and got generic answers.
try asking specific questions and see what you get.

Or better yet, start a thread with an OP something like:

I am curious about the alleged contradictions in the Bible.
Perhaps some members can list some of them for me so I may research them for myself?
​

At which time you likely get replies such as:

The historical errors and contradictions prove that the bible and the Gospels are not the word of GOD Almighty..
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
...
50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?
Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

or

Which did God create first -- man or beast? Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2:

Genesis 1:25-26 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
...
Who is for Jesus? Who is against Him?
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me.

Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Perhaps you should have just flat out asked about contradictions, mistakes, etc.?

You asked a rather generic question and got generic answers.
try asking specific questions and see what you get.

Or better yet, start a thread with an OP something like:

I am curious about the alleged contradictions in the Bible.
Perhaps some members can list some of them for me so I may research them for myself?
​

At which time you likely get replies such as:


or

My bad, I just assumed intelligent people who don't believe in God would have made a well thought out decision so when someone asks why don't you believe, the reply could be "too many contradictions" which would lead me to ask " oh, can you tell me more etc" instead of "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason". It's what I like to refer to as the teenager response.

You guys clearly have thought about it, as you have just given me very valid reasons. So why the "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason" initially? I could have phrased the question differently, but you could have given me the true answer instead if the smart **** one.

This thread is connected to the one in atheism DIR where I explained I was struggling with religion, I would have hoped that tells you I'm generally interested and not looking to convert?

I'll respond to your posts ASAP but we are away for the weekend so may be off for a bit.

Thankyou

 

[HonestJoe]

OK so I have been having a lovely chat with the guys over on the atheism DIR regarding reasons they don't believe in God/follow any particular religion. A couple of the reasons mentioned make a valid point, but personally I don't find them reasons to not believe in God entirely.

OK, so I've not read the whole thread so I may be repeating points already made but I've not seen them and I considered them key to this ongoing question.

First, belief in gods and following a religion are two entirely separate concepts. You can believe in gods and not be religious and you can be religious without believing in any god. Lumping the questions together is flawed at best, dishonest at worst (as per the argument "Everything must have a creator therefore the God of the NT must exist!").

You can't choose to believe (or not believe). We each have all the experience and knowledge from our individual lives so far and our brains processes that information in our own individual way. The conclusive viewpoint of the universe around will inevitably include positions on the existence and nature of gods. While we can seek out further information and experience to influence that conclusion, we can't consciously decide what it will be. That's how people can loose their faith regardless of how much they don't want to.

That doesn't mean you can't also address the question of gods from a rational and logical point of view too (and that can influence your personal conclusions). From my point of view, the existence of "some kind of deity" remains unproven and quite possibly umprovable by us (since gods are typically defined in such a way as they could evade or mislead any form of detection). The existence of some specifically defined gods is explicitly disproven (as far as anything can be). We know there is no being sitting on top of Mt Olympus throwing lightning bolts. Similarly, some specific characteristics or stated acts of some gods have been disproven (there was no world-wide flood for example), though that typically leads to believers shifting the definition rather than reassessing their position.

The ultimate question I come down to is "What's the point?". There could be some kind of god or gods out there. There could be literally any kind of god or gods out there. We simply don't know and have no real prospect of knowing in my life-time. I'm not convinced obsessing over some all-powerful being that might be watching over us is such a good thing. I prefer to focus on all the weak and vulnerable beings all around me, the ones I know I can actively do something about.

 

[LuisDantas]

My bad, I just assumed intelligent people who don't believe in God would have made a well thought out decision so when someone asks why don't you believe, the reply could be "too many contradictions" which would lead me to ask " oh, can you tell me more etc" instead of "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason". It's what I like to refer to as the teenager response.

Really? The implication seems to be that people somehow owe the Bible some degree of consideration, sight unseen. I don't think I can support such an assumption.

I could simply refer you to the Skeptics Annotated Bible website.

But instead I will point out that much of the Bible is not respectable or wise. If one must arbitrarily disregard so much of a book, why think of it as particularly important at all?

For a few examples, try Genesis 19:31-38; Genesis 29:21-30:24; Exodus 21; Number 31; 2nd Chronicles 18:18-22; Matthew 10:34-39; Luke 9:54; Acts 13:7-12; 1st Corinthians 14:34-35; 1st Tessalonicenses (sp?) 2:13-18; 1st Timothy 2:9-12

I would expect to find none of that in a scripture worth my consideration. Even if I believed in God in the first place.

You guys clearly have thought about it, as you have just given me very valid reasons. So why the "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason" initially?

Because it is a fair and sufficient answer.

[quoe]I could have phrased the question differently, but you could have given me the true answer instead if the smart **** one.[/quote]

Why do you think there is a difference between the two?

 

[Breathe]

I could simply refer you to the Skeptics Annotated Bible website.

But the SAB is laughably pathetic at best as the people who own it have an understanding of religion equal to that of a six year old.

 

[LuisDantas]

But the SAB is laughably pathetic at best as the people who own it have an understanding of religion equal to that of a six year old.

Have been missing you, pal. Hope you are well.

That said, while what you are saying may well be true (arguable; I don't agree), I don't see how that disqualifies the site.

Surely anyone is free to offer a counterpoint. The site's role is to point out questionable parts of the Bible, not to claim to be fair with it.

 

[Breathe]

Have been missing you, pal. Hope you are well.

Thanks, man, you too, and I'm good.

That said, while what you are saying may well be true (arguable; I don't agree), I don't see how that disqualifies the site.

Surely anyone is free to offer a counterpoint. The site's role is to point out questionable parts of the Bible, not to claim to be fair with it.

I get where you are coming from, but I feel that the site reads and analyses the text like an instruction manual and document, even when they should not be.
It does not take into consideration the theme of the book, and it does not have anything on words; it has no translations of the texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (Bible) or Arabic (Quran), and it doesn't even come with a Strong's concordance or an Arabic equivalent, so it misses out on root words and wordplay that is found even in the Quran.

For example, the book of Psalms; it reads it as though it does not know it's supposed to be read poetically. It does not take into consideration history, mythology, metaphor, poetry, language, or anything of the sort. Just the text. In English.

So the website offers a poor interpretation of religion and it can only really be seen as a rebuttal or really a valid criticism of scripture from a very narrow interpretation of religion, and that is that of the most literalistic ones.

Even a lot of creationists see some metaphor and religion in scripture, which is not something the SAB/SAQ/SABoM does.

So, I see no reason to take it seriously as anything other than a site with a poor understanding of religion and scripture, using only the most narrow and poorly understood versions possible to further their own agenda.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know that people are supposed to take the SAB seriously. That is sort of the point, even.

 

[Breathe]

I don't know that people are supposed to take the SAB seriously. That is sort of the point, even.

Unfortunately, people do. The amount of times people have referred to the SAB seriously is crazy.

We don't take it seriously because we know better.
This is an exception because most people here know their religion quite well.
But others? Nah.
One only has to go to some other sites to see this isn't the case.

 

[Alceste]

My bad, I just assumed intelligent people who don't believe in God would have made a well thought out decision so when someone asks why don't you believe, the reply could be "too many contradictions" which would lead me to ask " oh, can you tell me more etc" instead of "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason". It's what I like to refer to as the teenager response.

You guys clearly have thought about it, as you have just given me very valid reasons. So why the "I just don't" or "I don't need a reason" initially? I could have phrased the question differently, but you could have given me the true answer instead if the smart **** one.

This thread is connected to the one in atheism DIR where I explained I was struggling with religion, I would have hoped that tells you I'm generally interested and not looking to convert?

I'll respond to your posts ASAP but we are away for the weekend so may be off for a bit.

Thankyou

Again, you're approaching this backwards. Nobody needs a well thought out reason to NOT believe in a proposition with no evidence supporting it. Skepticism toward unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims is our default position.

If there were the slightest scrap of evidence that any revealed religion is true, then you might reasonably expect us to give that religion some serious consideration. But there isn't, so why should we?

I do spend a lot of time contemplating why we have evolved with minds that deceive us, and it is from that direction that I contemplate religion. I don't dwell on whether or not one of them might be true or worth following. Even if, by chance, one religion out of thousands happened to get things right, there's no way we could ever know which one. It's also far more likely that religions are all the product of man's imagination than it is that all but one of them are.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Again, you're approaching this backwards. Nobody needs a well thought out reason to NOT believe in a proposition with no evidence supporting it. Skepticism toward unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims is our default position.

If there were the slightest scrap of evidence that any revealed religion is true, then you might reasonably expect us to give that religion some serious consideration. But there isn't, so why should we?

I do spend a lot of time contemplating why we have evolved with minds that deceive us, and it is from that direction that I contemplate religion. I don't dwell on whether or not one of them might be true or worth following. Even if, by chance, one religion out of thousands happened to get things right, there's no way we could ever know which one. It's also far more likely that religions are all the product of man's imagination than it is that all but one of them are.

Please don't use the word "default", it's entirely valid and not your fault, but I'm on another forums and "default" has caused a whole host of problems...my head hurts just hearing it...

Anyway...I was chatting with my husband (who is atheist) about this and he immediately mentioned the burden of proof. However to me (and I guess well never agree in this), having a reason for something and giving proof are two entirely different things.

We mentioned unicorns as an example...my husband said what if someone said "I don't believe because I've never heard if them and so never thought about it"...that statement (as in sentence not as in claim) is perfectly valid and is a reason. The fact that you guys don't believe because there is no evidence or too many contradictions etc is fine...but they are reasons. Even "I've never heard of it" is a reason, I wouldn't expect someone to believe in something they have never heard of.....I'm not asking you to prove anything which yes I agree the burden of proof would lye with those who believe not with those who don't. You prove something exists not that it doesn't....but that is different to giving a reason as to why you think, believe, act, say etc a certain way. I guess you guys are lumping reasons and burden of proof in the same basket.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Really? The implication seems to be that people somehow owe the Bible some degree of consideration, sight unseen. I don't think I can support such an assumption.

I could simply refer you to the Skeptics Annotated Bible website.

But instead I will point out that much of the Bible is not respectable or wise. If one must arbitrarily disregard so much of a book, why think of it as particularly important at all?

For a few examples, try Genesis 19:31-38; Genesis 29:21-30:24; Exodus 21; Number 31; 2nd Chronicles 18:18-22; Matthew 10:34-39; Luke 9:54; Acts 13:7-12; 1st Corinthians 14:34-35; 1st Tessalonicenses (sp?) 2:13-18; 1st Timothy 2:9-12

I would expect to find none of that in a scripture worth my consideration. Even if I believed in God in the first place.




Because it is a fair and sufficient answer.

[quoe]I could have phrased the question differently, but you could have given me the true answer instead if the smart **** one.

Why do you think there is a difference between the two?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the passages...I'll look them up!

First instance: I don't need a reason = I just don't = I don't have a reason

Second instance: a list of reasons as you have just done. You wouldn't agree with a religion which has those passages. That is a reason. Even if it's "I don't like how Christians act" = that is a reason.

Everyone has a reason for everything they do and don't do in life whether they know it or not. To say they don't or to say they don't have a choice is the same as saying they don't have control over their lives. (Obviously you can't change your genetics!)

 

[Alceste]

Please don't use the word "default", it's entirely valid and not your fault, but I'm on another forums and "default" has caused a whole host of problems...my head hurts just hearing it...

Anyway...I was chatting with my husband (who is atheist) about this and he immediately mentioned the burden of proof. However to me (and I guess well never agree in this), having a reason for something and giving proof are two entirely different things.

We mentioned unicorns as an example...my husband said what if someone said "I don't believe because I've never heard if them and so never thought about it"...that statement (as in sentence not as in claim) is perfectly valid and is a reason. The fact that you guys don't believe because there is no evidence or too many contradictions etc is fine...but they are reasons. Even "I've never heard of it" is a reason, I wouldn't expect someone to believe in something they have never heard of.....I'm not asking you to prove anything which yes I agree the burden of proof would lye with those who believe not with those who don't. You prove something exists not that it doesn't....but that is different to giving a reason as to why you think, believe, act, say etc a certain way. I guess you guys are lumping reasons and burden of proof in the same basket.

You may be right about that. OTOH, when the reason for not believing IS a lack of evidence (I prefer "evidence" to "proof" unless we're talking about whiskey or math), it's understandable that we talk about them both together.

In my case, the lack of evidence for religion is not as persuasive as the evidence that religions originate from man's imagination. IOW, I have a working hypothesis for the origin of religion that is supported by a great deal of evidence, has predictive capabilities, can be tested, etc. To cut a long story short, it is not necessary for something to be true in order for people to believe it. Most people will believe almost anything, and even skeptics have blind spots (for example, they tend to reject herbal remedies as a category despite a great deal of evidence that some are as effective or even more effective than commercial drugs). So, given the inherent bias of our cognitive abilities, it is not at all likely that anything we believe without evidence is even remotely close to being true.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And I would direct you to the big bang where the chemistry you lean to doesn't yet exist.

Spirit first....then substance.
THEN God moves to place spirit IN substance....life as we know it.

Cause and effect.
Can't have one without the other.
Science relies on it.
No experiment is valid if you separate the two.

We don't know exactly what happened during the big bang. We don't know what kind of breakdowns existed of our laws or how they developed. So there is nothing for you to suggest that "spirit" even exists.

The bolded are all reasons why you don't believe, yes thank you that is what I meant!

Alright. Good to know and glad to be (hopefully) helpful.

The argument that doubt doesn't require any justification is not a good one, and I simply cannot fathom why it is so popular among atheists.

If you mean "reasoning" then I alreaded explained it. By "reasons not to believe in god" I had assumed it had meant "evidence found against god" which is a strange concept in and of itself.

However the burden of proof is firmly upon those that claim god's existence. I don't have to provide any evidence to the contrary if evidence is not presented in favor. That is simply how logical arguments work.

Though if you were looking at the thought process of what led me to realize that I was an atheist then it is another matter.

 

[Thief]

We don't know exactly what happened during the big bang. We don't know what kind of breakdowns existed of our laws or how they developed. So there is nothing for you to suggest that "spirit" even exists.



Alright. Good to know and glad to be (hopefully) helpful.



If you mean "reasoning" then I alreaded explained it. By "reasons not to believe in god" I had assumed it had meant "evidence found against god" which is a strange concept in and of itself.

However the burden of proof is firmly upon those that claim god's existence. I don't have to provide any evidence to the contrary if evidence is not presented in favor. That is simply how logical arguments work.

Though if you were looking at the thought process of what led me to realize that I was an atheist then it is another matter.

We know.....yes we do......IT MOVED!
And something caused it to move.

That would be God.

Unless you would argue (burden of poof unto you) that Something DEAD....
can cause itself to move....and then generate life.

 

[McBell]

We know.....yes we do......IT MOVED!
And something caused it to move.

That would be God.

Unless you would argue (burden of poof unto you) that Something DEAD....
can cause itself to move....and then generate life.

Classic god of the gap

I bet you are in denial over that particular dogma as well, right?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We know.....yes we do......IT MOVED!
And something caused it to move.

That would be God.

Unless you would argue (burden of poof unto you) that Something DEAD....
can cause itself to move....and then generate life.

Explain to me in detail what you know about the big bang and what "science" knows about the big bang. Before we continue this I need to know where you are at.

 

[psychoslice]

The main reason I feel to not believe in god is that it holds you back from truly living your life to its fullest.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The main reason I feel to not believe in god is that it holds you back from truly living your life to its fullest.

I believe the opposite

 

[psychoslice]

I believe the opposite

Yes that maybe what you feel, but its certainly not for me, been there done that, a wast of time and energy.