Why don’t you believe in God?

[ChristineM]

Trailblazer said: Is, times have changed for the worse. In the old days most everyone believed in God. As God belief falls away people lack the morals they once had.

Not cherry picking, i read your whole post, the first sentence indicated, to.me, a wider scope

 

[Magic Man]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

Not exactly, but not far off. It's because the concept of a theistic god just didn't add up. I was raised Catholic and believed until I was about 16-20. Some of the early cracks in the facade were things like the problem of evil. Eventually, I realized that there's just no actual good reason to believe in a theistic god. They're all products of humans' imaginations. The only reason people still believe in the Abrahamic god is mostly politics. Otherwise, it would be treated similarly to other theistic gods like Zeus.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don't have billions of people clinging on to fairy stories about me designing it all

If you were an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god, as the Bible claims that the Abrahamic God is, would you create a man and a woman knowing that they would disobey you after you deliberately used a talking serpent to tempt them to take a bite of a forbidden fruit that you explicitly instructed them not to do? Would you then punish them for their disobedience (as you knew would happen) and the serpent for doing what you knew it would do? Would you also unjustly punish and curse the rest of humanity with a sinful nature for this man and woman's disobedience? Would you devise a plan for ruthlessly torturing and crucifying your own divine son to redeem the humans you created, knowing that they would become morally corrupt?

According to the creation story, God not only created Adam and Eve knowing that they would disobey him, but he also deliberately tempted them with a talking serpent, punished them for their disobedience (which he knew would happen), and also punished the serpent for doing what he knew it would do. He then unjustly cursed the rest of humanity with a sinful nature for the sin of Adam and Eve, and devised a sinister plan to brutally kill his own son by torturing and crucifying him in order to atone for his mistake of creating humanity with the foreknowledge that they would become morally corrupt.

If he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present, as the Bible claims, then surely he would know better than to create Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity), knowing that he would later regret creating humanity and repopulate the planet with the same morally flawed humans that he just annihilated in a global flood. According to Genesis 6:6, he regretted creating humans as well as every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. Thus, he carried out his plan to annihilate humanity in a global flood, with the exception of the devout Noah and his family (Genesis 6:7-8).

In accordance with what the Bible states, it is my opinion that God was morally depraved (sinful, evil, sadistic) to first create Adam and Eve knowing that they would disobey him and that he would punish them for their disobedience; second, he punished and cursed Satan (the serpent), despite using Satan to carry out his nefarious plan to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying him; third, punish and curse the rest of humanity with a sinful nature because of Adam and Eve's disobedience against him, despite the fact that the rest of humanity had nothing to do with it; and finally, he brutally tortured and killed his own son to "redeem" humanity for behaving exactly the way he knew they would behave before he created Adam and Eve. I think that is truly evil (Isaiah 45:7).

 

[ChristineM]

If you were an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god, as the Bible claims that the Abrahamic God is, would you create a man and a woman knowing that they would disobey you after you deliberately used a talking serpent to tempt them to take a bite of a forbidden fruit that you explicitly instructed them not to do? Would you then punish them for their disobedience (as you knew would happen) and the serpent for doing what you knew it would do? Would you also unjustly punish and curse the rest of humanity with a sinful nature for this man and woman's disobedience? Would you devise a plan for ruthlessly torturing and crucifying your own divine son to redeem the humans you created, knowing that they would become morally corrupt?

According to the creation story, God not only created Adam and Eve knowing that they would disobey him, but he also deliberately tempted them with a talking serpent, punished them for their disobedience (which he knew would happen), and also punished the serpent for doing what he knew it would do. He then unjustly cursed the rest of humanity with a sinful nature for the sin of Adam and Eve, and devised a sinister plan to brutally kill his own son by torturing and crucifying him in order to atone for his mistake of creating humanity with the foreknowledge that they would become morally corrupt.

If he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present, as the Bible claims, then surely he would know better than to create Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity), knowing that he would later regret creating humanity and repopulate the planet with the same morally flawed humans that he just annihilated in a global flood. According to Genesis 6:6, he regretted creating humans as well as every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. Thus, he carried out his plan to annihilate humanity in a global flood, with the exception of the devout Noah and his family (Genesis 6:7-8).

In accordance with what the Bible states, it is my opinion that God was morally depraved (sinful, evil, sadistic) to first create Adam and Eve knowing that they would disobey him and that he would punish them for their disobedience; second, he punished and cursed Satan (the serpent), despite using Satan to carry out his nefarious plan to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying him; third, punish and curse the rest of humanity with a sinful nature because of Adam and Eve's disobedience against him, despite the fact that the rest of humanity had nothing to do with it; and finally, he brutally tortured and killed his own son to "redeem" humanity for behaving exactly the way he knew they would behave before he created Adam and Eve. I think that is truly evil (Isaiah 45:7).

Going by the bible there is no doubt the god character is a real nasty *******.

What gets me is how so many people defend their god to the extent they consider the evil acts to be good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trailblazer said: Is, times have changed for the worse. In the old days most everyone believed in God. As God belief falls away people lack the morals they once had.

Is the bold a fact, true and with objective evidence or just you belief with your personal evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Going by the bible there is no doubt the god character is a real nasty *******.

What gets me is how so many people defend their god to the extent they consider the evil acts to be good.

Well, you can if you want to construct a god that fits the uinverse as a form of deism, but then that god is not just good.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Going by the bible there is no doubt the god character is a real nasty *******.

I agree with you, Christine.

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" (Richard Dawkins). IMO, he accurately described God. I don't think we should characterize God as loving, merciful, or just.

What gets me is how so many people defend their god to the extent they consider the evil acts to be good.

I agree, and what also bothers me is that these same people believe that the biblical God is loving, merciful, just, and their "heavenly father."

 

[Jimmy]

If God did a pretty good job himself, then why does the Bible state that he regretted creating humans (Genesis 6:6-7)? There are other scriptures in the Bible that highlight his other regrets in addition to creating humanity (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). Surely, an omnipotent (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), omniscient (Psalm 139:1–6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17) God would know better than to create something that he would later regret creating. Furthermore, wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God know better than to repopulate the planet with the same morally flawed humans that he just destroyed in a global flood? According to the verses that describe his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, the answer is that he knew better, but he created humans anyway, well aware of the horrific consequences. Based on this conclusion, I don't think the biblical God can be described as moral, loving, and just, but rather cruel, sadistic, and psychotic.

Um… it’s a book

 

[ChristineM]

Um… it’s a book

Yup, that billions (literally) of people believe to be gospel

 

[Rival]

Otherwise, it would be treated similarly to other theistic gods like Zeus.

The fact there are folks who think the Abrahamic God concept is the same as the Zeus God concept is part of the reason you don't understand why one has lasted and the other hasn't.

The concepts are not remotely the same and yet I see people trotting out this crap about worshipping Zeus as though Zeus is the same as classical monotheism. This shows such a severe deficiency in understanding of theological concepts it's depressing.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yup, that billions (literally) of people believe to be gospel

^ This.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree with you, Christine.

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" (Richard Dawkins). IMO, he accurately described God. I don't think we should characterize God as loving, merciful, or just.



I agree, and what also bothers me is that these same people believe that the biblical God is loving, merciful, just, and their "heavenly father."

Yeah, I get you. Now my wife as a Christian is not a Bible reading old school theist. She is a modern in effect leftleaning in human rights believing secular humanist, who just happens to believe in a hippie Jesus of all love. Now it works for her, because it comforts her.

Does she read the Bible in the correct manner? No, she has never read it, but she is still a Christian in effect.
Off course unless you want to play that you know what makes a Christian a Christian? I don't know that so I just ask other people and if they say yes, I trust them to be that.

So yes, there are Christians like the one you claim, but that is not all of them, because not all of them actually believe in a Biblical God. They believe in effect in a folk version of God/Jesus.
And I have to ask you this: How is that wrong/bad or what ever in any sense?

 

[Trailblazer]

I have what I regard as evidence that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean that you would see the evidence in the same light that I do. We have different beliefs about the nature of reality, after all.

I have what I regard as evidence that God exists, but that doesn't mean that you would see the evidence in the same light that I do. We are coming from two completely different perspectives, after all.

I don't believe that reality includes a spiritual plane of existence, and I don't believe that minds or "souls" can exist independently of physical brain activity. I reject belief in God to the same extent that I reject belief in the existence of entities such as leprechauns and ghosts. That is, I don't believe in magic, miracles, or disembodied spirits. Gods would fall into that category.

Of course you don't believe in these things. You would have no reason to believe these things unless you believed in a religion that teaches them.
I don't believe that the physical body and the material world are all that exists since my religion teaches otherwise. It is just as ludicrous for me to believe that this is all there is as it is for you to believe there is something more than this.

Right, and it would take us far afield for me to even try to list all of the things I take as evidence and have you try to rebut all of that. Basically, our difference lies in fundamentally different perspectives on the nature of reality--how the universe works.

I understand that you view the nature of reality as physical with nothing beyond the physical, but what does that have to do with what would be evidence for God if God existed. What I am asking is what would constitute evidence that would be sufficient for you to believe God exists. What would convince you? Presumably, the evidence would have to come from God. What evidence would God have to provide for you to believe He exists?

Do you really think anyone knows how the universe works? I certainly do not claim to know.

First of all, you seem to recognize that appeals to popularity are fallacies, but at the same time you think they should be taken seriously. I don't, and bear in mind that I don't pretend to be "most adults". We can always dispute what counts as evidence, but ad populum arguments don't work for me. To be fair, human cognition is not really rational, and ad populum arguments tend to be very attractive justifications for maintaining beliefs. I don't just dismiss them out of hand. To do so is to embrace opprobrium.

I am not making an ad populum argument since I am not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists. I am just trying to be logical. It makes no logical sense that most people would believe in God if there had never been any evidence for God's existence. Why would they believe? What would they have to base their beliefs upon? The fact that many or most people believe that God exists is true does not mean that God exists is true, which is the ad populum fallacy, but it also does not mean that God exists is false. The proposition "God exists" could be true or false.

Nobody wants to be a social outcast. Nevertheless, I can't force myself to accept religious faith just because most people I know accept it, especially when I feel I have good reasons to be skeptical.

I understand how you feel. As a Baha'i, I am kind of a social outcast in a Christian society, but I can't force myself to accept Christianity just because most people I know accept it, especially when I have good reasons not to accept it. The same applies to the Bible. Most Bahais accept that at least it was inspired by God, but I have my own reasons to be skeptical.

Generally speaking, it is impossible to prove beyond all doubt that existential claims are false, and it is fairly easy to prove that they are true. To prove them true, you only have to provide reasonable evidence in support of existence.

I don't know what you mean by existential claims. If you mean religious claims I don't think it is possible to 'prove' that they are true. All we have is evidence but evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, but how could God ever be verified?

Moreover, since all people view the evidence differently, not everyone will be convinced by the evidence.

Exactly. But, if you have tried diligently to find evidence for an existential claim, and you keep coming up with nothing, then the likelihood of existence decreases. For example, if you may have left your purse or wallet in the taxicab, and you can't find it anywhere in your possession after leaving the taxi, it is time to call the cab company. It's the Sherlock Holmes solution: when all other possibilities are eliminated, the remaining explanation, however improbable, is the truth.

I understand, so you have tried diligently to find the evidence and came up with nothing? Where have you looked?

I suspect that you possess a lot more hidden assumptions that you take for granted but that I would not. There is that fundamental belief about the existence of immaterial spirits that I think you accept intuitively and I do not. I think that there is overwhelming evidence against it.

I do not take anything for-granted. It is not an assumption it is a belief and I have a basis for my belief. I do believe that spirits exist in a spiritual world that is beyond this world and I do not only believe that because of my religion. I believe that mediums have been able to contact spirits and they have evidential support for their claims. There is evidence for spirits but I don't see how there could be evidence against them. Even if many mediums are fraudulent that does not mean that all mediums are fraudulent. The same applies to religious claims. Just because some religious claims are false that does not mean all religious claims are false.

So arguments about the existence of gods are not just about evidence for the existence of any particular god. They are also about what one believes about the ground level of reality.

That's true.

 

[Magic Man]

The fact there are folks who think the Abrahamic God concept is the same as the Zeus God concept is part of the reason you don't understand why one has lasted and the other hasn't.

The concepts are not remotely the same and yet I see people trotting out this crap about worshipping Zeus as though Zeus is the same as classical monotheism. This shows such a severe deficiency in understanding of theological concepts it's depressing.

Not the same, but similar enough. I completely understand why one has lasted. It was supported by states, Christianity starting with Rome and then many others.

I assure you I'm well versed in theological concepts, but thanks for your concern.

 

[Rival]

Not the same, but similar enough. I completely understand why one has lasted. It was supported by states, Christianity starting with Rome and then many others.

I assure you I'm well versed in theological concepts, but thanks for your concern.

Christianity was supported by the state, really? You mean the state that for 300 didn't recognize its legitimacy at all and had numerous Christians put to death for failing to worship the Emperor? That state? Please cut this out.

Christianity and other Abrahamic religions have held ground because they have a different God concept that reaches more people and is more philosophically comprehensive to people. One need only read the Church Fathers to appreciate this.

But this nonsense about politics has to die. It's rehashed anti-Catholic propaganda against Rome and I do not understand why non-Christians are using it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does she read the Bible in the correct manner? No, she has never read it, but she is still a Christian in effect.

I have never read the Bible either, only bits and pieces, but like your wife I have reasons to believe in Jesus, namely because of what Baha'i Faith teaches about Jesus. However, I do not consider myself a Christian because I do not ascribe to the Bible. I believe some of what it says about Jesus might be true, but certainly not all of it.

 

[Magic Man]

Christianity was supported by the state, really? You mean the state that for 300 didn't recognize its legitimacy at all and had numerous Christians put to death for failing to worship the Emperor? That state? Please cut this out.

No, I mean the state of which it was the official religion. You do realize stuff happened after 300 AD, right?

Christianity and other Abrahamic religions have held ground because they have a different God concept that reaches more people and is more philosophically comprehensive to people. One need only read the Church Fathers to appreciate this.

But this nonsense about politics has to die. It's rehashed anti-Catholic propaganda against Rome and I do not understand why non-Christians are using it.

Christianity and Islam have stuck around because they have been supported by powerful states. Because of that, their god-concepts have morphed over time to be malleable to different areas and different times.

There's nothing anti-Catholic about any of this. It's just facts. What I don't understand is why you deny it and why you think it's anti-Catholic. Saying Christianity survived due to being the official religion of powerful states starting with Rome is anti-Rome? I'm not even sure how that's supposed to make sense.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the bold a fact, true and with objective evidence or just you belief with your personal evidence?

There is objective evidence that morals have declined and that can be correlated to the steady decline of religion, as more and more people drop out of Christianity or are not even raised in it.

For example, in the 18th century and the early 19th century, even to the mid-19th century, the sexual mores were a lot different, and that was because most people were Christians and they really believed in the Bible and followed it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is objective evidence that morals have declined and that can be correlated to the steady decline of religion, as more and more people drop out of Christianity or are not even raised in it.

For example, in the 18th century and the early 19th century, even to the mid-19th century, the sexual mores were a lot different, and that was because most people were Christians and they really believed in the Bible and followed it.

Yeah, problem is I have never seen objective evidence for an objective standard for morality. I have come across people like you who claim it is so and give subjective evidence, but never objective.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, problem is I have never seen objective evidence for an objective standard for morality. I have come across people like you who claim it is so and give subjective evidence, but never objective.

No, there is no objective evidence for any standard of morality, since the standards come from religion which is not objective evidence.