Why don't you believe in God/s?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Never believed. A ton of reasons, mostly boiling down to poor/no evidence, and the inconsistency of believers' testimony.

• God is only ever talked about by people with their words or writing.
• Even people who talk/write about gods are quick to dismiss most other people's gods - this goes 'round full circle, and all gods end up being dismissed by someone. Therefore, why not all of them at once?
• The ease with which people can change faith, and it has no implications... just hearsay or claims that effects on our decisions are not actualized until death (how convenient for those telling the stories!)
• So many claims made with zero evidence, and all of them happening in realms the believer claims we can't measure or interact with. It's all too convenient for the storyteller - I have no choice but to believe that something other than what they are saying is going on.
• Too many illogical parts to the written stories, and so very many parts that don't jive with what people are also trying to tell you outside the texts - all while many of them claim that God speaks through them to deliver the message.
• Belief just feels wrong to me - completely against my grain. And I feel nothing but embarrassment and a form of pity for believers - watching them do what they do, and argue what they argue honestly makes me question humanity's future.
• Too much evidence and experience in the world flies in the face of religious belief that I can't ignore it. Not just scientific evidence (though that plays a part), but even my own experience with what Earth has to offer... and what I can decidedly see/feel that it does not have to offer.

Let's face it... if ALL of the evidence is testimony-based (which we can also easily lump religious texts into), and the "witnesses" can't get their stories straight (an indisputable FACT), then there is really little choice we have but to reject the evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists, what caused you to stop believing? Or for those who never believed, why not?

My main reason for leaving the church was the hypocrisy and hurtfulness of Christianity. Only then did i start to critically review the bible in an attempt to discover what made them so hateful. It was that reviewing of the "good" book that made me realise that is the way they are taught. That lead me to consider the evidence (or complete lack of) for god and my conversion to atheism was complete.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes.. If there actually is a god? It's principle attribute is one of absolute indifference.

Evil, in other words.

Evil denotes ill-intention. Indifference or neutrality is not evil. Is the ocean evil because its waves wash away the house you built on the shoreline? Is the weather evil because it didn't rain on your crops when you needed it to?

Isn't this a rejection of a god that is a projection of human values, an anthropomorphism? I too reject the anthropomorphic God, as that is not God but an image of ourselves as God, which of course is a self-contradicting absurdity. Like, "no duh", as they say.

 

[Polymath257]

Such hubris. You think people believe in God for "emotional support"? What about those who are emotionally stable and well-fulfilled who choose to pursue God for "spiritual support"? You don't think spirituality is a real human experience? Do you think spirituality is nothing other than emotionalism?

I think spirituality is one of the many human emotions. People 'pursue God' for a feeling of purpose, to avoid the concept of death, to feel connected to others, and to attempt to understand the universe. ALL of these are emotional desires. Furthermore, even emotionally stable people require emotional support from friends and loved ones. If anything, one mark of an emotionally stable person is that they have a good support system.

Yes, I think spirituality is a real human experience, just like every other emotion (love, hate, fear, happiness) are real human experiences. But do I think it is *more* than that? No.

There is a difference between emotionalism (excessive reliance on emotions) and being motivated, in part, by emotions. Everyone does the latter to at least some extent (probably more than they realize). We all have the myths we live by to ignore reality. In some ways, that may even be required to be healthy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I tried to believe in God for a long time. I just never found the idea to be believable.

Honestly, when I stop and think about it, it's still wild to me that people treat modern religion any more seriously than we generally treat Greek mythology.

Not quite true, I think.
So in terms of literal truth, I see your point. It does perhaps matter which modern religion we're talking about, but anyway...I see what you mean.
But one thing that I tend to overlook is the practical communal aspects of religion. I have Catholic and Theravada Buddhist friends in particular who don't ever really speak of the theology of their religions, or in defence of some of the beliefs of the religion to which they belong. They do speak quite passionately about the sense of belonging, and community the religion provides.
So at least in that sense you could treat a modern religion more seriously than Greek mythology, despite the literal messaging appearing no more likely (to me).

Transubstantiation alone blows my mind.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Such hubris. You think people believe in God for "emotional support"? What about those who are emotionally stable and well-fulfilled who choose to pursue God for "spiritual support"? You don't think spirituality is a real human experience? Do you think spirituality is nothing other than emotionalism?

There would be plenty of materialists who would argue that spirituality is not a thing in and of itself. Whilst my beliefs are less...certain (formed maybe?)...I'm not sure that we can simply denounce all materialists for hubris.

 

[nPeace]

Yes.. If there actually is a god? It's principle attribute is one of absolute indifference.

Evil, in other words.

Yes? You found the answer? You mean you looked to your own reasoning as an answer?
How could you find an answer to a question like that within yourself?
Isn't that equivalent to me looking at a red sky, and ashing, "Why is the sky red?" Then answering the question with what seems to me to be the answer - "It's red because there is a bloody war going on up there."
All I'm doing bro, is satisfying myself with an answer, because I don't find one. Is that not what some atheist claim religion does?

Why? The answer could be "unknown".

The answer could be "we can't know"

Didn't you say a moment ago, you found the answer? Now you've got me in a bit of trouble. Uh. Should I ask again, or just leave you to sort that out?

Science isn't about philosophy, so it does not even try to answer where evil comes from.


The bible's "answer" is that god is pure evil. But I see that as unlikely-- for there is good in the world.


Not in the bible-- it's obviously false.


The bible's god is pretty evil, actually. Having read and studied the whole thing, and not just the "pretty" bits? Yeah... the bible has helped to make me the atheist I am today.

So basically bro, from this post, I gather you haven't found the answer. you just basically conclude that you think the God of the Bible is evil - end of story.
That conclusion based on the facts, is reached by very few people. Why do you think that's the case? Why do the vast majority of people who read the Bible, not see God as evil?
...and please, don't tell me it's because they are blind. I may well think you are joking. Although there is nothing wrong with a good laugh now and again.

Thanks for sharing though. The truth is, millions of people who read and study the Bible, believe they have found the answer to the question of why God permits evil, and they didn't get it from their own feelings. They got it from the Bible, and they believe that many persons who are seeking the answer - because it's a logical one - can find the answer too, and have a lot of cobwebs cleared.

Yeah... the bible has helped to make me the atheist I am today

I'm sorry you feel that way, and do honestly hope you get to understand it as it is - if you truly want to - so you wouldn't feel that way - which i honestly believe is false... Me and millions more.
have a good day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not quite true, I think.
So in terms of literal truth, I see your point. It does perhaps matter which modern religion we're talking about, but anyway...I see what you mean.
But one thing that I tend to overlook is the practical communal aspects of religion. I have Catholic and Theravada Buddhist friends in particular who don't ever really speak of the theology of their religions, or in defence of some of the beliefs of the religion to which they belong. They do speak quite passionately about the sense of belonging, and community the religion provides.
So at least in that sense you could treat a modern religion more seriously than Greek mythology, despite the literal messaging appearing no more likely (to me).

Transubstantiation alone blows my mind.

I was talking in terms of belief. Sure: religious organizations also hold social events and support their communities in different ways, but this wasn't what I was getting at.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was talking in terms of belief. Sure: religious organizations also hold social events and support their communities in different ways, but this wasn't what I was getting at.

Yup, I figured. Wasn't judging your intent, just responding with my thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

Oh? Seems there are many varying opinions that are new to me.
So wouldn't that make various scientific theories religion - theories and sets of beliefs - synonyms and related words | Macmillan Dictionary if that's the case?

No, I don't see how. Science, sometimes unfortunately, is only concerned with facts, not what's done with them.
Moreover, science is anti-faith, skeptical of everything, and always willing to revise its views as new evidence emerges. Science follows evidence, not scripture, folklore, mythology or commonsense; Anything lacking actual, empirical support is considered hypothesis, at best.

 

[Windwalker]

I think spirituality is one of the many human emotions. People 'pursue God' for a feeling of purpose, to avoid the concept of death, to feel connected to others, and to attempt to understand the universe. ALL of these are emotional desires.

Let me break this down a little. While in these examples you can say there is an emotional component associated with them, I think you can say the same of anything we as humans ask, question, and seek in life in totality. The pursuit of finding truth in scientific points of view for example, can just as easily fit into the above.

Atheism itself can be seen as well as for "emotional support" because it is seen as liberating one from religion in order to "pursue a feeling of purpose, avoid the death concept, feel connected to others, and to attempt the understand the universe." Do you reduce atheism to emotional drives? If not, why not? And if you admit they equally apply, then what value is there in trying to say that "spirituality" equals "emotionalism"?

My thoughts on this are that while there may be an emotional component to these things (though not always), they are not definable as an emotion itself, nor driven or motivated by emotional needs. As a domain of investigation, they are quite different. In actual reality and practice, spiritual depth actually seeks to remove emotion from the pursuit because it interferes with Awareness. It clouds the mind. It confuses.

One of the principle goals in seeking Enlightenment (which is spiritual to say the least) is the pursuit of non-attachment. That means any and all of our thoughts and ideas about ourselves and reality are set aside, and emotions are set aside with those. In fact, to cling to your thoughts and ideas and beliefs, naturally preserves emotionality which distracts and interferes from a full release into an Awakened state.

In a quick nutshell, contrary to this notion that spirituality is emotionalism, Spirituality is actually a state of consciousness, or better still, a condition of one's being. Not an emotional state. Now, in that state of being, often it is just simply silent awareness where Beauty is allowed to simply flow through you without attachments. If there is emotional responses to that, well, it is more senses of gratitude for being free from being wrapped up in ones emotional states.

Furthermore, even emotionally stable people require emotional support from friends and loved ones. If anything, one mark of an emotionally stable person is that they have a good support system.

And a spiritually stable person has a good spiritual support network as well. The argument was that people seek spirituality because they are emotionally lacking. That's bogus.

Yes, I think spirituality is a real human experience, just like every other emotion (love, hate, fear, happiness) are real human experiences. But do I think it is *more* than that? No.

But when I sit upon the edge of the hill and release all my thoughts and concerns, all my emotions that pull this way and that, all hopes and expectations, all wants and desires into Void, and sit in silent stillness absorbing Reality into my body, mind, and spirit, how is this emotionalism, exactly? While there is Peace, that condition is radically different that emotions, which are easily recognized as such in contrast with that state or condition of being.

Emotions are an attachment to the body and the mind of thoughts. Spirituality is the transcending of these. So the argument fails.

There is a difference between emotionalism (excessive reliance on emotions) and being motivated, in part, by emotions. Everyone does the latter to at least some extent (probably more than they realize). We all have the myths we live by to ignore reality. In some ways, that may even be required to be healthy.

But, spirituality is not the same as emotions, nor are they motivated by emotional drives. If they were, then why is the goal to set aside engaging with the emotions? If anything, that alone argues they aren't driven by emotions, as that would a be self-defeating desire of emotions towards self-annihilation. Like anything in evolution, all seeking is done out of self-preservation. Same thing with the ego. The goal is to transcend the ego. If spirituality is an "ego-trip", that would seem a rather self-defeating move on the part of the ego!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Evil denotes ill-intention. Indifference or neutrality is not evil. Is the ocean evil because its waves wash away the house you built on the shoreline? Is the weather evil because it didn't rain on your crops when you needed it to?

If I had an Authority Figure trying to tell me the ocean's waves were "all good"? If I had an Authority Figure trying to tell me weather was "Always Beneficial"?

Then-- yes, when the ocean destroyed property, when the weather caused people to die? That's pretty evil.

Perception is important.

Isn't this a rejection of a god that is a projection of human values, an anthropomorphism? I too reject the anthropomorphic God, as that is not God but an image of ourselves as God, which of course is a self-contradicting absurdity. Like, "no duh", as they say.

Indeed, yes-- I reject Book Gods, as I had stated in a previous post that this one was part of.

I've not seen a Book God (a god described in some sort of "holy" or book that it's pushers claim is an authority), that does not contain evil attributes.

Since these gods are also supposed to be OmniMax? Infinite in scope? If you do the calculus, they are infinitely evil, simply by having evil attributes.

Just as in a True False test? If any part of the question is false? The entire question is false.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes? You found the answer? You mean you looked to your own reasoning as an answer?

False. Projection on your part, here. Nice attempt at trapping. Doesn't work-- I've seen that trick before, you see.

How could you find an answer to a question like that within yourself?

See above. Your attempt at a trap- "question" is eliminated, because I am a member of a community.

ooooops!

Isn't that equivalent to me looking at a red sky, and ashing, "Why is the sky red?" Then answering the question with what seems to me to be the answer - "It's red because there is a bloody war going on up there."
All I'm doing bro, is satisfying myself with an answer, because I don't find one. Is that not what some atheist claim religion does?

What you are doing is known as as Building A Straw Man. Which is a logical fallacy.

Didn't you say a moment ago, you found the answer? Now you've got me in a bit of trouble. Uh. Should I ask again, or just leave you to sort that out?

I found an answer -- and it was evil.

So basically bro, from this post, I gather you haven't found the answer. you just basically conclude that you think the God of the Bible is evil - end of story.

Straw Man. You didn't bother to read what I wrote, instead projected your Straw Man onto it.

That conclusion based on the facts, is reached by very few people. Why do you think that's the case? Why do the vast majority of people who read the Bible, not see God as evil?

Lots of reasons: Cognitive bias. Brainwashing. Simply ignoring most of the bible. NOT READING most of the bible at ALL.

Ignoring that part of the brain that would have said (about the bible's words): "DUDE! THIS IS BS!"

...and please, don't tell me it's because they are blind. I may well think you are joking. Although there is nothing wrong with a good laugh now and again.

See above. If the shoe fits?

The truth is? I have YET to see a bible-pusher who claims it's infallable, who has bothered to read it.

On the other hand? Those who admit the bible has many problems? Never seem to know how to determine which parts to ignore, which parts to rewrite into something entirely different (so-called "interpret") and which parts they are sure are valid. It seems entirely arbitrary. What was it you said, above? Oh yeah-- ".. looked to your own reasoning as an answer"

IF THERE WAS A GOD? WHY DOES IT REFUSE TO CLARIFY THE BIBLE?

Proof is the 1000's of DIFFERENT Official Bible™ in the world..... !

We get a freaking update for our stupid phones-- but the bible has just the ONE origin? Wait... what?

More proof it's evil.

looked to your own reasoning as an answer
Thanks for sharing though. The truth is, millions of people who read and study the Bible, believe they have found the answer to the question of why God permits evil, and they didn't get it from their own feelings.

Indeed. The degree of twisting and ignoring, and outright lying to themselves is ... breathtaking.

In any case? Argument From Popularity is a logical fallacy.

Not all that long ago, everyone just knew the earth was the center of the Universe....

They got it from the Bible, and they believe that many persons who are seeking the answer - because it's a logical one - can find the answer too, and have a lot of cobwebs cleared.

See above.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and do honestly hope you get to understand it as it is - if you truly want to - so you wouldn't feel that way - which i honestly believe is false... Me and millions more.
have a good day.

Argument from Popularity logical fallacy. Argument from Incredulity Logical Fallacy.

Also Strawman Projection: "if you truly want to " <--- OH I DID--- WHY DO YOU THINK I'M ANGRY?

I DO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE-- just as you don't. Why do you think I'm an atheist?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes? You found the answer? You mean you looked to your own reasoning as an answer?
How could you find an answer to a question like that within yourself?
Isn't that equivalent to me looking at a red sky, and ashing, "Why is the sky red?" Then answering the question with what seems to me to be the answer - "It's red because there is a bloody war going on up there."
All I'm doing bro, is satisfying myself with an answer, because I don't find one. Is that not what some atheist claim religion does?


Didn't you say a moment ago, you found the answer? Now you've got me in a bit of trouble. Uh. Should I ask again, or just leave you to sort that out?


So basically bro, from this post, I gather you haven't found the answer. you just basically conclude that you think the God of the Bible is evil - end of story.
That conclusion based on the facts, is reached by very few people. Why do you think that's the case? Why do the vast majority of people who read the Bible, not see God as evil?
...and please, don't tell me it's because they are blind. I may well think you are joking. Although there is nothing wrong with a good laugh now and again.

Thanks for sharing though. The truth is, millions of people who read and study the Bible, believe they have found the answer to the question of why God permits evil, and they didn't get it from their own feelings. They got it from the Bible, and they believe that many persons who are seeking the answer - because it's a logical one - can find the answer too, and have a lot of cobwebs cleared.


I'm sorry you feel that way, and do honestly hope you get to understand it as it is - if you truly want to - so you wouldn't feel that way - which i honestly believe is false... Me and millions more.
have a good day.

Re: The entirety of the above. Can be boiled down to Appeal To Emotions, and Appeal to Popularity.

It's kind of sad, that the poster did not attempt to draw me out as to specifics--- why do I conclude the bible's god is evil? What, specifically, caused me to make that conclusion?

I had hinted at it, broadly, but notice the above post 100% ignores that, and tries to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Let me be more specific:
The Existence Of God-Preventable Evil in the World, proves there can be no Good Deity.

There can be indifferent deities, and there may be an Evil deity.

But there cannot possibly be a good deity who cares about humans, and interferes.

I will classify all non-interfering deities as "indifferent".

It may be they are powerless to interfere-- but if then? They are hardly gods, are they? Certainly not all-powerful! Also not all-knowing-- because they do not know how to interfere!

So if they could interfere, but refuse to do so? Indifferent. Which I classify as Evil.

Why? Because they could interfere, but refuse to do so-- that's an immoral act.

Because they literally can see all evil about to happen-- and absolutely refuse to act to stop it.

This is in direct opposition to something like 99% of humans: If we were to witness an attempted rape? Would we not immediately do what was within our power, to stop the rape?

Would we not consider a failure to Help, an immoral act?

No, the only sane conclusion re: BibleGod, is that it either does not exist at all (most likely), or if it does, it's either Evil, or inept (not all-good, not all-powerful, and especially not all-knowing)

 

[Nakosis]

Such hubris. You think people believe in God for "emotional support"? What about those who are emotionally stable and well-fulfilled who choose to pursue God for "spiritual support"? You don't think spirituality is a real human experience? Do you think spirituality is nothing other than emotionalism?

Do you think spirituality requires a God?

 

[nPeace]

It was a long time ago now, so to be specific and accurate is difficult but we were told "That god created everything". We were told it was beautiful.
But I had just watched my grandma die of throat cancer - that was not beautiful.
God seemed to be taking credit for everything that was good but not the bad things.
When one questioned the vicar, you were told, "God works in mysterious ways" or similar.

Sorry to hear of your experience.
You are probably the 1.5 billionth person with the almost same exact experience... and you won't be the last.
Sadly, many people blame God for the ills that befall us, but I always question the fairness of that.
I don't think it fair to jump to conclusions based on our emotions nor hearsay, but I guess humans are emotional for the most part.
Often, I'm sure you have witnessed this yourself, when people are bitter about something, they try to find reasons, but often end up laying blame on someone or something, when they don't find a solution - only to find out that their assumptions were incorrect.
Many people are in prison, not because they are guilty of the crime, but merely because they happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time" - if that makes sense.
You are probably like billions of people - simply asking the question Why?

and not seemingly getting the answer. So the logical conclusion - blame God, and believe the priest.

Interestingly many persons don't blame God, nor believe the priest. Some may have felt that way at one time, but they examine the Bible for themselves, and to their surprise and delight, they find that the answer is quite contrary to what the priest says, and makes sense, to their satisfaction.
In fact it gives their life added meaning and hope.
They also realize that God isn't to blame.

Yet, science was the opposite. They weren't afraid to say, "We don't know". They gave beautiful and credible explanations of the way life has evolved. How planets move, how the continents were formed. They discovered new medicines, invented new things, etc.

Well we all have a choice to believe what we want, so I respect that.

 

[Windwalker]

There would be plenty of materialists who would argue that spirituality is not a thing in and of itself. Whilst my beliefs are less...certain (formed maybe?)...I'm not sure that we can simply denounce all materialists for hubris.

I said nothing about materialists. My comment was solely about those who equate spirituality with emotionalism. That's terribly short sighted, as well as inaccurate.

 

[Windwalker]

Do you think spirituality requires a God?

It does not require a view of God, no. In reality, as you enter into spiritual states of being, questions of God or No-God are no longer questions as those are questions of the mind. What is, simply IS, and some may choose to call that God, or some other term which captures that state of transcendent Awareness of Reality; Allness, Is'ness, Such'ness, Being. Ground, Source, Divine, Formlessness, etc.

 

[nPeace]

Re: The entirety of the above. Can be boiled down to Appeal To Emotions, and Appeal to Popularity.

Please accept my humble apologies. That was not my intention at all. I am not that kind of person. if you knew me, you would not pass such judgment, but you'd realize I am just a fun loving humorous guy, that don't like to be serious all the time.

It's kind of sad, that the poster did not attempt to draw me out as to specifics--- why do I conclude the bible's god is evil? What, specifically, caused me to make that conclusion?

I had hinted at it, broadly, but notice the above post 100% ignores that, and tries to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Let me be more specific:
The Existence Of God-Preventable Evil in the World, proves there can be no Good Deity.

There can be indifferent deities, and there may be an Evil deity.

But there cannot possibly be a good deity who cares about humans, and interferes.

I will classify all non-interfering deities as "indifferent".

It may be they are powerless to interfere-- but if then? They are hardly gods, are they? Certainly not all-powerful! Also not all-knowing-- because they do not know how to interfere!

So if they could interfere, but refuse to do so? Indifferent. Which I classify as Evil.

Why? Because they could interfere, but refuse to do so-- that's an immoral act.

Because they literally can see all evil about to happen-- and absolutely refuse to act to stop it.

This is in direct opposition to something like 99% of humans: If we were to witness an attempted rape? Would we not immediately do what was within our power, to stop the rape?

Would we not consider a failure to Help, an immoral act?

No, the only sane conclusion re: BibleGod, is that it either does not exist at all (most likely), or if it does, it's either Evil, or inept (not all-good, not all-powerful, and especially not all-knowing)

Thanks again, but you are still showing that the conclusions you reached are based on your feelings - Just as I reached the conclusion on the red sky.

To add... more people believe that God cares about them, and that's not just because they read the Bible (some don't read it), but simply because they believe that common sense tell them that there is a creator of life, and the creation around them tells them that he cares.
Now please don't think i am trying to insult anyone - because I used the phrase common sense tells them. i am not trying to insult any one.

 

[columbus]

So can I take this opportunity to ask - what do you believe is religion?

This is a rather difficult question to answer, largely because religious people don't seem to know. What do Shintoism, Christianity, and Hinduism have in common?

I suppose I would say religion is a worldview created by humans who wish to believe that they understand and have some control over circumstances of their situation that they actually don't have. They just prefer to believe that they do.

I think that Faith is what people believe because they prefer to live in a world where it's true, rather than believe in something because the evidence is strong.

The reason I am asking is to find out if you put religion and worship in the same bracket.

Obviously, worship (or veneration at least) is a very consistent attribute of religion. But they are not the same thing.
Tom