Reasons not to believe in God

I think if you really want an honest answer to that question, you need to be open to the idea that God might not be real.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you say it begins by subjecting oneself to a spiritual master.

How one can choose the right one - that's just putting the cart before the horse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or to the idea that we are not all equal, and that some people are forever cut off from (personal knowledge of) God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At last, a well expressed and accurate remark.

 

The point I was making was not to put God down, but the basic problem with mankind repeating the same problems as we already have. regardless of what utopia may come.

 

The beginning of atheism was known about 1700 years before, and what's next about 1900 years ago. Religion will control society like it never has before. What people need to know, is if it is false or not. My post is not really in keeping with the thread, just thought I'd let you know beforehand.

 

In order to reach that conclusion, one would have to already believe that a god exists. Do you intellectually believe a god exists? If so, then maybe that's your answer. If not, then I see no reason to assume that you're some lesser being just because you don't feel the impulse to believe. Sounds like masochism to me.

To the point about equality, I mean, we obviously aren't all the same. If we were, then Hawking would be no big deal, and LeBron James wouldn't make tens of millions of dollars per year. But he is, and he does.

 

I know the history of atheism. I'm talking about atheism as a mainstream, sound intellectual position. There have always been reasons to disbelieve, but today we can debunk just about everything any mainstream faith claims, leaving there no reason to believe whatsoever. Atheism is actually the only logical position one can hold. Everything else is either ignorance or delusion.

I'd love to see the extra-biblical sources you base that on. I mean, the US--which is the last great pious nation of the west--is becoming less and less religious, and even most Muslim majority nations have secular governments. The days of monotheism as this hugely influential force are nearly over.

 

And you'll probably suggest that it is not possible to skip the phase of kanisthahood, and that one just has to endure an unforeseeably long phase of living a leap of faith.




AND TO THIS, TO POINT OUT A CONTRADICTION IN YOUR APPROACH:

That is the "Vaisnava version" - ie. for people who are already Vaisnavas.

If you believe that religious choice is a legitimate phenomenon, and that it is undertaken by free will, then you have to agree that religious choice is an ascending process:
the person who is about to exercise religious choice, considers themselves a self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge as he takes for granted that he is able to recognize "the right religion."

Of course you can answer: you did it, and so did the 80% of the people that you know.

And as you have described religious choice so far, you took the ascending process, considering yourself a self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge as you took for granted that you are able to recognize "the right religion."


The contradiction is on your part, because you preach the descending process, but endorse the ascending process for choosing (!) that descending process!

A real submission to a descending process would be for a non-religious person to patiently wait and hold off religious choice until God Himself would give them a calling.


Chances are that many devotees, including yourself, join for entirely non-theistic reasons (such as being too bored with ordinary run-of-the-mill life, liking the music and dancing, having a romantic interest in a devotee, being overcome by a leader's charisma, being too poor and too weak to make it in the secular world, etc.),
and it is only in hindsight that you dress up the act of your religious choice into more theistic-looking garbs.

If you would say "I liked it there so much that I couldn't stay away" or "I felt God wanted me to join" or "I felt I had nowhere else to go" or some such - no problem. It may not sound particularly rational or responsible or mature, but it is probably much closer to the truth.
But the moment you venture into trying to explain and justify religious choice in a more philosophical manner is the moment you venture into full-blown atheism or solipsism, and a number of contradictions.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "God works in mysterious ways." But if one shies away from admitting it (and instead does philosophy) because one fears it will make one look dumb in some people's eyes - then one is apparently looking for safety and approval not from God, but from people.

 

My point is that for some people, this life as they have may simply be "as good as it gets." Maybe some people will always be miserable. Maybe some people aren't actually persons, but only have the illusion of being persons, while others are persons. Maybe those who aren't really persons are a kind of sparring-partners for those who are persons.

If God, or evolution, can make rabies and parasites that infest the brain, the eyes or the heart - then what would they not do?

 

If you're not happy, I think you're barking up the wrong tree by searching for a connection with a being that may or may not actually exist. Finding God isn't going to solve your problems anyway. If you've got no reason to be depressed, then it's probably a chemical imbalance that requires medication. Maybe you need therapy. Maybe you just need to change your routine, or get a new job or career. The idea that God = happiness is one that's only ever going to disappoint you.

And maybe we're all living in the eye of a giant. What's the point in even considering such depressing ideas?

If you're upset that life is cruel, get in line. It's a cold fact that can't really be spun positively. But you can accept it and get on with your life.

 

Neverfly,

And my point is that as you don't actually know whether mutations occur randomly, or are pattern base. It is pointless speculating on what a ''Creator God'' may or may not have ''chosen'' to do. If an intelligence IS involved, then there is more likely to be a purpose or direction to such a pattern, at least from both our experiences of intelligence.

The old, ''I'll kick him while (I think) he's down, but say it was a joke if I get busted, routine''?
Don't worry, we're in battle.

I accept your apology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That answer is unsatisfactory as it assumes your explanation is correct. You've been shown, and accept, that mutations being random is only so as far as the current understanding of mutations, and that work is being done which may contradict that claim. This means there are professional, scientific minds out there, who aren't satisfied with the current understanding, or, they have stumbled upon something indirectl,y which may have triggered the possibility.
Either way, it is not to be accepted as the be all end all of knowledge regarding mutations.

To posit that if God is behind the patterns in mutations, then He does so in an effort to mask His existence, is devoid of logic, and rationale, given our own intelligence, and experience of other intelligences.

You don't know if there is or isn't evidence of intelligent pattern, and you only accept randomness because you don't know any better.
Furthermore you needn't believe wholeheartedly, either conception, because both have equal possibility of being correct without spin.
If however there is a pattern to it, then we can assume intelligence.
The trouble is, you've already accepted that intelligence does not play a role, and even if it did, it's role is to make us believe there is no intelligence, therefore it's as good as random.

Okay, now you've upgraded your package.
Simple patterns can be caused by random processes, but complex patterns such as cells?
Our experience shows that complex information comes from intelligence.

That's like saying that the BBT (if it were true) came about through science.
If you read the bible carefully, there are signs of the same God, or Godliness.
The Bible isn't that kind of a book (Bhagavad Gita...). It's about the two major bloodlines that are ruling today.
It does contain spiritual truths, or what I call spiritual truths, which are more detailed in the various forms of Hindu scripture, but the intention behind how it was put together, is not for the purpose of teaching the world how go back to God and resume that natural position of part and parcel of Him. IOW, it doesn't deal with sanatan-dharma.

Quit being so defensive, I never tried establish anything.
And if God exists, then everything is evidence. How can it not be?
The thing is, we have decipher what is real and what is false.

That's the funny thing, you can't remove God, anymore than you can remove your father. Sure you can hate him, you can cut him out of your life, you can forget him, but denial of him is incredibly foolish. The same with God.

There's nothing silly about it. Those people were the cutting edge of scientific knowledge, in their day, just as some scientists are now.
They weren't ''fantastic'' conclusions, and the evidence was sound. They just didn't have the knowledge, and the same can be said of today, and tomorrow. Learning from the ground up, means we will never come to the end of knowledge.

The knowledge that detectives seek, is not the same as knowing everything.

God's existence does not rely upon description of Him.
God doesn't declare what ''human behaviour'' should be if you're not a devotee.
Even in the Bible, Jesus sasy ''give unto Ceasar what is his''.
Also, he doesn't try convert the devils offspring (or what he sees as that devils offspring).
Did he try to change Judas, knowing his character?

Supported by people who think like you. Professionals who don't have hell to pay, on earth. The film ''No Intelligence Allowed'' shows this.
I bet you're going to say those people aren't true scientists, or they don't understand evolution.

There are scientists who disagree, so why bother to even bring this up.
Science cannot show ''a lack of intelligent design'', you have to infer it.

It didn't occur to you that the woman whom you mentioned earlier that killed her son, was not religious, or killed him out of some kind of mental imbalance (very common psychological reasons for this type of behaviour).
Because the words ''quran'' and ''satan'' were mentioned, you automatically assumed religion was at the heart of it.
I'm quite sure you don't view ''women'' the same way you view religion, yet how many murders are caused by men, because of women.

No. You're jumping to conclusions again.

I don't need to know your life's story. You didn't need to tell me about your life's story when you were writing about ''random mutations'', did you?

I guess the question went straight over your head, huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you think this is the same thing, then you're not fit for a conversation like this.

jan.

 

And one more thing about this, so that you don't develop more inadequate notions of Pali Canon Buddhism:
Read the sutta in full.

The Buddha there actually describes a descending process, as he lays out what the qualifications of the Buddha are and what qualifications a person must have in order to recognize the Buddha.

In that sense, Pali Canon Buddhism is a self-referential system too.

However, the qualities that that Buddhism instructs that one ought to develop, generally seem like good, worthy qualities, qualities that will serve one well, no matter what, even if the Buddha had never existed or wasn't enlightened.

 

This is offensive. Faith can not be impulsive.

 

A dis-faitful universe represents no reason. How do you reason where faith (what we BELIEVE IN) is wrong? I have incredible faithful skills including miraculous high jump kicks and the pipes of a golden god.

I am Faith of Love. I claim a natural God who is Love, my father.

Atheism is uneducated or a lie.

 

Wow, the way you build one wild conclusion on top of the next...
Well, first establish that there is some mythical pattern that no one can see. Then you can speculate as to what it means.

Hadn't even thought of it that way but if that's how you want to take it- feel free.

It isn't. It's not the only way mutations occur- I have pointed this out myself on deeper discussions of evolution. However, it is the primary reason. That is why the "Millions of years" factor.

Agreed. Only other logical conclusion is: There is not God.

Sigh... see my post above addressed to Wynn in which I actually took the time to explain Emergence. I'll link it. Post 88

No it isn't in any way at all. I said nothing at all of the kind. You're making zero sense.

Some of us are better at that than others.

Nonsense. God is not my father, no matter how indoctrinated you are to believe some invisible sky daddy made you. See above about Emergence. You're just trying to claim that I hate God to rationalize how you cannot understand how I could disbelieve in the existence of such an absurdity. No, I don't hate God at all- there simply is no God.

No, they weren't. You have no clue what you're talking about.
The Spontaneous Generation Myth was known to be a myth invented by ignorant clods. Ancient philosophers, like Aristotle liked the idea and promoted it.
Aristotle was not a scientist at all. He was a philosopher that believed that no method of observation was necessary except to think over a problem.

Dunno why... it's the only existence of him we can find...

It's also said that all must come to him and none shall reach except through his son. It's said that any that do not follow his instructions will burn for an eternity in hellfire. So, tell me, how that is not declaring what behavior should be... No- don't bother.

Exactly. They don't understand evolution. It's well know they lied and used deceptive tactics and trickery to even make the film.

Call it what you will, there's a lack of Gods hand, whichever way you examine it.

A crime of passion, if you will.
I can agree to that. I would, however, point out she was influenced by her beliefs... Strongly. Let me show you how strongly... Scroll down to where Yasin addresses me. Post 105

Funny that coming from you.

The conversation is the reasons some people do not believe there is a God. Hate to bust it to ya but ummm, you're the unfit one, here.

 

Geeser got it.

Besides which, an avid response is an uncertain one.

 

ask the catholics - they have a whole giant system of churches and a guy in a big hat who supposedly wears an apostle's ring, that have made it their understood reality that evolution occurred. Maybe the pope has a good metaphor for various aspects of the creation story! You speak of this story that "describes" the creation as if ideas of a higher power, or of man's inherent propensity to f* up weren't happening. These are real ideas, whether or not the perspectives of the bible offer something close enough to objective truth to be called, "the best those old nomads could come up with". You are taking the idea that these scriptures are not useful to YOU, (remember that because that is what you have, something that doesn't give YOU good metaphors, it is already shown that it is useful for billions), and somehow using that as a reason for EVERYONE to toss them out. That is not reasonable.

Man controls the earth, as much as we can say it CAN be controlled, with God or without God. You cannot dispute that. A text asking for responsibility would be highly useful in our current age of limitless destructive potential if only we had one. ** there is one incredibly important and useful metaphor, that we have responsibility towards the earth. ** Men dominated women in all historic ages, whether by force or economy. Men have liked to keep it that way apparently, so the idea that the material body (the distinguishing difference between man and woman in the creation story) is what is important, as opposed to the breath of life (whatever that is), has been upheld. ** there is another hugely important metaphor of the many in the creation story. Choose to ignore it, but it is a very good one, and quite important to basic human rights. The value of the "soul".**

it robs it of a concept for YOU that you are not using anyway. Your level of projection of what is the core concept of christianity, and that it is lost by a non-literal interpretation of creation, is as narcissistic as a baby on this matter.

spurious. Meaning is meaning. Somebody could use grimm stories to infer a higher power if they wished, and i'm sure many cultures have done basically that throughout history, when those cultures didn't have a bible or quran or whatever. What you continually point out in your posting is that YOU are some sort of judge of meaning or truth. Narcissism. Did you miss the 19th and 20th centuries? Philosophy generally runs on a model of valuation of subjective material. Show me the actual LOGIC, not just how your readings don't support x, or your philosophy doesn't support x, and ESPECIALLY not science demonstrates x about some scientific principle that is already accepted by mainstream non-liberal christians.

in many of it's stories, the bible does not represent accurate scientific data as far as i know, but neither is it simply a set of morality tales. It "represents" truth in the limited way higher understanding can be represented, in that, as you gain understanding, the stories change. One guy reads the creation story as a license to dump toxic waste, another as prohibiting that. You read the bible in the first sense and condemn it. I read it in the second sense and praise it. Your insistence on yours as the accurate reading is narcissistic and unsupportable. My only insistence is that the bible CAN be read my way, which is entirely supportable and non-narcissistic. So my idea is more reasonable, and more supported by modern thought that objective truth is not easily attainable.

Let's say i shout, "there is a big monster in the other room, run!". Now let's say there is a bear in the other room. I certainly would not be WRONG to shout that. The SUBSTANCE is exactly what was delivered, and the "superfluous and incidental" was the color of it's eyes, or the fact that it is called a "bear" by some people.

I think that "bear" is real, and i call it "God", although at times in my life i would have said the "bear" wasn't real. So you say it is superstition, and i say it is something else. Because you say it is superstition, i am changed by your magic words? Your level of narcissism is incredible.

 

Neverfly,

She may well have been influenced by her beliefs, but tell me how you know she believes in God?

jan.

 

kx000,

Modern atheism is ''educated lie'',according to link.

jan.