Atheist's biggest problems with GOD and religion in general

[GenuineMonotheist]

I actually have two things I'll put down.

Evidence

• I have never been presented with any good reason (eg evidence) to believe that Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is true.
• Evidence seems to go against any of the deities that have been described to me, what is seen does not match what would be expected if these deities existed as described.

What would be good evidence in your view? I ask this hoping you'll keep in mind that you never confuse evidence with some kind of mythical "direct knowledge", which we don't have about anything in this life, not even the cup of coffee in our hand. I once read a Jewish saying to the effect of "if I knew God like that, I'd be God." But that holds true of anything other than ourselves. Indeed, even we ourselves are quite a mystery to...well, ourselves.

Internal Consistency (particularly directed at Christianity since for obvious reasons I know more about it)

• Even if I assume that there is a god and the bible is true I would run into internal inconsistencies, things that just don't fit together. Main ones are the professed actions of god (creating hell, hating sin, 'dying' for us, answering prayers, most rules given out in the OT & some NT, the whole way the bible is written, what was written, etc.) and the claimed attributes of god (all powerful, all knowing/really smart, loves us lots). It just doesn't FIT together.

Well, a Christian could comment on these things more than I could. There's a lot about the standard Christian "orthodoxy" which I find perplexing as well.

Some of George Carlin's routines actually do a good job of summarising my reasons actually (weird that...). A few quotes:
"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time.... But he loves you!"

[FONT=&quot]“If this is the best god can do (creating/running the universe) I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of [expletive] you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude!” [/FONT]

The problem here is more Carlin's lack of understanding than anything else. He's paid to be a smart alec and flippant, so perhaps he's not the best representative of philosohical atheism one should be pointing to. Another part of the problem is that there parts of this critique which can really only be applied to Christianity, ex. the "God loves everyone" business. Further proof of this is that the whole imagery of God as a man of any sort is a defect in thinking that one could only get from relying on the Bible (Old or New Testament), since both give the imagery (however symbolically the authors intended it to be or not is another discussion) of "the Ancient of Days" or "God as an old man", which has obviously caused a lot of harm to the way westerners think about God on a basic, subconscious level. You see this type of thing manifest in things like the Vatican, where there's that well known fresco of "God" as an old man having an "E.T." moment with Adam.

Such ways of thinking are very small, and utterly beneath the reality. If one is carrying that kind of religious baggage, it's going to be difficult to approach belief in the Almighty with any kind of objectivity.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

1. The bible is not literal. This isn't just a personal opinion, that some people can decide not to follow and that's OK - it is the truth. For example, the whole of the Fourth Gospel is a spiritual Gospel, not a historical or chronological one (Marsh). This is shown in how the author of said gospel changes many facts to hold greater symbolism, for example, the date of Jesus' death is moved forward one day in John's gospel, to the day that the lambs were killed, to show that Jesus is the lamb of the world. This is just one part of the bible that is known not to be literal - there are many others. People need to accept ths, and realise that it does not take anything away from what the bible is.

While this is an interesting admission coming from a Christian, it's not at all unique. Most Christians who know anything about the textual history of the Bible, put a lot of qualifications behind their adherance to the "word of God", whether they consider themselves "theological conservatives" or "theological liberals", Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or what have you.

Indeed, something so human, so much a product of historical process, would seem to be a "take ot or leave it" proposition... a useful metaphore, if it's to your liking, for how you should live your life...but that's about it. Certainly nothing to be insistent upon.

But that would further seem to mean that God doesn't have a will for makind as a whole, nothing to say to them that we can really be said to be obliged toward, beyond what their own basic human inclination and pure reasoning would demand...though even that could be shaky, because human motives are so easily corrupted or diverse, that a lot of other things could creep in there - example, when I hear atheists talking a lot about "human rights". That's just pure conjecture on their part, an act of faith without any rational basis.

Or one could see this situation as a big vacuum that is awaiting to be filled by God Almighty. Or perhaps, as some say, it already has been. But not certainly by Christianity. To be fair my mind is not TOTALLY made up either on that point, but I am pretty clear in not believing Christianity, in any of it's guises, to be that solution.

2. The near-deifying of the bible. Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible. The bible is just a couple of manuscripts of books and letters that contain good advice and wisdom. It is not infallible. St. Paul, who is one of the most prolific New Testament writers, admits that he can get some things wrong. Therefore to say that all his words are truth with nothing to count against them is naive.

What is the "word of God"? How is Jesus "God's word"? One of the obvious interpolations of some of the early claimants to Jesus, was their use of Greek philosophy in explaining and expanding upon the teachings they'd received previously. As such in the "weird gospel" (John's), and nowhere else in the four Gospels, to where hear of talk of Jesus as being "the Logos", which while it literally means "word", in Greek philosophical thought meant quite a bit more. It meant the demiurge, the "sub god" beneath the "great Monad", which acted as the manufacturer and orderer of the universe. I fail to see how any of that was a part of the historical Christ's preaching, even according to the more historically acceptable parts of the New Testament.

Could it just be that Jesus was a "word of God" in the original sense, because it was believed he had no human father? That God simply said "be"? That kind of "word of God"? Indeed, it's interesting that in Luke's Gospel, when it gives the genealogy of Jesus, it goes back to Adam and calls him "the son of God." This could just as easily be rendered "Son of God" with capitals, just like English Bible translators selectively do with references to Jesus, because in the original Koine it's all the same - the capitals or lower case renderings are selective and biased editing by Christian translators, not what their actual existing Greek scrolls say.

So that would seem to mean that for many of those early Christians who used that title "son of God", it had nothing to do with believing Jesus to be "God" or "a part of God", etc., but had to do with the belief that Jesus, like Adam, had no human father - that an act of God was the cause of their "conception" as it were, whether from the womb of the earth or the womb of a virgin. That would mean that Adam could be said to be a "word" of God too.

You're right, btw. that Paul plainly admits in his writings (which make up the bulk of the New Testament) that he is giving "his gospel", and he differentiates it from those of others, esp. those he slanders as being the "Judaizers", those ACTUAL disciples of Jesus based in Jerusalem who were led by Jesus' brother James, and who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but did not believe in Paul's greco-roman mystery religion, still observed the Laws of Moses (as Jesus did all of his life on earth, and enjoined his followrs to), etc.

3. The use of the bible in all situatuions. Do you thing that the disciples had a bible? Did St. Paul? (They had the Jewish scrptures but they were treading out onto completely new groud with what they were doing. These men were responisble for the huge growth of the early church, and they needed no mere book to help them - they were led by the spirit. Obviously the bible is overated.

This is, in my opinion, how the authentic "good news" of Jesus of Nazareth died. Some of his early followers, or those who took a shine to his message, began innovating. It could start as simply as "hey, y'know, popular Greek philosophy may be a good way of expanding upon what he taught us about the unseen world and God", as if whatever he had taught them could possibly be improved upon by mere human cleverness. The end really came, however, when attempts were made to popularize what Jesus taught, and spread it to the non-Jews (which according to Matthew's Gospel, Jesus wasn't sent to - he says very plainly there that his disciples were not to go amongst the Gentiles and Samaritans, because he was sent for "no one else but the lost sheep of Israel"). Thus, circumcision went out the window, as did the dietary laws which Jesus observed all of his life on earth (since the pagans of the Roman world wouldn't be warm to the idea of having to be circumcized and stop eating swine and dirty things as a condition of religion).

But even worse, was the creeping in of popular "mystery religion" of the Roman world in that time. The Romans had a huge empire, and it swallowed up all sorts of philosophies and religions. What had become very popular at that time were the exotic "mystery religions" of the the east, or the ones that had developed (probably influenced gradually by far eastern ideas) amongst the Greek citizens of the Roman Empire. These religions all involved the following...

- Some kind of contempt for goods of this present life. Some were very extreme in this, others were less so. Some said it was the work of a lesser, ignorant or malicious deity, others felt that it was simply somehow "false", a lesser manifestation of a larger reality. Some Christians said (like Paul) that the devil was the "god of this world" because of the original sin. Some others (who went to far for others of Paul's followers, who became the founders of "Catholicism" in the early second century) were called "gnostics", and often did Paul's anti-Judaism one better and said that "the evil one" and "the gods of the Jews" were one and the same...as such the creation was a "prison" and dirty. All of this comes from the Greek philosophers and mystery religions, and can be found there before and after the rise of Pauline Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

- Belief in deified men, literal offsprings of gods who would perform heroic feats and themselves become "ruling gods" in the heavens with the older gods who begot them. Heracles, Dionysius, Osiris... there were all sorts of groups running around at that point with the same idea. It was so common, that some of the early "Church Fathers" like Justin ("the martyr") had to explain this away by saying that this was really the work of the devil, who had some kind of foreknowledge of "God's plan of salvation" and created all sorts of mockeries of it ahead of time to deceive people. I find it simpler to believe that some of the early Christians (who ended up "running the show" as time went forward) simply imported those ideas into their reading of the life of Jesus. Soon, those ideas became way more important than anything Jesus ever actually did or said. You can see this in "Paul's Gospel" - far from being the "good news" which Jesus himself had received from God and taught to his fellow Jews, it's entirely ABOUT Jesus, and for the most part has little concern for his actual historical life and deeeds - you wouldn't be missing much of Paul's message if you just got rid of the name of "Jesus" and stuck "Dionysius" onto it, since it's more concerned with this "pre-eternal logos" dying and rising and the mysteries (sacraments) he supposedly established to initiate people into this death-rebirth cult than it is with a historical person who had a concrete message for the people standing around him.

Secondly, to those Chrisitians who think they have everything sorted - that they know God - I'd like to quote the following, which I wrote in a different thread.
There is no way we can understand God, or even really talk about him (or rather it), so it is silly when trying to make sense of our mysterious journey with him to make any conclusive statements. We can be certain of nothing.

I'd have to agree, if one is using the extant Christian traditions and their Bibles (since the different Christian denominations in some cases have different Bibles in terms of the number of books accepted or in some cases even their basic content, like the Book of Daniel), you have no reliable criterion - there will always bee some significant level of doubt for even basic things.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

It's not just Christianity - its belief in the supernatural in general.

In one sense it is good to be skeptical about claims upon knowledge of the "unseen." What is unseen to us would seem to constitute a huge void, and lots of people have tried to stick lots of things into that void, often with a very logically unsatisfying result. This is because authentic reasoning that actually accomplishes anything is always after internal consistancy - it's the highest level of reasoning.

Religion is myth. A person either understands this, or will believe that one of the particular myths is literally true.

You'd be better to say "believing anything metaphysical is a myth." This is because when you use the word "religion", it's kind of a cheater word, weaseling out of acknowledging that atheists and other assorted "non-religious" persons don't have implied metaphysical views as well, whenever they open their mouths to try and give some kind of coherence to their observations of the universe.

Of course, I'm not so harsh on said "world views", whether they be secular or religious, or what have you. I would not say they're "entirely untrue", which you seem to do.

The origins of religious belief, and the reasons many if not most people have and always had religious beliefs are to be understood in psychological, sociological, and cultural anthropological terms.

To my way of thinking, this seems like a very convienient attempt for a few people (secularists, self styled rationalists, etc.) to segregate their own "religious" beliefs (however diverse or minimalistic) from the metaphysics and morality of other more "cultic"/ritualistic groups (though the fact is all men are ritualistic by inclination.)

The reality could just as well be, that human beings are ritualistic, and curious about the unseen precisely because they are constituted to be so - their nature is a conspiracy towards this. It's the natural inclination, to be interpretive. We look into the skies, looking for signs, looking in the seas and in the earth for some evidences, some insights, which will give explanation to our lives and our origins. That is profoundly human, we all do it, atheists included.

This is where internal consistency and cohesiveness comes into play. Which is more plausable, nihilism and despotic "will to power", or the acknowledgement that men have been given a natural inclination which is not accidental but can be fulfilled, just like our basic inclinations for security, food, sex, etc.? On the balance, the atheist is not really a reasonable person at all, but is setting up an ideological temple-fortress to protect his most precious idol of all, the trinity of "me, myself, and I." Further, I've yet to encounter a single atheist who would want to live with the logical consequences of his basic metaphysics - in fact it would make living as a human utterly impossible. Civilization - forget it. Systems of justice - gone. Rights of man - don't make me laugh.

Unfortunately, humans are not only rational animals, they are rationalizing animals.

You're making a distinction without a real difference. We simply take in the evidences we find, and do the best we can with them. If that provides an incomplete picture, so be it.

Thus, many who understand that all the ancient myths are just myths many times turn to a new rationalized secular mythos that is just a created system of belief and thus make just as big fools of themselves as any religious believer, e.g., communists and Randian objectavists. And, of course, the many who just become mentally ill for various reasons are unclassifiable as to philosophical belief.

While the Communists and other similar "atheist utopians" are more overtly guilty of hypocracy, even your base line Existentialist is equally "full of it." They deal in the unseen as well.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

1. God is a meaningless concept.

Depends on what you're defining as the "concept of God." If you mean that toward which we ultimately surrender, the foundation of all existence, ethics, etc. then it's not meaningless at all, but if anything becomes the most important personal and social "thought" of all.

2. God is an illogical concept.

Again, that entirely depends on what one means by "God."

3. There is nothing to indicate a God is necessary or existant.

Again, kind of depends upon what you mean here by "God."

4. There is nothing to indicate anything supernatural exists.

Yes and no. That which remains "unseen" to us yet is very real should be no shock - we keep uncovering things we "never saw" before, because of some human limitation, whether it be the limitations of our senses, our memories, our lifespans, our position in space and time, etc. So really it's not at all shocking or unreasonable to accept the idea that there may very well be things which totally are beyond our abilities to perceive. In fact, what we can see infers this. There are all sorts of spectrum of light and sound which unaided human senses cannot perceive, period. We can only perceive them, in fact, when we develop tools to translate them into something we can perceive (hence things like "night vision" goggles.) A dog can "hear things" we will NEVER be able to hear in this life. We just don't have the chops for it.

So that there are entire categories of reality which are simply above and beyond any kind of creaturely power to perceive is, again, not a strange idea. It's quite reasonable. Further, there is much about man's natural inclination (and you see evidence of this no matter what he says his religion is, whatever time or place he lived in) which thirsts for this kind of knowledge, just as he does for food or sex. If these and similar natural inclinations have a method of fulfillment, it seems counter-intuitive and unreasonable to insist this most basic longing of man (to understand) is some convienient exception.

However, where skepticism is certainly valid and healthy, is when it comes to claims upon just what that "unseen" world contains. While the inclination of man is toward God (defined in the most basic, yet true terms - the source, the supreme, the perfect, etc.), it would be presumptuous for any of us to just pretend to know His mind and will, and think we could enforce that amongst others without some further evidence. I don't even know what your mind really is on any subject unless you tell me - so how can we do this to God. Unless, of course, He has in fact conveyed a testament, a will, to mankind. And if that is the case, it would need some evidence to be credible. Of course, on the balance, many people are dishonest on this topic, because they require an unrealistic type of evidence on this topic, one which in fact logically cannot be demanded of anything since it would invovle self-identification with the object in question. But alas, people do this for self-interested reasons with God all the time.

5. All argumentations and evidence that theists use to support their claims are invalid.

All? I'd love to see you demonstrate this.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

Good post. I would agree and just add the caveat, actually a statement of the obvious, that the famous "burden of proof" is on those who disagree. I.e., atheism is and has always been the default position.

That's nonsense. Atheism is a very hard, metaphysical claim - "there is no God, however you define that." Of course, I've always been hard pressed to see how that doesn't just make them hypocritical impersonalistic-pantheists, but the point remains that the Atheist is asserting something. This would all be a little more credible if one were to say they were "agnostic" (unknowing) about such things, because they have yet to receive persuasive evidences. That would more credibly be called "baseline." "Atheist" on the other hand, implies that you've perceived enough evidence for you to make a statement upon reality ("no God.")

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

I think the biggest reason I do not believe in any God or gods is that the concept is not only illogical, but completely unnecessary. There is no need to believe in God. The reasons people popularly suggest God must exist to explain this or that are all very unconvincing.

If there is no God, there is absolutely no basis for the moral claims of any man. Not a single one. So tell me again how this is all "unnecessary."

We do not need God to explain the universe. Advancements in quantum physics are doing a very good job of painting a natural scenario for the beginning of the universe.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if a "theory of everything" could be found. I stress, "could" because there is nothing inevitable about that, even if such can be understood. Indeed, if the universe is coherent, there would have to be some kind of baseline physics which could explain later stages of causality in the cosmos.

But this is all quite irrelevent to the question of God, or even the genuinely "unseen world". Nothing in such a unified theory could do this. It would simply be a grandiose version of what we already know, none of it in turn doing anything to remove the moral and logical necessity of recognizing the possibility of a supernatural world (supernatural meaning "above and beyond" the natural world, which can be defined as that which is possibly open to discloser to the human senses) and certainly not having the slightest bit of bearing upon the matter of God. I'd be interested to see how you think otherwise.

We do not need God to explain life. Evolution and research into abiogenesis have painting a natural scenario for the beginning of life on our planet.

...none of which would of course explain the "why" of those dynamics existing in the first place. That the universe is an ordered "conspiracy toward a purpose" is what the moderate and strong secular "anthropic principle" theorists are basically saying based on observation right now, so again...how does evolution or even abiogenesis (neither of which have been worked out theoretically in as satisfying a way as anyone would like) demonstrate something acquiting man of seeking God?

We do not need God to explain morality. There are many, many systems of morality and evolutionary explanations for the origins of morality that do not rely on the presumption of any metaphysical beings.

All the above do is attempt to demonstrate the illusionary nature of the very idea of morality or ethics - they actually don't provide an alternative basis. IOW. philosophical atheism may attempt to undermine the basis for morality, but it does not "explain" anything, save that we are doomed to live in a world of tyrants, and to think we can impliment anything to the contrary even for a moment is vain.

There are many things that the faithful have over the years pointed to as proof that God must exist, lest a said phenomenon does not make sense or cannot be explained. Not only is this invalid reasoning, but these things have been explained, without any supernatural suppositions.

I think you need to start reading better quality arguments. And maybe also start asking if it's actually possible or even desirable for you to live a life in true accord with your metaphysics, if it's even a remotely "human" one by any measure. This is because I've yet to meet a consistent atheist - and not because of any particular weakness or fault (like anyone who "sins" against their creed), but simply because they'd RATHER live as those who assume there is an ontological basis for "right and wrong", the basic predicability of some things in life, etc.

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

Hard to say for sure but I would guess:

- the fear of death, i.e., total annihilation or non-existence, which includes accepting that one will never attain all one wishes (i.e., some sort of heaven).

Yes, but the flip side of the coin is that there can be a type of man who would rather live self willed, doing whatever he can get away with, and for whom belief in any kind of afterlife would be a real drag. So these "personal motives" cut in different directions.

- the insistent desire that one MUST be ultimately important - and the utter fascination with one's own complex and wonderful self (which MUST not be just a natural phenomena lacking ultimate "meaning")

Then empty your bank account and send a cheque or money order to me - after all, nothing has any meaning, that money has no meaning really. I mean after all, you only keep it because you rely upon the unverifiable belief that tommorow will basically be like yesterday, and that the shop keeper will see your currency and believe it to be something good enough to be exchanged for goods. That your way of life has any limitations, predictions, or circumscription is proof your not really serious. However, I may believe you more if you send me that cheque. I'll e-mail you my postal address if you're agreeable to this.

I on the other hand, am not so foolish (as are most people) as to disbelieve totally in the value, on the balance, of inference.

- utter distaste for admitting error (really, in this case, essentially admitting that one has been wrong for a lifetime).

That's a basically human problem, not a specifically religious one. I must confess my utter distaste for this kind of selectivity amongst some atheists; they are fond of attributing uniquely to "religion" what really is a problem in the hearts of human beings in general, regardless of whether it's "religion" they believe in or "the party" or "capitalism" or what have you.

- argument of mass appeal, i.e., if everyone I know believes, then it must be so. Who am I to disagree?

So should atheism become popular and dominant in a given society, we can just assume it's a baseless outlook - I mean after all "you were just born into it." Pretty weak man.

- argument from authority and venerability, i.e., if authorities, existing from ancient times, say it is true, then it must be true. Who am I to disagree?

So I guess I'm going to start asserting that Julius Caesar did not exist, and that Paris is really in China but there's a huge conspiracy of ignorance and minsinformation to cover up that fact. I mean, we cannot have even a qualified acceptance of testimony and historical transmission of any sort if what you're saying here is valid in the way you're presenting it. However, those chains of transmission and records do have to be consistent and verifiable to the degree we accept their importance.

- Ignorance of science and its explanatory power (thus, the never-dying "god of the gaps" assertions.

I think what a lot of people confuse for the "God of the gaps" is really something that has never changed - the belief that God is above all, and that He creates everything and it depends upon Him. That this happens in a systematic and predicable way with certain "rules" is hardly a shock. This is why even when put forward persuasivly, any kind of theory on this or that aspect of causality within the manifest universe is really quite irrelevent to basic religious questions. Only a very small, idolatrous understanding of "God" would be challenged by genuine science.

 

[Tormac]

(in relation to my earlier post)

are you saying that you don't believe in Christianity because there are so many different beliefs? Do you believe in any kind of god?

Since I assume the op is Christian I am picking on what I understand to be the orthodox view of the Christian God.

I do not believe in the existence of any God or gods in general, as I do not see any evidence for their existence. I also do not see how their belief betters mankind’s understanding of the world, or our ability to live within it.

If I had to imagine God or gods, and think about their likely characteristics, based on what I know about the world around me, I would say that the existence of an all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent God is one of the least likely of any of the differing types of deities that humankind has invented over the years.

It seems to me that it is much more likely that the differing pagan cults were real than the Christian God. I can picture gods who are limited in their power and ability, and who are often self indulgent, petty, and cruel, but sometimes benevolent as well. This seems a better explanation for why the universe often seems to be cruel, indifferent, and benevolent at the same time.

I can also picture an all powerful God who is indifferent to humanity setting this universe afloat.

But it is really hard for me to justify how mean, nasty, and vicious the universe is, and then picturing that there is an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving heavenly father that created everything in his perfect plan. For example how can an all loving God have created people with a tendency towards sin, and set up the punishment for this sin as eternal damnation? That’s like leaving a bowl of tuna fish with razor blades in it out, and then blaming my cats for cutting themselves.

 

[RGIngersoll]

I am impressed with the sober conversation of this thread. Flamingcrouton (like your handle); is there anything left unsaid that you need raked overa little more? RGI

 

[BeginnerOnAPath]

there are gods or anything supernatural.

 

[very_irreverand_Bill]

Ok... I know in my heart that this thread will be completely in vain because of people's uncany ability to copletely ignore requests from the thread starter, but here goes. In this thread I'd like all Atheists to list their biggest reasons or reasons for not believing in GOD and religion in general. That's it, just tell me ur buggest beef with realigion. I'm doing this to collect information on the atheist's point of view on religion. Now here come's the tricky part that I'm sure will be the undoing of this thread: I'm begging all christians that read this please please pretty please with sugar on top DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON THIS THREAD. I'm collecting information on reasons why people dont like christianity. There is one exception, if a christian that reads this does happen to have a problem with a particular part of the christian religion, please feel free to post it. Well that's it, thnx for taking the time to read this unbearably long preface.

I think it's a fallacy that Atheists all oppose "god" and 'religion".
I have noticed plenty of Atheists that like "religion" as a symbolic cathartic insoration type thing. It's Militant Atheists that see to oppose 'religion" and belief in god in general, mainly out of reactionarism without alot of thought put behind their position.

Here's my position as a Non-Thiest/Anti-Theist[who happens to see things from a more DEISTIC perspective; but am still non and anti theist}

I don't have a problem with "religion" per se. Though because I often go after the Abrahamic religions, revealed and absolutist religions; and because I believe ALL beliefs and unbeliefs are non-sacred and that it should not be taboo to critisize,challenge, mock or blapeheme ANY{in other words I'm not Politcally Correct in this issue}- I have often been mistaken as beeing anti-religion and even anti-god{even though I affirm a belief in a Deistic first cause 'god"}.

My beef with "revealed" and absolutist religions, is the absoltism, and the idea that God has chosen a specific culture or race to reveal a written word to for them to propogate on the earth as the true way to god. Such ideas have been the biggest propogators of PREjudice,bigotry,injustice,repression,oppression, irrational fear and excessive guilt and pshycholical neuroses because of such, strife,division, war and death that human kind has ever seen.

I do not oppose SYMBOLIC religions. But I also see MODERATE christianity,Islam,etc as silly; because in their cases- to deviate from the core absolutist doctrines of the boks from their gods and prophers is to deviate from the religion itself, why not just leave said religion behind and join some other non-revealed rleigionor IF a "revealed" religion, perhaps something more individualistic and reasonable like Thelema for example- which largely is also a symbolc religion at it's core}.

Religions, if done in a symbolic manner, ae not so divisive or arrogant and absurd; and can find support in the psychollogcal sciences{i.e. Jungs archetypes and the theory of collective unconcious; and in the catharsis that can be found in such- as well as the "community" of like-minded people that also recognize that it is ONLY SYMBOLIC and not some ONE TRUE WAY BALONEY!}-these things can even be beneficial.

The problem is with absolutism and revelation concepts; It also seems to me that "theism" itself is based on something unsupportable. But, I can concede that Pantheism is at least semi-reasonable, and IF multiverse theories and "other theories" related to it pan out-perhaps polytheism 'MAY"-but that's a big "may" hold some water{but thus far, they don't}.

And My issu with the God of Christianity and Islam and Judaism should be pretty obvious. I only suggest you read the hypocritical,inhumane,unjustmcruel,vindictive nature of Yahweh,Allahm and yes- even to some degree of "Jesus", in the Bible,Quran,Tankah, to see why I have issue with belief in these horror myths.

The resident anti-theistic Deist

In Reason:
Irrev.Bill

 

[ScMay]

What would be good evidence in your view? I ask this hoping you'll keep in mind that you never confuse evidence with some kind of mythical "direct knowledge", which we don't have about anything in this life, not even the cup of coffee in our hand. I once read a Jewish saying to the effect of "if I knew God like that, I'd be God." But that holds true of anything other than ourselves. Indeed, even we ourselves are quite a mystery to...well, ourselves.

Well something scientific would be a good start - make a prediction based upon your hypothesis (God - also it would be best if there were no other competing hypothesis that could make the same prediction) and then test said hypothesis. So far all religions have failed miserably with this test, I have seen Christianity fail in predictions about what we will find in history, geology, physics, cosmology, biology, etc. as well as fail some basic tests such as believing in Christianity seems to be of no protective value against you becoming a criminal and prayers do nothing to help people except for placebo affect (unless you're being prayed for and know it, then a study has shown it can be HARMFUL!)

Well, a Christian could comment on these things more than I could. There's a lot about the standard Christian "orthodoxy" which I find perplexing as well.

I am curious then a to what basis you have for your beliefs? Scientific evidence I sincerely doubt, so then what is it? Personal revelation, hardly convincing. You don't seem to subscribe to any religion.

The problem here is more Carlin's lack of understanding than anything else. He's paid to be a smart alec and flippant, so perhaps he's not the best representative of philosohical atheism one should be pointing to.

Chill! I don't put him as a representative, merely as someone who makes good quotes or sound bites to use. He has in no way influenced what I believe or don't believe, that's why I said it seemed weird that I would quote him , but he tends to say things every now and again that summarise what I do believe in a concise, simplified, biting and often humorous way. He is a comedian at the end of the day so of course he is going to be smart alec and flippant, this does not however diminish the relevance of the quotes. (WHO said something should mean a lot less than WHAT was said)

Another part of the problem is that there parts of this critique which can really only be applied to Christianity, ex. the "God loves everyone" business.

This is a Christian forum, I live in a country where Christianity has a strong majority, Christianity is the religion is hear the most claims concerning and the religion I have the greatest understanding of. So unfortunately for you most of my responses will e directed at Christians.

Such ways of thinking are very small, and utterly beneath the reality. If one is carrying that kind of religious baggage, it's going to be difficult to approach belief in the Almighty with any kind of objectivity.

I would counter there is no way to believe in the 'Almighty' with any kind of objectivity, to often have I seen believers in any god revert to arguments based on what they'd LIKE to believe or on highly subjective evidence based on what they FEEL (which can be explained by alternative hypothesis that have a basis in science). So far you haven't actually said anything much different from what I have already heard, you have given me no reasons to believe in an all power powerful superbeing universe creator that's for sure.