It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why not believe in God?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159

That may be so, but in order to keep to the topic of THIS thread, I feel that blatently promoting Christianity while not even considering the atheistic opinions posted has no place ON THIS thread. But hey, I'm not a mod. That's just my view.

The purpose for this thread is for atheists to answer this question:
"Why not believe in God?"
Not:
"Why I think you should believe in God."
It ruins a good concept for a thread, for non atheists to jump in and preach the gospel to the heathen.
People so inclined can have a thread like:
"Atheists come read this so I can p*## you off and try to make you feel like c%^&&."
-------------------------------------
I realize it is difficult to ignore people c%^&&ing on your religion.
But, I doubt they are interested in examining counter-arguments.


[edit on 25-7-2008 by jmdewey60]




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
EXACTLY the point I was trying to get across, jmdewey60! The topic is NOT a "let's proselytize to the ignorant non-believers about how their opinions don't matter" topic and it should be kept that way.

Props to jmdewey60



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Response to Newday:

"Who is blatantly promoting Christianity, not me, and I see no reason that it even should matter."

A post which promotes the benefits of Christianity while leaving out all other views can be said to be blatently, or openly (if you prefer this word over the former), promoting Christianity.


"Christianity does not recognize the existence of God, it suggests the existence of something not fully God, but only God in part."

I think you may have missed the point of theism in its entirety....because Christianity most certainly DOES recognize the existence of God...it is kinda the basis for the religion...


"There is nothing of Atheism or Christianity intrinsic to the question, "why not believe in God." "

That is debatable as the etymology of the word "atheism" is "not believing in a god" and its opposite, "theism" is "the belief in a god". But anyway...seeing as the predominate religion in the United States (where I live...) is Christianity, I picked the Christian concept of God for the example in my first post. It should also be noted that in order to define the specific benefits of believing in a God, the god in question must first be defined. The reason for this is that not every god in every world-view has the same properties and benefits associated with believing in them.



"All the losses and gains of believing in God are invalidated if He does not exist, just as all the perceived losses and gains of believing in bigfoot are invalidated if in fact no such creature exists."

Yes, that was the reason for the Wager. The question "Why not believe in God?" presupposes that god exists. However, the target audience for the question was atheists, who presuppose that god DOESN'T exist. That is why both sides must be considered for a meaningful conversation to occur in this thread.


"That is why if you are an atheist you must set aside your belief in the idea that there is no God if you are going to consider the question, "why not believe in God," in ernest."

Hence my analysis in terms of Idea A in my first post concerning the Wager.


"There are no valid gains or losses to be considered in the question, "why not believe in God," if no God exists, therefore you must suppose that God does exists and that the potential gains and losses to be had from believing in Him are valid and real also."

Again, Idea A.


"If you can not do that then your considerations are nothing more than a religious and philosophical exercise to determine which view best suits your tastes at the moment."

Idea A....again.....


"If no God exists in reality, then to ask the question."why not believe in God," is nothing more than an intellectual exercise, a personal evaluation of only ideas, an attempt at determining which philosophical flavor you might deem to be best suited to fit with your already predetermined personality, lifestyle, and beliefs."

....which is exactly what happens when you try to convince someone that their belief is in error. You must prove their beliefs to be inferior or wrong...hence the last few sentences of the author of the thread's original post stating that he would like to try and convince atheists that there IS a god.


"It isn't honest in my opinion, because you already have a belief before you ask the question, that is a belief in the non existence of God, if you have accepted Atheism."

So, what you're saying is that it is pointless for a person who already believes that there is NOT a god to respond to this thread? I hate to tell you this, but on this point you are clearly wrong. This thread asks for atheists' opinions...the opinions about why they don't believe in god from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in god....kinda the definition of atheism....


"If we are going to ask the question, "why not believe in God," in ernest, and have any meaningful evaluation of the potential losses and benefits, we must set aside our predispositions and personal religious beliefs, and accept the premise that God exists in reality outside of all religion, belief, or disbelief, otherwise it is an exercise in futility."

....Idea A....again....



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159

A post which promotes the benefits of Christianity while leaving out all other views can be said to be blatently, or openly (if you prefer this word over the former), promoting Christianity.



You can say it but it is a ridiculous thing still.

Are you openly promoting Atheism?


Originally posted by daniel191159

I think you may have missed the point of theism in its entirety....because Christianity most certainly DOES recognize the existence of God...it is kinda the basis for the religion...



Christianity most certainly DOES NOT recognize the existence of God, and the recognition of God is NOT the basis for religion.

Religion is a belief in A GOD not a recognition of God, it is a system of worship not a state of being.

I will say this again about Christianity, it does not believe in the existence of God as a reality, which is the presupposition of the question, "why not believe in God," it recognizes a concept of God as God, a philosophical extrapolation for a God, not God, it offers an idea of God for people to believe, not a belief that God exists in reality.

Christianity offers a belief that God exists only as a concept of the mind.

You know this to be true, because here is your own words, you stated:

"I picked the Christian concept of God for the example in my first post."

End of statement.

Clearly from you own words it is evident that you understand that Christianity is a religious philosophy which only offers a "CONCEPT," of God.

Christianity forwards only an idea of God, a philosophical construct of the existence of a God embodied in the teaching of the trinity.

If you are going to ask yourself the question, "why believe in God," to be honest in your inquiry to yourself, you must first set aside your belief that there is no God if you are Atheist, set aside your belief in a God only as an idea of the mind if you are Christian, and assume God exists as real outside of any ideology secular or religious.

For God to exist in reality He must exist outside of any religion, that is presupposed in the question, "why not believe in God," there is nothing about Christianity or Atheism contained in the question, nothing about philosophical or metaphorical concepts for a God or against a God.

"There is nothing of Atheism or Christianity intrinsic to the question, "why not believe in God." "


Originally posted by daniel191159

Yes, that was the reason for the Wager. The question "Why not believe in God?" presupposes that god exists. However, the target audience for the question was atheists, who presuppose that god DOESN'T exist. That is why both sides must be considered for a meaningful conversation to occur in this thread.



There are not two sides to the question, "why not believe in God," only one.

There may be both losses and gains to consider but not two sides.

The target audience may be atheist but there is no need to consider your atheism to answer the question.

The most meaningful conversations will occur as a result of achiest simply answering the question as best they can.


Originally posted by daniel191159

So, what you're saying is that it is pointless for a person who already believes that there is NOT a god to respond to this thread? I hate to tell you this, but on this point you are clearly wrong. This thread asks for atheists' opinions...the opinions about why they don't believe in god from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in god....kinda the definition of atheism....



So, what I am saying is that it is pointless for a person who already believes that no God exists, to respond to this thread if they are not going to set aside there belief and answer the question honestly.

This thread asks atheists to answer a simple question that has little or nothing to do with why they don't believe in God.

Just as if you asked a Christian or a Muslim the question, "why not believe in God," the answer would have little or nothing to do with why they don't believe in God, but believe in Christianity or Islam.

You seem to be having difficulty with the thought that a person could be religious and not believe in God.

Belief in God if He exists in reality has nothing to do with religious or non religious belief, it is a unique and separate consideration.

The question is, "why not believe in God," there is a difference in spirit to the two meanings of the two questions, yours; "why you don't believe in God," and the threads; "why not believe in God," that is self evident if you are honest.

If we are going to ask the question, "why not believe in God," in ernest, and have any meaningful evaluation of the potential losses and benefits, we must set aside our predispositions and personal religious beliefs, and accept the premise that God exists in reality outside of all religion, belief, or disbelief, otherwise it is an exercise in futility.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by newday]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
If the so called "God" was to condemn a person who has led a decent life to the best of his/her ability but does not believe or has choosen the "wrong" religion, what does it tell you about this "God"?

So there isn't a downside to not believeing in god, because If this so called "God" is as great and enlightened an entity as it is suppose to be, why does it have an ego?

If one has led a decent life, one has nothing to fear. If one lives on the fear of being punished inorder to live a decent life, take away that fear, will that individual still live a decent life?

If one requires guidance to lead a decent life, make sure that one does not follow blindly, the message down the road can be corrupted at any point.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ixiy

If the so called "God" was to condemn a person who has led a decent life to the best of his/her ability but does not believe or has choosen the "wrong" religion, what does it tell you about this "God"?




It tells me your opinion of God, that you think He is in the business of condemning people, but there is nothing your statement tells my about God.

What if how we live our life is irrelevant?

If God exists in reality in the same way bigfoot may exist, that is to say He is living and real, and for there to be a relationship between the two of you, it is only required that you believe He exists, how would the way you lead your life or the religion you choose be relevant?

If all that is required to have a relationship with God is that you believe that He is, but you decide not to establish a relationship by believing, but rather feel it can or should be done by performing good works and being religious, then has God condemned you or have you condemned yourself?

You see, if God does exist and there is some benefit to be had by our having a relationship with Him, and believing is the means required for that relationship, and we chose not to believe, then we have no right to accuse God of keeping us from having any profit that could have come as a result of any relationship we could have had with Him, since it was our decision not to engage with God directly in the manner it is required that it be done in the first place.

If my having a relationship with you could be of mutual benefit, and you have told me the only way we can relate is if I call you on the phone, but I decide that I will open my window and scream your name for the rest of my life, would it be your fault if we never hooked up and enjoyed the potential benefits of the hookup?

If I never call you on the phone and establish a relationship with you the only way I know it can be done, the only way available for it to happen, and you want the relationship because you let me know the manner in which I should engage you, are you condemning me for shouting out my window everyday?

Is it your fault that I refuse to pick up my phone and call you?

Is it the fault of God if we never decide to believe in Him?

Life is what is what it is, we are what we are, God is what He is.

If God exists in reality and there are benefits to be gained from having a relationship with Him by believing, and we choose not to believe, who has the ego, God or us?

Are we so afraid of engaging God directly through believing that we pretend it can be done some other way?

Who is blind, if it is we who will not believe to see?

If it is required in order for us to see things, that we go to the light, and we decided to wait in the darkness, who is to fault for our blindness?

Is it God who condemns us, or do we condemn ourselves for fear to believe in Him?



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by newday
What if how we live our life is irrelevant?


Our lives are irrelevant as long as we do not worship God? Which God, yours right? Is that what your God is telling you?!!!!


Originally posted by newday
If God exists in reality in the same way bigfoot may exist, that is to say He is living and real, and for there to be a relationship between the two of you, it is only required that you believe He exists, how would the way you lead your life or the religion you choose be relevant?


If God is living and real, and I have a relationship with it, why is there a need to believe in god's existence? If God wants me to worship it, I'll want to know why, why does the creator have such a desire to be worshipped by its creations?


Originally posted by newday
If all that is required to have a relationship with God is that you believe that He is, but you decide not to establish a relationship by believing, but rather feel it can or should be done by performing good works and being religious, then has God condemned you or have you condemned yourself?

You see, if God does exist and there is some benefit to be had by our having a relationship with Him, and believing is the means required for that relationship, and we chose not to believe, then we have no right to accuse God of keeping us from having any profit that could have come as a result of any relationship we could have had with Him, since it was our decision not to engage with God directly in the manner it is required that it be done in the first place.


It shows what God values more. If God requires the relationship instead of the good in the person's heart what does it tell you about this God? In my option I would say we have a God/Creator imposter.

I don't want any profit or reward from God, I don't careless about heaven, I help others because I want to, not for reward or profit from anyone in this life or the next.

If one never knew one's father and went on to do great positive things, was re-united with one's father, and that father chose to condemn that child because that child never seeked to look for the father and to obey him, what does that tell you about the father?

It shows that the father couldn't careless about the good in the child's heart, all that the father values is acceptence and obedience.

It shows that this father has a ego problem.


Originally posted by newday
If my having a relationship with you could be of mutual benefit, and you have told me the only way we can relate is if I call you on the phone, but I decide that I will open my window and scream your name for the rest of my life, would it be your fault if we never hooked up and enjoyed the potential benefits of the hookup?

If I never call you on the phone and establish a relationship with you the only way I know it can be done, the only way available for it to happen, and you want the relationship because you let me know the manner in which I should engage you, are you condemning me for shouting out my window everyday?

Is it your fault that I refuse to pick up my phone and call you?

Is it the fault of God if we never decide to believe in Him?

Life is what is what it is, we are what we are, God is what He is.

If God exists in reality and there are benefits to be gained from having a relationship with Him by believing, and we choose not to believe, who has the ego, God or us?


Both have ego, humans who want the reward from God, and God who rewards those who worshipped it.

If I don't want the reward God offers, why should worship it?

Is it so hard to believe that there are people out there who want help others in positive ways without wanting anything in return? Even if that person was to go about it alone without the aid of anyone else?


Originally posted by newday
Are we so afraid of engaging God directly through believing that we pretend it can be done some other way?

Who is blind, if it is we who will not believe to see?

If it is required in order for us to see things, that we go to the light, and we decided to wait in the darkness, who is to fault for our blindness?

Is it God who condemns us, or do we condemn ourselves for fear to believe in Him?


I have no problem believeing in a benevolent and enlightened God entity if I were to come across one.

I do not fear the threat of hell, I fear following the wrong path that would lead to greater suffering for all others, and I feel that the one way to tell the difference is to examine them all and to never stop asking question about them.

Again why does a God values a soul's worship/obedience more than it's deceny?

I would follow the God that values a soul's deceny over it's need to be worship and obeyed, acknowledgment of it's existence or parental ownership.

The message down the road can be hijacked and corrupted numerous times at any point by anyone.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ixiy]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
[edit on 27-7-2008 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ixiy
 



If the so called "God" was to condemn a person who has led a decent life to the best of his/her ability but does not believe or has choosen the "wrong" religion, what does it tell you about this "God"?


It tells me that God does not approve of any religion! AND who is telling you that you are condemned?


So there isn't a downside to not believeing in god, because If this so called "God" is as great and enlightened an entity as it is suppose to be, why does it have an ego?


AND again, who told you this? What is wrong with ego? You are not listening to the new-agers are you? That is just another religious belief (theirs as it so happens!). To say ego is bad is a deception in itself, and most who follow that philosophy are not even clear as to what "ego" means! There is a plus side and a negative side to most everything, but God created ego as a strong component to our self esteem. Narcissism takes it to the extreme.

New-agers call it the "lower self." But what it really is - is this: a total dependence on how much toxic shame a person is carrying around in their bag of dysfunction. God however, is not dysfunctional and can be rudely realistic. He is not an addict, but so many humans apply addictive thinking to God and fail. Religion is included in that addiction.


If one has led a decent life, one has nothing to fear. If one lives on the fear of being punished inorder to live a decent life, take away that fear, will that individual still live a decent life?


Your God or concept of God is not the same as mine. All mine wants; is for us to live in as much reality as possible and to recognize him without the crutch and demonic influence and deception of religion...all religion.


If one requires guidance to lead a decent life, make sure that one does not follow blindly, the message down the road can be corrupted at any point.


Oh, yes! Totally agree!



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The problem I see that atheists have with God is that he has been so convoluted with religion. In this I have tremendous understanding!

It is the fault of all religion that has formed such a sick, dysfunctional, codependent God...yuck! And many religions can't even decide "who" God is!

Religion will pay a heavy price for this! Mark it!!



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I dont think God created ego. I think having your own opinion is what creats ego. There is life after death. God is alive. Life after death is a big gamable and how you spend it. Religon is bad cuz people are bad. People go out side of there own written scripture to do what they want and say its the will of God. THo salt not kill lets tortor. Tho shalt not commit murder lets kill our own in the name of of our God



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IAPremed
 

because god doesnt give a damn about any of us thats why



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   


A post which promotes the benefits of Christianity while leaving out all other views can be said to be blatently, or openly (if you prefer this word over the former), promoting Christianity.


Let me start by saying this is absolute bunk. You are very free to open a specific thread on ANY topic so if a Christian wants his/her topic to discuss Christianity then let them. You can very easily ignore it. I started a topic for Pagans, which has gone nowhere :-p

The point is you are free to start a topic to discuss whatever you want. When I finish my masters in Psychology am I going to go to a Psychology Conference in Boston and whine about how their is no discussion on Algebra? Read the title and first post and if it talks specifically about Christianity don't turn it inot something else. The rules of this site pretty clerly point that out but by all means feel free to start an Athiest chat (or whatever you had wished) and if Christians start pouring God into it when it is clearly for Athiesm only, report them.

Now then...OP

Thanks for the question. I left God's side because he never spoke to me and never listned to me. I found one that did and that I have strong passionate feelings for. Now before anyone tells me he did speak and I didn't listen, don't. I know my life far better than anyone and you cannot in anyway tell me he did speak to me. You do not know what's right for me and what or who has healed my life.

That's my short and simple answer OP. Nice thread

-Kyo



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join