why I no longer believe in god*

[chickenonsteroids]

Sup,

I have no reason to write this here but thought that I might as well seeing as it was floating around in my mind.

* I thought it'd be best to define the God I'm talking about because its something that is rarely taken into consideration when talking about these things which is quite unfortunate. I'm talking about a monotheistic and ploytheistic God(s) but for the sake of this I'll be focusing on the Christian/Catholic god.

Firstly I'd like to say that I've been a catholic for all my life and a fairly devoted one at that. So I'm not just an atheist here to ridicule religion as that's stupid and makes atheism sound childish.

Well, I've had doubts about the existence of god for quite a while... is there any reasonable proof to his existence or not? Why do bad things happen in a world that was created be a supposedly perfect and 100% good being? You know all those normal questions that everyone asks.

Firstly my main problem was the idea of believing in something simply because it [i]could[/] be there. The idea that you don't have to see something to believe it never bothered me, its the fact that so many other positions have evidence so to hold god's position requires many many assumptions so I just use Occam's razor to remove it. For example, if a box fell down in a closet, I could make the assumption that a cat did it and continue to assume that I just couldn't see it and that it moved really quickly when I opened the door. Or I could say that it fell because the shelf was coming off its hinges. The latter holds the least number of assumptions so surely that's the more reasonable position to take isn't it?

Secondly, I think that god is oppressive. Why does an omnipotent god need worship... and why would he threaten me with the possibility of hell ... ever? If I simply believe in him that gives me access to heaven but I could've still lived an immoral life. That doesn't make sense to me. So yea god is a bit of a douchebag in some respects.

Why has the religion changed so much over the thousands of years it was meant to have survived for? the current king James' bible is 400 years old so all the versions you read are edited versions of the bible. it had originated from Judaism and the idea of the god Yaweh in something like 1000 BCE ... at that time there was polytheism although worship of those other gods was gradually prohibited.

Moving on... what's there to say that we haven't just created a perfect being to help govern ourselves. That makes god a figure of out imagination. He's just a surrogate father that some people cannot lose because the simulation of his power is too great for their minds to get rid of. For example you can have a 'magic' pendant and believe its magical then when something great happens you say its because of the pendant. when in reality its just a moulded rock or something. Our brains are extremely powerful things.

Anyway I might add more to this post later, feel free to respond in anyway you see fit

[Toz]

Congratulations on opening your eyes. I really recommend you pick up some books to read: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, for one. It'll help provide answers for a lot of your lingering doubts and questions.

Edit: You may not have thought about it yet, but I must ask: do you consider yourself an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist? Here's the difference: A gnostic atheist will say that he lacks belief in God, and God does not exist. An agnostic atheist will say that he believes that God does not exist, and therefore, God does not exist.

[ReluctantPegasister]

I actually just heard of the razor and the cat example yesterday, so it amused me to see it here. Congrats and kudos for using logical explanations to free yourself.

[dr2005]

I'll start off by saying that I respect your position, and have no intention of trying to change anyone's mind on this one - I have always believed a person's belief in God or otherwise is their choice and theirs alone. The following is merely food for thought in response to your points.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Well, I've had doubts about the existence of god for quite a while... is there any reasonable proof to his existence or not? Why do bad things happen in a world that was created be a supposedly perfect and 100% good being? You know all those normal questions that everyone asks.

The first one has the potential to be a misleading question, as whether proof is deemed "reasonable" or otherwise depends entirely on what your definition of "reasonable" is. It's a subjective standard dependent entirely on context - proof which may seem reasonable in the field of, say, history would not suffice at all as reasonable proof in the sciences. Completely different context, completely different standard of proof. On a side note, there is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as any other figure from that period. On the second one, nowhere was it ever said that this world, or this life, would be perfect. The Bible calls it "very good", but that's a different matter altogether. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of suffering in the world today is by our own hands as a species through our own greed and insecurities. That is one of the main reasons I don't buy into humanism, much as I respect its ultimate goals.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Firstly my main problem was the idea of believing in something simply because it [i]could[/] be there. The idea that you don't have to see something to believe it never bothered me, its the fact that so many other positions have evidence so to hold god's position requires many many assumptions so I just use Occam's razor to remove it. For example, if a box fell down in a closet, I could make the assumption that a cat did it and continue to assume that I just couldn't see it and that it moved really quickly when I opened the door. Or I could say that it fell because the shelf was coming off its hinges. The latter holds the least number of assumptions so surely that's the more reasonable position to take isn't it?

Occam's Razor states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. By removing God in this way, you are assuming there is a simpler explanation for why the Universe came into existence from nothing and appears to behave according to a broadly consistent set of principles. I've been interested in science since I was a schoolboy, but I've yet to come up with such an explanation and nor has science. The best I've seen thus far is Professor Stephen Hawking make reference to the usual application of the laws of physics, but that presupposes the existence of those very laws and doesn't actually answer the question. So unless you have a more straightforward explanation than it being created by a God with the means to do so, Occam's Razor doesn't really apply. On the other hand, if you do have such an explanation I'd be very interested to hear it.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Secondly, I think that god is oppressive. Why does an omnipotent god need worship... and why would he threaten me with the possibility of hell ... ever? If I simply believe in him that gives me access to heaven but I could've still lived an immoral life. That doesn't make sense to me. So yea god is a bit of a douchebag in some respects.

Does this not assume that God actually needs worship, and actually threatens us with Hell? The Catholic Church's position on Hell is solely that it is the absence of God, and that it is a position a person chooses to put themselves in by their conduct, not by God casting them out. A person's relationship with God is like any other, and if a person's conduct shows them to reject God and not want Him in their life then you can't exactly blame God if He obliges on that front. Likewise, the example you give doesn't work unless you genuinely repent - carry out mortal sin and you still separate yourself from God.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Why has the religion changed so much over the thousands of years it was meant to have survived for? the current king James' bible is 400 years old so all the versions you read are edited versions of the bible. it had originated from Judaism and the idea of the god Yaweh in something like 1000 BCE ... at that time there was polytheism although worship of those other gods was gradually prohibited.

Has it actually changed that much? The basic canon of the New Testament has remained constant since c.400 CE, and the belief that Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead for our sins has likewise. The fact that it originated from Judaism is well established and doesn't particularly make it any less valid, given that Jesus was believe to be fulfilling prophecies from Judaism. On the polytheism point, I would direct you back to Occam's Razor - one god is simpler than many gods.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Moving on... what's there to say that we haven't just created a perfect being to help govern ourselves. That makes god a figure of out imagination. He's just a surrogate father that some people cannot lose because the simulation of his power is too great for their minds to get rid of. For example you can have a 'magic' pendant and believe its magical then when something great happens you say its because of the pendant. when in reality its just a moulded rock or something. Our brains are extremely powerful things.

This one assumes that having a God-like figure involved in proceedings is a requirement for self-governance, or makes a person's life easier than would otherwise be the case. Neither of these positions are entirely credible - the existence of well-rounded atheists disputes the former, and the fact that most religions hold their members to a very high standard and the imminent prospect of judgement disputes the latter. If anything, actually attaining the standards set by most belief systems is nigh-on impossible. In addition, religious beliefs have been a longstanding source of persecution in human history and so people have probably suffered as much as they have benefited. Arguably there is some comfort value to the believer perhaps insofar as afterlife etc. is concerned, but it's by no means a constant or necessarily a guarantee of an easier life. As coping mechanisms go, it's a pretty bad one to choose.

As I said, I'm not trying to change your own position - I'm just giving you something to consider on the points you raised. Hope it's of some interest to you.

On another note, @Toz: you seriously rate The God Delusion? I thought it was a pile of garbage personally, and certainly not a first-rate example of philosophy of religion. If the OP really wants to read up on the subject, I'd suggest a good general philosophy primer as most of them cover it to some degree.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I'll start off by saying that I respect your position, and have no intention of trying to change anyone's mind on this one - I have always believed a person's belief in God or otherwise is their choice and theirs alone. The following is merely food for thought in response to your points.



The first one has the potential to be a misleading question, as whether proof is deemed "reasonable" or otherwise depends entirely on what your definition of "reasonable" is. It's a subjective standard dependent entirely on context - proof which may seem reasonable in the field of, say, history would not suffice at all as reasonable proof in the sciences. Completely different context, completely different standard of proof. On a side note, there is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as any other figure from that period. On the second one, nowhere was it ever said that this world, or this life, would be perfect. The Bible calls it "very good", but that's a different matter altogether. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of suffering in the world today is by our own hands as a species through our own greed and insecurities. That is one of the main reasons I don't buy into humanism, much as I respect its ultimate goals.



Occam's Razor states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. By removing God in this way, you are assuming there is a simpler explanation for why the Universe came into existence from nothing and appears to behave according to a broadly consistent set of principles. I've been interested in science since I was a schoolboy, but I've yet to come up with such an explanation and nor has science. The best I've seen thus far is Professor Stephen Hawking make reference to the usual application of the laws of physics, but that presupposes the existence of those very laws and doesn't actually answer the question. So unless you have a more straightforward explanation than it being created by a God with the means to do so, Occam's Razor doesn't really apply. On the other hand, if you do have such an explanation I'd be very interested to hear it.



Does this not assume that God actually needs worship, and actually threatens us with Hell? The Catholic Church's position on Hell is solely that it is the absence of God, and that it is a position a person chooses to put themselves in by their conduct, not by God casting them out. A person's relationship with God is like any other, and if a person's conduct shows them to reject God and not want Him in their life then you can't exactly blame God if He obliges on that front. Likewise, the example you give doesn't work unless you genuinely repent - carry out mortal sin and you still separate yourself from God.



Has it actually changed that much? The basic canon of the New Testament has remained constant since c.400 CE, and the belief that Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead for our sins has likewise. The fact that it originated from Judaism is well established and doesn't particularly make it any less valid, given that Jesus was believe to be fulfilling prophecies from Judaism. On the polytheism point, I would direct you back to Occam's Razor - one god is simpler than many gods.



This one assumes that having a God-like figure involved in proceedings is a requirement for self-governance, or makes a person's life easier than would otherwise be the case. Neither of these positions are entirely credible - the existence of well-rounded atheists disputes the former, and the fact that most religions hold their members to a very high standard and the imminent prospect of judgement disputes the latter. If anything, actually attaining the standards set by most belief systems is nigh-on impossible. In addition, religious beliefs have been a longstanding source of persecution in human history and so people have probably suffered as much as they have benefited. Arguably there is some comfort value to the believer perhaps insofar as afterlife etc. is concerned, but it's by no means a constant or necessarily a guarantee of an easier life. As coping mechanisms go, it's a pretty bad one to choose.

As I said, I'm not trying to change your own position - I'm just giving you something to consider on the points you raised. Hope it's of some interest to you.

On another note, @Toz: you seriously rate The God Delusion? I thought it was a pile of garbage personally, and certainly not a first-rate example of philosophy of religion. If the OP really wants to read up on the subject, I'd suggest a good general philosophy primer as most of them cover it to some degree.

You seem to be pulling in the God of the gaps- if science doesn't have an answer, then the de facto one is god. This is illogical thinking at its worst. In the words of Neil de Grasse Tyson, "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

The rest of your argument is pretty well formed, and I applaud you. Much better than most of what I see here.

OP kind of misuses Occam's Razor. It purely states that amongst a set of hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is most probably the truest. The problem is that it can be used to either end when having the God argument. I can argue that the universe is easier to imagine as the result of divine creation, but at the same time, I can argue that a universe without a God is a simpler, easier one to comprehend. In my eyes, that renders Occam's Razor redundant in this context.

The Bible in and of itself has not stayed the same over time. This article talks about that: even thought the work is unfinished, they have found thousands of changes over time in it. http://www.nola.com/religion/index.s..._scholars.html

My next point: isn't it established in the Judeo-Christian canon that we were created simply for the purpose of worship? We existed purely to follow his word, and in a sense, flatter his ego. It's like saying, "Here! Look how I awesome I am! I created you purely to tell me that every Sunday!"

Why didn't you like The God Delusion? I thought it was well articulated and organized. It was presented in a way that made it easy enough for someone with no philosophical or biological knowledge to understand, and it's a good "gateway" book to other atheistic texts.

[chickenonsteroids]

I did say i was going temporarily but i thought i'd answer a few things.

Firstly i'd like to thank both the atheists and religious for not getting into some massive fight that returns to insults. That isn't debating that's just stupid

Originally Posted by dr2005

The first one has the potential to be a misleading question, as whether proof is deemed "reasonable" or otherwise depends entirely on what your definition of "reasonable" is. It's a subjective standard dependent entirely on context - proof which may seem reasonable in the field of, say, history would not suffice at all as reasonable proof in the sciences. Completely different context, completely different standard of proof. On a side note, there is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as any other figure from that period. On the second one, nowhere was it ever said that this world, or this life, would be perfect. The Bible calls it "very good", but that's a different matter altogether. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of suffering in the world today is by our own hands as a species through our own greed and insecurities. That is one of the main reasons I don't buy into humanism, much as I respect its ultimate goals.

So what you're basically saying is whether any sort of proof suffices? I'm not sure but it hasn't really been presented. The existence of Jesus I never doubted. However, doing the things he did ... nah not really. The suffering part. I've done some reading on that. They are old questions which I shouldn't have included in my post which I wouldn't use against a debater that knows what he's talking about. Just letting you know.

Occam's Razor states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. By removing God in this way, you are assuming there is a simpler explanation for why the Universe came into existence from nothing and appears to behave according to a broadly consistent set of principles. I've been interested in science since I was a schoolboy, but I've yet to come up with such an explanation and nor has science. The best I've seen thus far is Professor Stephen Hawking make reference to the usual application of the laws of physics, but that presupposes the existence of those very laws and doesn't actually answer the question. So unless you have a more straightforward explanation than it being created by a God with the means to do so, Occam's Razor doesn't really apply. On the other hand, if you do have such an explanation I'd be very interested to hear it.

Ok, rather than occam's razor (which i admit was sort of out of it's correct context) why should I believe in something because it could be there rather than it actually being there. If that makes sense.

Does this not assume that God actually needs worship, and actually threatens us with Hell? The Catholic Church's position on Hell is solely that it is the absence of God, and that it is a position a person chooses to put themselves in by their conduct, not by God casting them out. A person's relationship with God is like any other, and if a person's conduct shows them to reject God and not want Him in their life then you can't exactly blame God if He obliges on that front. Likewise, the example you give doesn't work unless you genuinely repent - carry out mortal sin and you still separate yourself from God.

No not really, It is saying that he demands worship and I've said why? Secondly, this absence of god and his omniscient-ness surely he'd never leave? Why is should salvation be the gift into heaven if you've lived an immoral life?

Has it actually changed that much? The basic canon of the New Testament has remained constant since c.400 CE, and the belief that Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead for our sins has likewise. The fact that it originated from Judaism is well established and doesn't particularly make it any less valid, given that Jesus was believe to be fulfilling prophecies from Judaism. On the polytheism point, I would direct you back to Occam's Razor - one god is simpler than many gods.

Aha it has... From 1750 BCE there was the belief that there were many gods; including Yahweh's son and wife. My question is ... what god are you talking about ? How are you 100000% certain it's yours? Who says it isn't allah? Didn't you just say that occam's Razor doesn't work that well in this context? Plus just getting rid of them because it is simpler is rather cruel don't you think? It's undermining the whole idea it in my opinion.

This one assumes that having a God-like figure involved in proceedings is a requirement for self-governance, or makes a person's life easier than would otherwise be the case. Neither of these positions are entirely credible - the existence of well-rounded atheists disputes the former, and the fact that most religions hold their members to a very high standard and the imminent prospect of judgement disputes the latter. If anything, actually attaining the standards set by most belief systems is nigh-on impossible. In addition, religious beliefs have been a longstanding source of persecution in human history and so people have probably suffered as much as they have benefited. Arguably there is some comfort value to the believer perhaps insofar as afterlife etc. is concerned, but it's by no means a constant or necessarily a guarantee of an easier life. As coping mechanisms go, it's a pretty bad one to choose.

The brain is quite a powerful and wonderful thing... people do get a lot of joy out of using religion as a comfort point. People still pray when they're in danger even though the chances of anything happening are quite low... then if something good does happen they'd think that god did it.

Originally Posted by Toz

Congratulations on opening your eyes. I really recommend you pick up some books to read: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, for one. It'll help provide answers for a lot of your lingering doubts and questions.

Edit: You may not have thought about it yet, but I must ask: do you consider yourself an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist? Here's the difference: A gnostic atheist will say that he lacks belief in God, and God does not exist. An agnostic atheist will say that he believes that God does not exist, and therefore, God does not exist.

I'm undecided for now. I lean more towards a gnostic atheist with your definition. However i've been thinking of myself as a pantheist too. I'm not sure, i'm in no rush to label myself.

Why didn't you like The God Delusion? I thought it was well articulated and organized. It was presented in a way that made it easy enough for someone with no philosophical or biological knowledge to understand, and it's a good "gateway" book to other atheistic texts.

Richard dawkins seems to be a militant atheist but a softer version of christopher hitchens. I'm not his greatest fan in all honesty.

Oh and don't worry i'm not as much of a beginner in philosophy as you make it out to seem although my points may make it seem that way unfortunately

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Toz

You seem to be pulling in the God of the gaps- if science doesn't have an answer, then the de facto one is god. This is illogical thinking at its worst. In the words of Neil de Grasse Tyson, "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

I wasn't actually trying to pull in "the God of the gaps" - for one thing, I find it an unsatisfactory response to what it is most commonly applied to. My point was more that in order for Occam's Razor to be applicable, you need to actually have freestanding, comparable yet conflicting hypotheses to apply it to in the first place. Hence the "all things being equal" part I made reference to, which for some reason appears to be omitted from some versions of it. As such, I was questioning the validity of applying Occam's Razor in the first place rather than trying to espouse an argument for God. Hope that clears things up.

Originally Posted by Toz

The rest of your argument is pretty well formed, and I applaud you. Much better than most of what I see here.

Thank you - much obliged. Likewise, the nature of your response is much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Toz

OP kind of misuses Occam's Razor. It purely states that amongst a set of hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is most probably the truest. The problem is that it can be used to either end when having the God argument. I can argue that the universe is easier to imagine as the result of divine creation, but at the same time, I can argue that a universe without a God is a simpler, easier one to comprehend. In my eyes, that renders Occam's Razor redundant in this context.

Agreed - see above.

Originally Posted by Toz

The Bible in and of itself has not stayed the same over time. This article talks about that: even thought the work is unfinished, they have found thousands of changes over time in it. http://www.nola.com/religion/index.s..._scholars.html

Errors in translation, copying mistakes and the occasional moving of an account from one gospel to another does not equal wholesale change to the extent the OP was alluding to. By and large, the narrative of the New Testament has remained constant since c.400 CE - Jesus has not suddenly started cartwheeling down from the cross accompanied to the music of Jesus Christ Superstar in any version, for example. (Don't ask where that example came from, I'm not actually sure myself...!)

Originally Posted by Toz

My next point: isn't it established in the Judeo-Christian canon that we were created simply for the purpose of worship? We existed purely to follow his word, and in a sense, flatter his ego. It's like saying, "Here! Look how I awesome I am! I created you purely to tell me that every Sunday!"

Nope - read Genesis 1:28:

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:28

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

You will note the absence of anything about worship.

Originally Posted by Toz

Why didn't you like The God Delusion? I thought it was well articulated and organized. It was presented in a way that made it easy enough for someone with no philosophical or biological knowledge to understand, and it's a good "gateway" book to other atheistic texts.

My main objections were that his attempts at philosophy were superficial at best and flawed at worst (in particular he shows very little grasp of the "first cause" argument given his response to it), that he far too readily goes for "easy targets" like extremists to avoid a proper critique of religion and religious believers, and his employment of double standards between religion and atheism to the extent that Prospect magazine denounced it as "contradictory". He also appears to have relied upon discredited research by Marc Hauser in at least one section on universal morality, which is never good practice. On the whole, though, my biggest problem is he seems to have treated the entire field of philosophy of religion at not worthy of investigation, to the extent that fellow atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse declared himself "ashamed to be an atheist" as a result of it. I realise that all probably sounds a bit harsh, but ultimately Professor Dawkins sought to enter the realms of philosophical debate and if you're going to do that you'd better do it properly. He didn't. Hence why I prefer to point people in the direction of a foundation-level philosophy textbook, as it arguably has more substance to it.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

So what you're basically saying is whether any sort of proof suffices?

Nope - I was challenging the nature of the question on the grounds that reasonableness is purely in the eye of the beholder. What one person deems reasonable in a certain context may be deemed unreasonable by another.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Ok, rather than occam's razor (which i admit was sort of out of it's correct context) why should I believe in something because it could be there rather than it actually being there. If that makes sense.

If it forms a suitable explanation for observable phenomena, that tends to suffice in most circles including scientific. No one has actually seen the Higgs boson (at the time of writing), yet its existence is "believed in" because it provides the best possible explanation thus far.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

No not really, It is saying that he demands worship and I've said why? Secondly, this absence of god and his omniscient-ness surely he'd never leave? Why is should salvation be the gift into heaven if you've lived an immoral life?

You haven't actually answered my question, I'm afraid - as shown above, the very first command to humans in the Bible is "Be fruitful and multiply". Not "Now BOW BEFORE ME, MORTALS!" or such like. The traditional understanding is that worship is not an act carried out because of coercion or command, but as an expression of gratitude.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Aha it has... From 1750 BCE there was the belief that there were many gods; including Yahweh's son and wife. My question is ... what god are you talking about ? How are you 100000% certain it's yours? Who says it isn't allah? Didn't you just say that occam's Razor doesn't work that well in this context? Plus just getting rid of them because it is simpler is rather cruel don't you think? It's undermining the whole idea it in my opinion.

First, careful with overstating the strength of your claims - the consort one in particular is quite strongly disputed in scholarly circles and is mostly on the fringe of the debate. Second, the only reference to Yahweh's son I am aware of is in the context of Jesus, so I'm not quite sure where you've brought that claim up from. Third, you should remember that God, Yahweh and Allah are actually all one and the same, so one of those questions immediately becomes redundant. Fourth, this is not the same context as the above - in this context, you have two competing versions of theism, one with many gods responsible for different traits a la Olympus, the other with one god in charge of the whole kitten kaboodle. Occam's Razor deems the latter simpler, and therefore probably the correct one. It's reductionism in action. Fifth, where exactly does cruelty come into the equation? Should they exist, I doubt the actions of a 24-year-old Law graduate are going to perturb them much.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

The brain is quite a powerful and wonderful thing... people do get a lot of joy out of using religion as a comfort point. People still pray when they're in danger even though the chances of anything happening are quite low... then if something good does happen they'd think that god did it.

I'm afraid that doesn't actually address my point either, unfortunately - it neither asserts religion as necessary for self-governance, nor evidences consistently higher ease of life with religion compared with without. The brain being quite powerful comment meanwhile is purely a re-statement without further development -the power of the brain alone does not explain why such a concept need be retained when others exist, and if anything suggests it should be able to readily come up with alternatives of its own. Mere comfort value alone does not explain the persistence of it in light of the sizeable obligations it places upon its adherents.

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Oh and don't worry i'm not as much of a beginner in philosophy as you make it out to seem although my points may make it seem that way unfortunately

Apologies if it came across that way - wasn't my intention. It was more that such books often give a very good summary and a springboard to further reading which you may find helpful.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Sup,

I have no reason to write this here but thought that I might as well seeing as it was floating around in my mind.

* I thought it'd be best to define the God I'm talking about because its something that is rarely taken into consideration when talking about these things which is quite unfortunate. I'm talking about a monotheistic and ploytheistic God(s) but for the sake of this I'll be focusing on the Christian/Catholic god.

Firstly I'd like to say that I've been a catholic for all my life and a fairly devoted one at that. So I'm not just an atheist here to ridicule religion as that's stupid and makes atheism sound childish.

Well, I've had doubts about the existence of god for quite a while... is there any reasonable proof to his existence or not? Why do bad things happen in a world that was created be a supposedly perfect and 100% good being? You know all those normal questions that everyone asks.

Firstly my main problem was the idea of believing in something simply because it could[/] be there. The idea that you don't have to see something to believe it never bothered me, its the fact that so many other positions have evidence so to hold god's position requires many many assumptions so I just use Occam's razor to remove it. For example, if a box fell down in a closet, I could make the assumption that a cat did it and continue to assume that I just couldn't see it and that it moved really quickly when I opened the door. Or I could say that it fell because the shelf was coming off its hinges. The latter holds the least number of assumptions so surely that's the more reasonable position to take isn't it?

Secondly, I think that god is oppressive. Why does an omnipotent god need worship... and why would he threaten me with the possibility of hell ... ever? If I simply believe in him that gives me access to heaven but I could've still lived an immoral life. That doesn't make sense to me. So yea god is a bit of a douchebag in some respects.

[i]Why has the religion changed so much over the thousands of years it was meant to have survived for? the current king James' bible is 400 years old so all the versions you read are edited versions of the bible. it had originated from Judaism and the idea of the god Yaweh in something like 1000 BCE ... at that time there was polytheism although worship of those other gods was gradually prohibited.

Moving on... what's there to say that we haven't just created a perfect being to help govern ourselves. That makes god a figure of out imagination. He's just a surrogate father that some people cannot lose because the simulation of his power is too great for their minds to get rid of. For example you can have a 'magic' pendant and believe its magical then when something great happens you say its because of the pendant. when in reality its just a moulded rock or something. Our brains are extremely powerful things.

Anyway I might add more to this post later, feel free to respond in anyway you see fit

I can't prove to you that there is a God, because only faith can do that...but there are a few things that I want to say about your claims against God. I put your comment/question in quotes and bold, and then my comment follows:

"Is there proof of God or not?" There is evidence that God exists, but there isn't proof. Meaning, there are things that strongely suggest that there is a God and it would be silly to think that it's something else, but there are still technically ways around those things if people try really hard to disprove it.

"Why do bad things happen in a world created by a perfect being?" God wanted us to love Him. Love is a choice, so He had to give us a choice if He wanted us to love Him. He let us choose to either have evil or stay perfect, and "we" (Adam and Eve) chose evil. When they did, evil entered the world and has been here since. Does that mean that God created evil? Kinda...maybe...I don't know. Honestly, I don't care. I know that it's here and I know why, so that's enough for me. There will always be suffereing and evil in this world, but we have to remember that God has provided as escape from this world (Heaven) if we choose to accept the sacrifice that He made on the cross to get rid of our sins so that we can get there. If we turn down that offer, then yes, we will go to hell and be surrounded by evil forever...but we don't have to choose that.

"Why does God need worship?" He doesn't need it, but He wants it. Why? Because He loves you so much that He loves when you pay attention to Him. His love is so great that He wants us even though we are so muc lesser than Him and unworthy. Have you ever loved someone so much that you feel so blessed every time they pay attention to you? That's how God feels about us because He created us and wants us to love Him! Could He still survive without worship? Yes, but He'd rather not.

"If I simply believe in Him, He gives me access to Heaven." Not exactly. Lots of people believe that God exists and they aren't all going to Heaven. It's about believing that Jesus died on the cross to take the punishment for your sins so that you don't have to in hell, rose again 3 days later to defeat sin, and having a change of mind where you would rater have God than have your old sinful life. Will you still mess up afterwards? Absolutely, and yes you are still saved when that happens. BUT, if you are a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit...which will guide you. You still won't act perfectly, but yes you are saved anyways.

"All bible version that you read are edited versions." No, they actually still have the original scrolls- the very first copies of the letters and stories in the bible ever written! If you read the New American Standard Bible version, it is translated straight from those original scrolls and is as accurate as translation technology allows in the time period that we are in. Several other versions (New King James, English Standard Version, New International Version, etc.) are also very close with just a few changes.

"It started with Judaism." Yep, it did. And those Jews were waiting for a Messiah to come and save them. It's just that when He (Jesus) came, they didn't believe that it was really Him...so then it divided into Christianity (those who did believed that it was Him) and the continuation of Judaism (those who didn't believe that it was Him).

[Revolution]

Congrats. I'm glad this wasn't just one of those "Anarchy, God is dead!" posts. You've really thought this through. You should question everything, Christianity, Atheism, though life, you should always question. One of the best things that we have been granted as humans is thought. Don't immediately trust anything.

[girlfromsocal]

well in the christian religion I thought you think you saw him. Which is creepy imo.


anyway about the worship part. I personally don't pray all that much either. But the truth is you're seemingly entitled and acting you deserve something. What did you do for GOD? Nothing HE owes you nothing even if you prayed to him. It's quite Merciful of him to give you life. You never earned your life neither did any human or any living creature. No one is owed anything by GOD. HE did it all. You didn't do anything. And HE doesn't need your praise. I see it as a test. Some people make it some people don't. But honestly the requirements are nothing compared to what HE's done for us.

And you're right there is no proof there's a christian god. Do you guys even have any scientific facts in the bible?
but well in faith scientific facts can be well aligned with scientific findings. So yeah....

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Megan1

"Why does God need worship?"

Originally Posted by Megan1

He doesn't need it, but He wants it. Why? Because He loves you so much that He loves when you pay attention to Him. His love is so great that He wants us even though we are so muc lesser than Him and unworthy. Have you ever loved someone so much that you feel so blessed every time they pay attention to you? That's how God feels about us because He created us and wants us to love Him! Could He still survive without worship? Yes, but He'd rather not.