If you do not believe in god/gods...tell why if I may ask

Post Reply New Topic

The Sister To This Thread

Please be just as civil as the members of the other thread have been.

Please post your reason for disbelief in deities if you are a non-theist.

As for myself.

I don't so much disbelieve as don't give a care to the matter, I am unaffected by the matters of theism personally and don't see the point in fighting over such a petty issue. We could be doing things like helping people in Africa or making the cure for cancer.

i've yet to see proof and most major religions have been debunked as little more than folk tales that are a few thousand years old.


miracles are all debunked as hustles, trickery, or other dishonesty most of the time...or sometimes just seeing what you want to see (like the grilled mary sandwich).

That's pretty much how I am too. This is from my Blogspot blog when I discussed how I feel about organized religion:

I have no problem with people believing in whatever works for them...as long as it doesn't hurt innocent lives, and they don't try to force their beliefs on other people. Being an Aspie, I rely too much on logic to be able to understand organized religion and faith. Religious texts were written by people, a very long time ago, and translated who knows how many times. And it's human nature to make up stories, embellish truths, and make mistakes. So who knows if any religion has gotten it right.

Perhaps now we may engender a greater response.

As always, I defer to my hero, muse, and favorite author... Issac Asimov.

I think that is too simple. While the creation myths of most religions can easily be debunked, religion is more that folk tales. There are philosophies for living and moral and ethical codes that can be valuable even if the existence of the universe is not dependent on Yggdrasil or a giant raven that dropped a stone in a puddle that became Earth.

And the grilled Mary Sandwich has not been debunked, by the way.

True. Therefore I would treat any religion as a potential source of ethical principles which I can examine for merit, rather than having to develop it all from the ground up. But I don't take them as a source of true information when it comes to the existence or nature of any type of supernatural being, whether gods, demons, angels, or anything else. No one has yet shown me evidence that makes it necessary or even probable that supernatural beings exist. Therefore I treat the existence of supernatural beings like I treat the existence of a toaster and teabag in orbit around Mercury: I can't prove that there is no such thing, but I find the possibility so unlikely that I don't base decisions on the assumption that breakfast-related items do orbit Mercury, or that supernatural beings exist. The burden of proof is on those who want to argue in favour of the unlikely, and I will accept only something that stands up to rational scrutiny.

Last edited by Gromit on 24 Sep 2007, 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Because A) there is no proof, B) if there really was a god he'd have enough sense to at least make it so everyone on earth had the opportunity to hear about him and C) if one examines history back far enough, just about every indication, shows that the idea of god was created for 2 reasons - 1) to explain that which was unexplainable at the time (ie why all jews who ate pigs died) and 2) to give an elite few innumberable power over all others.

But now we know things like why all the Jews who ate prok were dying. It wasn't gods revenge, it was because the fires they were using didn't get hot enough to fully cook the pork/. Unfortunately even democratic governments still try to use the idea of god to control the masses.

Well, I would agree that religious hypnosis of people is a real evil that does occur. I went to a dinner at a neighbor's church and the close your eyes and pray while the pastor intoned on and on - seemed to be a form of hypnosis to me.

Not sure that belief in God is merely an invention of people who seek to control - it may be a neurophysiological capability in most people that naturally gives rise to belief in God or the supernatural, and which is then manipulated by those seeking power.

And my explanation has no direct bearing on whether there really is a God, supernatural world, divine, etc. While the neurophysiological experience of the divine may be entirely an artifact of the brain, it should be pointed out the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste etc evolved in response to real world phenomena. Our ability to craft languages, to use numbers, or otherwise think are evolutionary adaptations that let us do things that other life forms cannot.

- Bertrand Russell (1872–1970).

Thanks for the reference and accurate quote. I knew I had heard or read the argument somewhere, but couldn't remember who deserved credit for it.

I'm intrigued by the idea of god-like beings, but over the years I've gradually lost interest in attempting to hold any sort of faith-based world view. My subjective mind can dream up countless deities and clothe them in details that make them "real" -- But only to me. So, rather than pray to them, I write them into stories or view them as metaphorical entities that symbolize desirable qualities I want to cultivate in myself.

Outside the comfort of my own imagination, I have not yet seen credible evidence for gods... Including the ones that I actually like. Depending on which god(s) are under consideration at any given time, I declare myself to be either an agnostic polytheist or a weak atheist.

i never said that various morals or ethics taught were bunk. just the deity and the power granted to their ceremonial masters...or masters of ceremonies, if you will.

i would never throw out all of the morals from any religious text....they do have solid basis in reality in most cases....but you also have to be skeptical of the author's intent. homosexuality being a big one....it's universally lauded but sociologically and functionally, there's nothing wrong with it.

additionally, there's much more science and things possible today that weren't possible back then...and honestly, i don't trust people who adhere to archaic rules and values as ones who can properly judge the ethical nature of a modern issue. it's like saying someone from the stone age could apply their values to the bronze age. equally....we've moved beyond the iron age...by quite a bit...we're in what could probably be best described as the computer age....which means the steel age is pretty dead too. i dunno...i really haven't read on how the prehistoric three could be applied to look at today...but my point is still valid....the technology and the situation is vastly different not to mention the society is vastly different. the more fundamentalist middle east is slightly closer to what the biblical age resembles.


so yeah.....there are ethics and morals to be taken from the ancient books...but those well overdue for an update and are due for an update by people not associated with the old way. lavey should have been a good starting point but he was too obsessed with rebellion instead of redefining religion for full functionality....though he gets closest by far, which isn't really saying too much.

Also, the earthly representatives of the Gods depend upon contributions from people who will listen to them. They shouldn't have to depend on tithes and offerings--God should provide for them directly.

If there was a god he wouldn't have created idiotic god-worshippers who push their idiotic beliefs on others.

Basically - no real proof a god or god(s) exist, too much evidence to prove that religions were pretty much made up to a) control the masses and b) explain the unexplained.