Why don't we believe?

[Exrev]

Arron on another topic posed a very good question to us atheists. Why don't we believe? So I responded to his post, but felt that it should be another thread. So here it is. Non-believers can add to this list and I'm sure believers will debate them all.

1. Hell ! I rejected the idea that a truly loving God would make this torture chamber! I don't believe a god would be that unjust
2. It doesn't make sense that Human-God-man sacrifice could take away "sins" of other people! Its unjust to punish some else for sins they did not commit! Or would commit in the future.
3. Claims about humanity within the evangelical-christian view don't not line up with reality! Are people evil and wicked. (while we are competing for resources, much of our problems seem to stem from competing for limited resources. My observation is that most people seem to be hard working and are just trying to get through their day. trying to make their lives better for them and their families. OF course there are exceptions to this rule. But I don't see this world in need of a judgement day! (and by judgement day I mean the more conservative interpretations)
4. Claims that the bible is inerrant, are debunked by the bible itself. Errors and contradictions in the bible disprove this doctrine. Was the earth formed before the universe? Really!!! There was light before the stars? Really!!
5. Based on science and the overwhelming evidence of evolution, I could not reconcile what the bible says as truth and what science says as truth. Maybe there are other interpretations that explain all that away, however I haven't found any that seem tenable to me.
6. Claims of miracles: many other religions claim these as well! Why are we unable to confirm with a degree of certitude that they happened?
7. A majority of people are born in their religions and stay in that religion. Not everyone stays obviously, but looking at cultures worldwide...People in the middle east have been Muslims, people in America Christian and India Hindu. Why is that? Do people really question their beliefs that they grow up in? Or do we just hang on to beliefs that our parents taught us, our community teaches us? Maybe we don't believe because of reason, just maybe.
8. The system of religion especially in conservative Christianities, are very authoritative, believe this or else HELL! ITs a threat. No where in the Bible does it tell people to believe what they find true...it tells them to believe it is truth. Religion doesn't push people to investigate, teaches people to settle for what they are told.
9. Being honest about prayer. Does god answer my prayers or are they really coincidences? I find that most "god" things are very coincidental! Running into someone you were thinking about at the store is bound to happen to someone sometime! Is it really god? While the people on this forum my find this silly. You know these types of people. Every little ironic thing that happens to them is God inspired. But without coincidences I believe their wouldn't be as many religious people.
10. God...why don't we see him or it! Claims that he inspired a book thousand of years ago, telling us he loves us and that we are his children. What kinda father doesn't talk to his children for thousands of years?! Why is this god hidden, why do we need faith! Why doesn't he show himself so that there is no argument. If a personal god actually existed why would he let there be misinterpretations!
11. Jesus claims that he will come back in the disciples life time, yet this did not happen! Those things did not happen that he said would. He did not come on a cloud. Yet 2000 years later people believe he could come at anytime.

Those are my reasons! Not all of them just a start.

[darkumbra]

Mine is ultimately simpler.

I see no evidence of 'god' in the world. This is not to say i am not in awe of all that surrounds me. Do i understand everything? Nope... But feel no need to posit a superbeing to occupy my gaps of ignorance - large though they be. Could there be a god somewhere? It's a possibility, but it's only an unfounded speculation on my part.

[tirtlegrrl]

Hi Exrev,

I recognize and sympathize with all of your objections, and if people were to ask me why I'm no longer a conservative or fundamentalist Christian I would probably list a lot of them as reasons, particularly the errancy objection.

Just out of curiosity, would you care to speculate on why you think those reasons warrant your disbelief (or why the answers to the objections aren't enough to reinstate your belief), but those very same objections don't seem to be sufficient for most conservative Christians to leave or revise their faith? (For example, I could raise objections to my dad all day long and he'd still believe no matter what.) I have my own ideas on this topic, obviously, but I'd like to know what you think since we both appear to have undergone a deconversion of a sort but yours appears to have gone deeper than mine.

[Keep The Reason]

The list is primarily why not to believe in Christianity which I don't disagree with by the way. But as to why not believe in a god at all, there are a few reasons:

1. No paradigm for a god ordered universe makes any sense

2. God assertions are defined as indemonstrable, and this amounts to a litany of excuse why every argument showing why god is a false premise is dismissed

3. Materialism sufficiently addresses how existence is how it is. ("why" questions are certainly entraining, but not essential)

4. God stood as a method for simpler people to understand a complex and mysterious world. It's not needed any longer to help us come to an understanding of our reality

5. These beliefs are mythic in nature, which makes them certainly valuable, but not the truth about reality. Misunderstanding mythology as truth is just codifying superstitious beliefs.

6. Asserting supernatural explanations is self-collapsing. If I don't understand this world, how can I hope to understand it by explaining it with another world that is even MORE mysterious??

7. Theists fail to define "god" in any meaningful way. The entire god concept is something no two people can even agree on. There's an endless number of character attributes, and restrictions on what god can or cannot do, and even the idea of monotheism, that there's only one god, is merely in place due to popular consent. The whole thing has no solid foundational definitions.

[Exrev]

Hi Exrev,

I recognize and sympathize with all of your objections, and if people were to ask me why I'm no longer a conservative or fundamentalist Christian I would probably list a lot of them as reasons, particularly the errancy objection.

Just out of curiosity, would you care to speculate on why you think those reasons warrant your disbelief (or why the answers to the objections aren't enough to reinstate your belief), but those very same objections don't seem to be sufficient for most conservative Christians to leave or revise their faith? (For example, I could raise objections to my dad all day long and he'd still believe no matter what.) I have my own ideas on this topic, obviously, but I'd like to know what you think since we both appear to have undergone a de-conversion of a sort but yours appears to have gone deeper than mine.

What i found was that a naturalistic world-view made more sense to me. Evolution fits with reality. Its very simple why i don't believe. No evidence. Even theologians will admit that God has hidden himself from humanity. For me the whole system imploded. Many people don't see how one belief effects another belief and they end up with some very illogical and incoherent beliefs about god. So its not that I justify my not-believing its that I will never believe without justification.

For instance if I lack a belief in hell, then why would there be a need jesus' death. Thats what Christ died to save us from, eternal death. So if I lost my faith in hell....then it logically follows that there is no need for Jesus' death and resurrection. Things like this. Well here are some other reasons I laid out.
1. I did what some people call an Outsiders Test Of faith. I looked at my own faith with the same skepticism that I looked at other peoples of a different faith. Most of the time I'd say that this requires a crisis of some sort for anyone to question their core values and beliefs.In fact that might be a crisis in and of itself. In reality what i was doing was placing the burden of proof on my faith and my beliefs. This wasn't easy to do, it was emotionally exhausting to realize that what I believed all my life turned out to be a lie. My faith didn't pass the test. It started with finding evolution to be a fact...and yet at the same time I find out that people I've trusted told me lies about evolution,. What else did they lie about? They believed made up stories so now I had good reason to question them, (not directly but as far as my mind was concerned I no longer trusted what I knew, I've learned that really we should always question and never just settle.)

2. For most believers they need to have their faith proved impossible before they'll see it as improbable. There are so many built in "walls" of their faith to protect there belief system. Like statements such as "we don't understand God's ways" Or "God's ways are higher than our own." So while believers may have objections to their own faith they can quickly cover it up with these cop outs. The difference between me and them, was I never bought into these excuses. I new that it was crap when I was hearing it and somethings never settled.

3. Conservative for the most part realize that their faith doesn't make sense. They know it! I had plenty of problems making sense of of things. Just like Tony knows that there are parts of his faith that he knows he accepts that are illogical...such as the trinity! Or Jesus being God and Man, dual natures? Can't ever sin, but the bible state Jesus was tempted? REALLY? How can someone be tempted if they can't sin? But they cover it up. "God is bigger than us" "All things are possible" and lastly "Just have faith".

4. Like most humans, evangelicals at the end of the day we don't hold our beliefs for very good reasons. We typically believe something before we have evidence.When we lookup to someone we trust and they tell us something, we automatically accept it as truth and in fact if someone challenges those things, many times we defend it based on emotion rather than good reasons. Because we view it as an attack against us not the facts. So for me before I questioned my faith, something happened for me to lose my trust in my Christian community. I didn't leave the church because of that lack of trust, but I knew something wasn't right. it did allow me to start questioning.

[WorldlingWatcher]

As usual, there's a strong thread of subjectivism that runs through all these reasons. Let me pose a question for the nonbelievers: how do you know the standards you're using to evaluate counterarguments to these points are valid? For example, what is a valid, objective standard for measuring the justice of the doctrine of hell? Or what percentage of prayers answered in the affirmative is sufficient for an empiricist to conclude God does answer prayers?

[Exrev]

Mine is ultimately simpler.

I see no evidence of 'god' in the world. This is not to say i am not in awe of all that surrounds me. Do i understand everything? Nope... But feel no need to posit a superbeing to occupy my gaps of ignorance - large though they be. Could there be a god somewhere? It's a possibility, but it's only an unfounded speculation on my part.

Dark,

Yes simpler!

But it took a lot of untieing mental knots in my head before I was able to get to that point.

[Keep The Reason]

As usual, there's a strong thread of subjectivism that runs through all these reasons.

Naturally! Subjectivity is how humans perceive existence. This is not "bad", it simply is, just like a cloudless sky at midday is blue. It's neither good nor bad, it simply is.

Let me pose a question for the nonbelievers: how do you know the standards you're using to evaluate counterarguments to these points are valid?

Both believers and non-believers alike are forced to adapt to rules at a penultimate, not ultimate level. For instance, on the ultimate level, we can prove nothing-- we can't prove we're not brains in a jar, a la "The Matrix". Since we all function penultimately, and hence subjectively, neither you nor anyone else has primacy in stating what standards are ultimately valid. So, if you ask that question of us, it also applies to you. And if you are a theist, appeals to god do not answer this because just as ultimately, you cannot demonstrate how the god answer is valid.

For example, what is a valid, objective standard for measuring the justice of the doctrine of hell? Or what percentage of prayers answered in the affirmative is sufficient for an empiricist to conclude God does answer prayers?

You're doing a marginally more complicated and subtle version "Prove there is no god". I have utterly no obligation to assert what is a valid "objective" standard for measuring the "justice of the doctrine of Hell" because the existence of Hell is undemonstrated. It is like saying, "To what depth of blackness is Poe's Raven in his epic poem?" or "What is the degree upon which the Hydra's stare can turn you to stone?" Until you present first a Medusa who exists, then we can measure attributes of that Medusa. But since Hell is a fictional construct, there is no "measuring of the justice of the doctrine of Hell" needed.

Same goes for prayer. You have to first demonstrate there is an involved god who could interact with prayers in order for anyone to assess that there is value in prayer. Do that first, so that we may then discern prayer's efficacy.

[Exrev]

As usual, there's a strong thread of subjectivism that runs through all these reasons. Let me pose a question for the nonbelievers: how do you know the standards you're using to evaluate counterarguments to these points are valid? For example, what is a valid, objective standard for measuring the justice of the doctrine of hell? Or what percentage of prayers answered in the affirmative is sufficient for an empiricist to conclude God does answer prayers?

Finite crimes do not deserve infinite punishment, in fact punishment is a part of discipline which in turns means that at the end of the day its meant to train someone. Eternal punishment therefore is not punishment...its torture. In the end its meaningless if it last forever. How is it logical to punish someone infinity for a crime that was finite. Take for instance a mass murder, say he killed 10 people. If we have infinite time god could literally make him re-live every persons life that was affected by his actions. God could make him relive him every victims experience, but at some point if you keep punishing him, he'd be more victimized than his original crime thereby making him god's victim.

Prayer, it depends on the claims! But it should be simple to conclude if there is a direct correlation to prayer being answered or not. If you can show a direct correlation you would still need to show the causation. Let's take the question does Christian prayer heal the sick? that could me measured. Have a controlled group of people who are not prayed for and have a group of people who are prayed for. Measure the results. Now of course there are claims that people make all the time. Like I prayed for my kid to do well in school and he got all A's. But see this would be harder to measure on individual levels. However, on a mass scale do kids who are prayed for do better than those who aren't prayed for. This would only establish correlation, not causation though. So again its not that its subjective, its just not falsifiable. You can't prove it or disprove it.

[humanguy]

I like people. I like being a person, a human being, and I like other human beings. I very much like, for example, how when humans have sex they fit together so well, so...enjoyably. I like how we make music and invent things. I like how we cook food. I like how we can be so happy.

Those people who don't like humanity, those that want life to be a totalitarian dictatorship, they just don't have any convincing arguments. I see that they're upset about something but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is.

[jordanws]

I like people. I like being a person, a human being, and I like other human beings. I very much like, for example, how when humans have sex they fit together so well, so...enjoyably. I like how we make music and invent things. I like how we cook food. I like how we can be so happy.

Those people who don't like humanity, those that want life to be a totalitarian dictatorship, they just don't have any convincing arguments. I see that they're upset about something but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is.

I like all of those things too, HG. Glad we agree!

[WorldlingWatcher]

Naturally! Subjectivity is how humans perceive existence.

It's not the subjectivity of observations I was thinking about, it's the subjectivity in standards selection that's at issue.

For instance, on the ultimate level, we can prove nothing-- we can't prove we're not brains in a jar, a la "The Matrix".

Then are people who say, "There is no God", making unjustifiable assertions?

I have utterly no obligation to assert what is a valid "objective" standard for measuring the "justice of the doctrine of Hell" because the existence of Hell is undemonstrated.

That was more directed at Exrev, but for you in particular the question might go something like, "What is a valid, objective (or even a reasonable subjective) standard to determine if 'materialism sufficiently addresses how existence is how it is'?"

[WorldlingWatcher]

Finite crimes do not deserve infinite punishment, in fact punishment is a part of discipline which in turns means that at the end of the day its meant to train someone. Eternal punishment therefore is not punishment...its torture.

Do we put criminals in jail, and in some cases execute them, just to train them to be better people? And do we award punitive damages to some victims merely in the hope the offender learns something by writing a check?

[Exrev]

Finite crimes do not deserve infinite punishment, in fact punishment is a part of discipline which in turns means that at the end of the day its meant to train someone. Eternal punishment therefore is not punishment...its torture.

Do we put criminals in jail, and in some cases execute them, just to train them to be better people? And do we award punitive damages to some victims merely in the hope the offender learns something by writing a check?

They call it the Dept. of Corrections for a reason. We do put criminals in Jail, is hell jail? I believe in Jail they give you water, food, and clothing and medical care, even education. In the case of execution, i do not view death as infinite, and as barbaric as death penalty is, we do try to make it painless as possible we do not torture the criminal.

[NH Baritone]

As usual, there's a strong thread of subjectivism that runs through all these reasons. Let me pose a question for the nonbelievers: how do you know the standards you're using to evaluate counterarguments to these points are valid? For example, what is a valid, objective standard for measuring the justice of the doctrine of hell? Or what percentage of prayers answered in the affirmative is sufficient for an empiricist to conclude God does answer prayers?

I suggest, WW, that you not pose questions that you are unwilling to answer yourself.

What possible objective standards are you using to evaluate your acceptance of supernatural interventions in human affairs?

What definition of justice allows for eternal punishment for a thought crime or avoidance of all consequences for a mere apology?

How many Katrinas, tsunamis, and unhealed amputees does it take to see that humans are simply on our own in dealing with an uncaring universe?