Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Joseph Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Celine Dion Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Tell me all about why you have faith in no god.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 124 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 3:00:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 10, 2008 11:55:52 PM PDT
Oliver_York says:
Thanks E Rice and Ray R. Glad you agreed/liked my comments

One option I supppose is just to imagine God as you would like him to be - the kind you would want to be in charge and is a role model/inspiration for you/ and try to believe in him (this seems like KM's approach from a few posts I read). I did this at one stage and it can make you feel happier about things. However on more than one occasion (the last time disastrously so) my life got significantly worse due to me choosing actions that were pure and selfless and idealistic (and praying) as opposed to materialistic, practical and and self-interested. The point is if your god turns out not to be objectively real (either not real at all, or not how you imagined them projecting your ideals on them) and you believe and trust in them and take decisions based on this, then things can go wrong. If instead you just see the universe as neutral and life as here and now, and not some big scheme to gain spiritual enlightenment or heaven or oneness with God or whatever, and take actions based mostly on your immediate interest and happiness and that of your loved ones, you will probably get more happiness and may be less disappointed

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 2:37:06 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 8, 2010 11:52:34 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 2:26:51 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 8, 2010 11:52:34 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 1:48:08 PM PDT
<i>If religion was true then the more we studied it the more its truth should shine out, instead the experience of many people is that the more they study it the less sense it makes.</i>

This is my new favorite quote.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 1:20:54 PM PDT
Oliver_York says:
also the usual stuff like if he is omni-everything why would he allow so much suffering? of course he might exist but not be the kind of god who intervenes and is all-powerful etc

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 1:19:13 PM PDT
Oliver_York says:
I would like to have fiath in a god, but he or she would be a god I can believe in and trust, who is perhaps something like a projection of the best sides of myself. I have no real proof that this god exists in an objective sense though.

I have read almost all the Bible and read a lot about Christian history and theology and find the old testament God unpleasant and the Christian god illogical and also cruel if - as in the mainstream church view - he tortures people for just having the "wrong" beliefs

The statement that the universe must have a creator is meaningless as it only leads us to ask who created the creator?

So I ask myself why I ever thought there was a God? Answer because I was told there was one from childhood. Also I was told nice things like loved ones who died lived forever in Heaven with him.

If religion was true then the more we studied it the more its truth should shine out, instead the experience of many people is that the more they study it the less sense it makes. Why would God have made things so?

Why would a God just require blind faith in complicated doctrines and not make his presence obvious?

There are some of my problems with God

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2008 12:40:55 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 8, 2010 11:52:35 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 9, 2008 11:54:59 PM PDT
olsonlj1 says:
Kevin does an excellent job of portraying a Christian as a nonsensical, illogical lunatic.

It is my firm belief that this thread will only serve to convert others to atheism. Carry on!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 9, 2008 11:23:59 PM PDT
Ray R,

You are one extremely paranoid, delusional crazy.

You really are making a fool of yourself with your psychotically paranoid posts.

The Christians around you are not out to get you. Your Christian neighbors are not your enemies. The society in which you live really is not against you. Your "militant approach against all god worshipping religion" is not necessary.

Sit down, relax, and take your medication.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2008 12:05:39 PM PDT
KM says: Tell me all about why you have faith in no god.

RRW says: Same reason I have faith in no chupacabra.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2008 11:42:17 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 8, 2010 11:54:36 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2008 10:21:28 AM PDT
Well that is certainly not true..."The only common thing we share is no belief in theistic gods." Do you not distance yourself from those murderous militant atheists that bloodied the 20th Century (cf Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, chapter 19, I think)

Concepts are concepts, there is no label 'man-made', 'real'.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2008 10:15:54 AM PDT
XaurreauX says:
"Firstly I'm not sure I understand why Kevin assumes that an Atheist 'hates self and hates world.'"

Because Kevin is lashing out. Here's how the game is played. Kevin makes a puerile, completely unresearched, unsupported claim which he thinks will aggravate atheists, some of whom will patiently try to explain to him the way it is. But Kevin is angry with us because we won't reinforce his faith. His obstinence is his way of punishing us. He really doesn't care what the responses are; the question/proposition itself is the attack. He responds with prosaic gobbledy-gook not only to avoid backing up his assertions (for which he hasn't the slightest need--his position is emotional, not rational), but because he knows it frustrates and insults the intelligence of those taking his bait. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't answer his rants, but I suggest that you do so being aware that his is not a failure to understand, it is a refusal to understand. Viewed in that light, he and others like him can be faintly amusing.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2008 8:17:43 AM PDT
I wonder about two things. Firstly I'm not sure I understand why Kevin assumes that an Atheist "hates self and hates world."
I think what you have in fact is the exact opposite. In choosing to eliminate the "god myth" and any attached afterlife scenarios an atheist (could, naturally your atheist mileage may vary) focuses more intently on this life, this time, the here and now.
Focusing on who you are presently, rather than who you might be in the future "kingdom of god" I submit is more likely to produce a happier more content individual.

Secondly from where does the burden of proof come?
If my friend comes over to me and says; "hey joe, guess what? I believe in god" well we may have differing views on that but
I see no reason to challenge that statement. If you tell me you belive in god that's your decision. We can certainly discuss why you believe and why I choose not to but it's not an issue of proof. What any individual chooses to believe is not a topic up for debate, it's a choice and a decision made for and by that person and any proof that may be required is both determined and satisfied by that individual.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2008 9:30:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 27, 2008 9:38:29 PM PDT
AG says: People that believe in god have the burden of proof.

KM says: It would be more accurate to say that people who repeat the lie that myth is truth bare the burden of proof. Atheists who repeat the lie that myth about the existence of a godless totality is truth bare the burden of proof. Theists who repeat the lie that myth about the existence of a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth is truth; also bare the burden of proof.

The truth about existence of things scientists can find; and things theories predict; does not lead by valid logical deductive inference to the scientifically reproducible discovery that only things scientists can find, and only things theories predict exist. The idea that only things scientists can find, and only things things theories predict exist is a pessimistic myth about existence of one totality that may be sorted in the Atheism category! Out of an infinite number, diversity, and variety of myths about the existence of one totality made possible by the existence of discovery and mystery, some atheists choose to believe in a pessimistic myth about existence of only things scientists can find, and only things theories predict; until proven otherwise. In other words; until proven otherwise; some atheists choose to have a low esteem of self and a low esteem world. Some atheists go about the task of attempting to convince others to choose to have a low esteem of self and a low esteem of world by claiming we must adopt as a rational default position a belief in the pessimistic myth about existence of only things scientists can find; and only things theories predict in order to be considered rational.

It is this arbitrary choice to believe in this pessimistic myth as a rational default position that is an act of hate committed against self and world. In other words, until proven otherwise; some atheists hate self and hate world. The fact that some atheists love to hate self and hate world does not change the fact that the choice of a belief in the myth about existence of a godless totality as a rational default position is a choice to hate self and hate world. The choice of a belief in the one myth that enables us to have the highest esteem of the existence of one totality as a rational default position is in contrast a choice to love self and love world.

Use of our senses and perceptions to verify that a myth is true makes no sense as a criterion for choosing a myth to believe; because myth is myth. Wouldn't it be more rational or sane to choose to love self and love world? Wouldn't it be more rational or sane to choose to have the highest esteem of self and highest esteem of world? Out of an infinite number, diversity, and variety of myths made possible by the existence of discovery and mystery why not choose to adopt as a rational default position a belief in the one myth about the existence of one totality that enables us to have the highest esteem of existence; until proven otherwise? I choose to have the highest esteem of self and the highest esteem of world by adopting as a rational default position a belief in the most optimistic myth about existence of an infinity, divinity, eternally, one that manifests for the purposes of enjoying entertainment as an infinite seed, infinite body, infinite soul, and infinite spirit.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 25, 2008 4:50:57 PM PDT
KM says: Tell me all about why you have faith in no god.

MA says: Fortunately logically I don't have to.

KM says: Yes logically you can refuse my invitation.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2008 10:47:18 AM PDT
Kev,

> "definition of Atheism provided to me by my American Hertiage Dictionary Second College Edition: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God."

This is an example of an all-too-common habit of couching definitions in traditional use instead of just the word on its own merits. Both the Web and Oxford are steeped in the traditions of European "christianity" and don't seem able to break loose from that thrall. There's not a whisper of acknowledgement of other deities, for example.

It's also the reason why Richard Dawkins rightly suggests the word should be binned and replaced with "non-theism", a more accurate if cumbersome term. At least it makes no assumptions as do the definition you provided.

the bunyip

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2008 10:06:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 24, 2008 10:11:10 AM PDT
KM says: I will recite to you the definition of Atheism provided to me by my American Hertiage Dictionary Second College Edition: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.

MA says: I reject that definition, it assumes god already exists.

KM says: No you assume the definition assumes god already exists. Your are wrong in your assumption. Defining the word Atheism as a disbelief in or denial of the existence of god in no way precludes the possibility of the existence of a godless totality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2008 5:31:49 PM PDT
You're the atheist. You tell me why.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2008 3:30:09 PM PDT
Happy,

mebbe. but if being happy means following the convoluted and tortured thinking i've seen coming out of our correspondent, i'll keep a bit of grim in my life, thank you.

the bunyip

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2008 12:53:39 PM PDT
sfon says:
S. Friedman says: "I've interpreted some of Kevin's posts as suggesting that what makes him happy (most optimistic) would make everyone else happiest as well."

You're right, people are so different. People prefer different imagery and different ideas. I have often thought that 'spirituality' should be as unique to each individual as a fingerprint. I think those who are in cults hate this fact above all.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2008 5:49:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 21, 2008 7:53:38 AM PDT
S. Friedman says:
E Rice,
You nailed it, regarding each of us believing that which makes us happiest. Unfortunately, I've interpreted some of Kevin's posts as suggesting that what makes him happy (most optimistic) would make everyone else happiest as well. I find deplorable his lack of respect for the idea that each of us might have our own notion of what would provide us with the greatest happiness/optimism.

Happy Guy

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2008 2:48:28 PM PDT
PDXDad says:
i dont believe in any god currently <atheist> but i might at some period in my life become Agnostic again. It is absolutely impossible for us as humans to know what/who god is. To put a name, face, desires, rules etc to him/her is egotistical of humans. There might be some supreme being, but how are we humans to know how to define what/who he/she is. No one has met god and lived to tell about it, so how how how can we possibly know what he wants from us? You might say, the bible, Well the bible has been modified many many times through history, parts removed, parts added. Heck the original creation of the bible was by men, men with motives and desires of their own. It is impossible to prove any factual basis to the bible<or other religious texts>, so it is not credible evidence of god. If you want to say that they are credible, then i hand you The Hobbit, and say to you that that book proves the existance of Hobbits, goblins, orcs, dragons etc etc etc. You also might say, well ive talked to him. Well ive talked to santa clause, the flying spaghetti monster, and thor, does that prove that they exist? didnt think so.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2008 2:44:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 20, 2008 2:45:29 PM PDT
Actually, there are many circles where it is perfectly accepted that "agnostic" refers to one's belief about the knowledge we have (or the knowledge we can have) and "theist" or "atheist" refers to one's belief about the existence or the non-existence of a deity. Or, to be more catchy, it is valid to say one is "an agnostic in theory but a theist/an atheist in practice".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2008 2:40:23 PM PDT
Ahh, this is easy enough now. You believe in God because it makes you happy. I believe in "no God", as you insist on calling it, because it makes me happy. You, apparently, are made happy by thinking things will turn out well "in the end", by being assured that death is not something to be overwhelmed by. I, on the other hand, do not find death to be oppressively overwhelming (although I look forward to appreciating a long life). What does make me happy is knowing that my world view is becoming increasingly consistent and increasingly approaching what seems to be a true core. Since there is no evidence for belief in God, a world view without that belief is simpler, and thus makes me happy.

In short, I believe in "no God" for the same reason that you believe in God: because it is the interpretation of observed reality that is most consistent with my happiness and desires.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1650 Jul 19, 2016
Pretty sure I'm a democrat now 537 9 seconds ago
Prob the Woofer: Beyond the Chessboard 6453 39 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 7504 42 minutes ago
Why did we stop inventing gods? 57 47 minutes ago
What is your favorite proof that God exists? 462 48 minutes ago
Jesus probably didn't exist. Brian Bethune in response to Bart Ehrhman 4656 1 hour ago
Consciousness 1294 1 hour ago
What would Christ say about Trump: evangelical hero, crackpot, or psychopath? 2240 1 hour ago
What's happening with SSM in the post Prop 8 world? 3367 2 hours ago
What would Christ say about Atheists Who Deny God and deny Him? What would Christ say about Crooked Hillary's Abortion Promotion, Lies, Pay to Play Profiteering, Not following the Rules, Silly Dyed Light Blond Hair, and her Muslim Brotherhood Woman? 121 2 hours ago
Is Crooked Hillary the Choice for Atheists because she is Crooked? Loves Aborting Baby Girls? Trashed the Women who Told The Truth About Impeached Cheating Bill? Or is it her Amoral Awkwardness that Attracts the Atheists To Crooked Hillary? 172 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  124
Initial post:  Aug 18, 2008
Latest post:  Sep 10, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions