Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Logikie]

Mainly due to a lack of evidence to support the existence of such a being, no physical evidence that a so called "god" exists. I believe in science and logic, we have physical evidence of the big bang, there's cosmic radiation leftover from the big bang. Also the fact that religions constantly contradict themselves, it makes no sense. religion also creates bigotries, and is used as a tool to oppress people. Even if the existence of a deity is true I wouldn't put my faith in them as they must be a sadist or psychopath to let certain things in the world to happen such as genocide.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There is no good argument against the Catholic faith, change my mind

It’s a Jewish hearsy.

"Ackshually, ur just corrupted Muslims!" - Some Muslim, probs

[Flaireis]

I don't believe in God because I find religious faith oppressive to my sense of existing as a free entity. The fear of going to the bad place ruins people's ability to enjoy what time they have on Earth. Why should I devote my life to the support of an entity that probably doesn't exist when I could be making my life better while it lasts?

[Hittisha]

It depends on what is meant by "God".
There is too much careless conceptual investment placed in this idea for many to comprehend it beyond an intellectual level. To the extent that we rely on this faculty to reinforce the idea, and compete with others through its use, either we seek our knowing through only one aspect of consciousness, and behave defensively as subjects of lower contingencies, or affirm ourselves as separate actors from the divine essence referred to as "God" for the purpose of dedicating to the tasks we sense as our highest imperative, acting on what is evident to us as the greatest indication of our presence, without regard for the personal gains or risks of such pursuits. All that occurs within this domain is only of relative and variable significance when viewed from the perspective of its origin, and thus all religious doctrines and institutions are ultimately worthless in their extrinsic properties, as anything other than the products of the intellect. They are but a means for those who recognize the qualitative value within them as a means for maintaining their ascent. As it appears, some religions, such as Christianity or Islam, are possessed by a compulsive expansionism that imparts a turbulent internal condition to their adherents, setting events in motion that render them increasingly profane, to become discredited on the only field of battle that is now available to them, thus materialism, madness and passivity achieve dominance and the road to ruin is set for civilized society.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Mainly due to a lack of evidence to support the existence of such a being, no physical evidence that a so called "god" exists. I believe in science and logic, we have physical evidence of the big bang, there's cosmic radiation leftover from the big bang. Also the fact that religions constantly contradict themselves, it makes no sense. religion also creates bigotries, and is used as a tool to oppress people. Even if the existence of a deity is true I wouldn't put my faith in them as they must be a sadist or psychopath to let certain things in the world to happen such as genocide.

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

[Petrolheadia]

Mainly due to a lack of evidence to support the existence of such a being, no physical evidence that a so called "god" exists. I believe in science and logic, we have physical evidence of the big bang, there's cosmic radiation leftover from the big bang. Also the fact that religions constantly contradict themselves, it makes no sense. religion also creates bigotries, and is used as a tool to oppress people. Even if the existence of a deity is true I wouldn't put my faith in them as they must be a sadist or psychopath to let certain things in the world to happen such as genocide.

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

[Frievolk]

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

So, God is kinda evil?

I mean, evil and good are kinda not things you're supposed to look for in mythology. the God of Abraham is a deeply flawed character sure, but evil he is not. That is to say, if you ignore the multiple counts of genocide, often for the pettiest of reasons -among other atrocities: supporting slavery, supporting child slaughter, supporting rape, etc. But honestly worship of god isn't about "He's the one who deserves worship", it's more about "if we don't worship that thing, he might turn us into pillars of salt/kill us with fire and brimstone/drop a mountain on our heads or alternatively burn us forever after we die" (i.e. fear of punishmet)

[Thuzbekistan]

No evidence, no consistency in any religion in the world claiming that there is a god, and no reason for me to care anyways since choosing one religion sends you to hell with all the others, making any choice just a waste of time.

[Aellex]

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

[Thuzbekistan]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

If you look at some protestant faiths like Calvinism, you don't have a choice. God has preordained everything and everything is according to his will. You may have free will, but God already knows what decision you will make and has predetermined that you will either go to hell or heaven. He creates vessels of evil and of good according to the Bible. All things are according to his plan. Thus, according to these protestant faiths, it is never anyone's fault that evil is done to them because God preordained it to happen. In Calvinism, there is no free will, I think. I may be wrong on that.

[The Grims]

My own answer: because there are so many to chose from I do not know what to believe.

I do believe that if the texts of a religion are beautiful but the followers consistently act badly the religion is not worth following.

So feel free to sell me yours by telling how you are making the world a better place.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Rather than materialism, it’s more linked to education: those with more education are more likely to be wealthy, and atheist at the same time. Correlation =/= Causation. Give a poor person education for free and they’ll be as likely to become an atheist as the rich man with the same amount of education. It’s a case of C causes both A and B rather than A causing B. With the same fallacy, we could say that cigarettes cause cancer by physically existing.

The argument that religious people are uneducated is absolutely and utterly moronic. I have a basic, basic understanding of theology, and can tell you that there is absolutely no way that you can conduct advanced, or even intimediate theology, unless you're HIGHLY educated. And that's just if you conduct theology in YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE. That does NOT include those who learn Ancient Hebrew/Greek/(insert language which applies to your religion). I'll pose a theological question to you and you judge for yourself if you can answer it, USING THE BIBLE ALONE:
What does the Old Testament tell us about Jesus (and don't say nothing. The answer most certainly is NOT nothing. Also, don't tell us the requirements for the arrival of the messiah. That's a cop out)

1. It's not about religious people being moronic, it's about atheists being more intelligent and educated. Tell me, where did modern atheism come from? The Enlightenment. The enlightenment was one in which education begun to roll around, along with the liberal universities. It could be the nature of modern education, but the fact is education increases the likelihood that someone will become an atheist.
2. It's not about theology itself, it's about belief in religion.
3. Using the bible alone, eh? I mean, this is the part where I'd use my basic historical knowledge of the period, but if it's the bible alone...Genesis 3:15 refers to Jesus being the 'ultimate seed of the woman', 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 talks about 'drinking the spiritual rock of Christ', Isaiah 9:6 gives reference to a child who is the "Prince of Peace", Micah 5:2 said that the King of Israel would be born in Bethlehem, Zechariah 9:9 says that the King will ride onto Jerusalem with a donkey, Daniel 7:13-14 says that Jesus' throne will be everlasting, Isaiah 53:3 and 61:1 say he will be despised and he will set the captives free, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12–13) and none of his bones will be broken (Exodus 12:46). If you need more, then I can provide.

[Salandriagado]

Mainly due to a lack of evidence to support the existence of such a being, no physical evidence that a so called "god" exists. I believe in science and logic, we have physical evidence of the big bang, there's cosmic radiation leftover from the big bang. Also the fact that religions constantly contradict themselves, it makes no sense. religion also creates bigotries, and is used as a tool to oppress people. Even if the existence of a deity is true I wouldn't put my faith in them as they must be a sadist or psychopath to let certain things in the world to happen such as genocide.

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

All of this is irrelevant: any entity that has the power to end suffering, but allows childhood cancer to continue to exist, is evil. What their fan club says about them is entirely irrelevant, they're still evil. Thus, we are still left with the trichotomy: any deity is either evil (because it allows childhood cancer to exist), weak (because it can't stop childhood cancer), or doesn't exist. So which is it? Is your god evil, weak, or non-existent?

[Salandriagado]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

Not even remotely. You know what is self-centered? Allowing childhood cancer to exist when you have the power to do something about it.

[Sovaal]

Because I choose to.

[Ifreann]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

"Stop being so self-centred" is certainly an interesting theodicy.

[Erythrean Thebes]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That is the fallacy, at least in respect to Christian theology. God only 'controls' himself; he is 'omnipotent' in the sense that, in his capacity as a discrete entity, he can appear anywhere. But living things have free will, God can't control them. If somebody does harm to you, God was not involved. I understand that a common atheist argument is thus 'why would I worship God, since he doesn't stop these bad things from happening to me?' What I'm saying is that the further argument which I often see, to the effect of 'why does God do bad things to me?' is deeply fallacious and not correct. God never does anything bad to anyone; other humans and living things, who have free will, are the ones who do bad things to people. And it may be that this does not satisfy many people, nevertheless, it is a logically consistent and longstanding Christian answer to the retort 'why doesn't he stop bad things from happening to me?' The answer: God personally punishes wrongdoers, but most of the time, it's post facto.

In Christianity's original milieu, this satisfied people. The slaves/servants of a tyrannical lord or king when, for instance, after years of tyranny he would finally drown in the river or die of consumption or something, they would think to themselves 'hah! God nabbed the fucker. He had it coming to him...' Regardless how one exercises their freedom of choice to select a personal ideology, the rhetoric of many atheist advocates is deeply confused on the principles of the Christian religion. The religion is logically consistent according to its premise. The flaw, which frustrates me, is that most people identify with the untenable and irrelevant metaphysical aspects of the Biblical premise, rather than focusing on the more valuable sociological elements of the Biblical premise.

[Erythrean Thebes]

This seems like a commonplace formula for atheism in the West. And personally, I don't have any quarrel with these views, although I do consider it unacceptable if someone harangues me about my spirituality when I'm not willing to speak to them any further. However, in the context of an open debate and discussion, I want to take the opportunity to question the point of your last sentence.

In my opinion, this is the ULTIMATE fallacy in atheism as an argument with religion and spirituality. I was not aware that any religious person, except for somebody weak/selfish/or simpleminded, could seriously believe that the notion of God includes some pervasive service to extinguish all harm and prevent all negativity in life. At least in regards to Christianity, if you look at the original source documents of the faith, as far as I've ever read any of them (through to the Protestant Revolution), scholars of our religion either make no such claim at all, or they are fairly clear about specifying that God's contribution to justice is usually posthumous and/or retrospective. Fair enough that you, like myself also, consider the modern-day delusion of an omnipresent God to be foolish and impossible, but I would like to qualify that by pointing out that most Christians before the Puritan movement in England and America did not think that God prevented bad things from happening to 'good' people.

I don't think it changes the basis of atheism, but I do think it is a very important distinction, and I think advocates for atheism make a more than trivial mistake when they portray Christianity this way.

All of this is irrelevant: any entity that has the power to end suffering, but allows childhood cancer to continue to exist, is evil. What their fan club says about them is entirely irrelevant, they're still evil. Thus, we are still left with the trichotomy: any deity is either evil (because it allows childhood cancer to exist), weak (because it can't stop childhood cancer), or doesn't exist. So which is it? Is your god evil, weak, or non-existent?

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

[The New California Republic]

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

"Stop being so self-centred" is certainly an interesting theodicy.

[The Grims]

All of this is irrelevant: any entity that has the power to end suffering, but allows childhood cancer to continue to exist, is evil. What their fan club says about them is entirely irrelevant, they're still evil. Thus, we are still left with the trichotomy: any deity is either evil (because it allows childhood cancer to exist), weak (because it can't stop childhood cancer), or doesn't exist. So which is it? Is your god evil, weak, or non-existent?

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

[Frievolk]

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Follow up question, why would I need to "bring proof the Bible is wrong"? The Bible is the one stating such a bold and utterly bullshit claim in the first place.

[Ifreann]

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Evidently God operates on a presumption of guilt system.

[The Grims]

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Evidently God operates on a presumption of guilt system.

So ethnic profiling is good and divine ?

[Petrolheadia]

So, God is kinda evil?

Because it would take quite a fair share of malice to do harm to people when you are omnipotent, and have them worship you for that.

That's a pretty self-centered reasoning to think one is entitled to have no bad thing happen to them ever.

Not if omnipotence is in the picture.

All of this is irrelevant: any entity that has the power to end suffering, but allows childhood cancer to continue to exist, is evil. What their fan club says about them is entirely irrelevant, they're still evil. Thus, we are still left with the trichotomy: any deity is either evil (because it allows childhood cancer to exist), weak (because it can't stop childhood cancer), or doesn't exist. So which is it? Is your god evil, weak, or non-existent?

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Why can't we have both a good material and immaterial life?

[Erythrean Thebes]

You have to begin by offering proof that what the Bible says about you is untrue. They say that you descend from a line of people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others. Unless you can show that it's not true about you then, regardless what your particular opinion may be, there is reason to view God's sentence passed upon you (and our species) as justified. And if you aren't such a person, then there is actually a rather heroic and admirable figure, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who gave away his life under painful and humiliating circumstances in order serve as an inspiration and a succor for you, and to give you the reassurance and the peace of mind that your hard material life may not be all there is to look forward to, but in fact you may have a just reward prepared for you after death, to sit in the kingdom of heaven as one free of sickness and misery, liberated from evils such as cancer

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)