News1 min ago
Non-Believers
53 Answers
We've had 'Why do Christians believe?' so let's put the boot on the other foot and ask 'Why do non-believers disbelieve?' I imagine there could be a lot of one line answers here, but a little explanation would be good.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Confusion,,,, Like most i would love to believe in something i have searched high and low for answers, from the Bible, Buddha all the way to Alistair Crowley and beyond and all i get are inconsistencies, lies and dogma. If there is a God, i am damn sure he would have nothing to do with the religions of today. Jesus was the Son of God? He done things that are totally alien to today�s Christians, he was a good and understanding person, who gave his wisdom at street level, he didn't even have a church, he cared not what a person was or where they came from, so even if it was true, the Christians of today are heretics... Religion is control and power, nothing else.
I'm sure I could give a blistering one liner, but let's see if we can't get something a little more meaningful than that...
Firstly, take the three Abrahamic religions. Since they are derived from a single source, if that one source can be disregarded, all three can. So can it?
Well, let's see. It's based on a book that is supposedly the inspired word of God. However, this book is of dubious, contested provenance and contains multiple instances of contradictions and errors that fundamentally compromise its claims to being the literal inspired word of God.
This is to say nothing of the fact that it promotes bowel-explodingly unpleasant and unethical behaviour, such that even if one were prepared to accept the book as being true would force one to reject it on moral grounds.
The book flies in the face of falsifiable science (covered ad nausem on here) providing a rather simple test for Occum's Razor. Enough I think, to discount it, without going into religion and how rubbish *that* is.
Hinduism is so utterly heterogenous in its beliefs that one is tempted to disregard it simply on that ground alone. Sikhism is again of earthly provenance. Buddhism is philosphy not relgiion for the most part... after that you're getting in to the small religions, and I can't be arsed to keep repeating myself.
It's also obvious that religions are regionally-based, at least initially. One has to ask why a God that desired the love/devotion/servitude of all mankind would choose to reveal him/it/herself to one small group of people not all?
It's almost as though he didn't exist, isn't it?
Apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is real. Praise his Noodly Appendage.
Ramen.
Firstly, take the three Abrahamic religions. Since they are derived from a single source, if that one source can be disregarded, all three can. So can it?
Well, let's see. It's based on a book that is supposedly the inspired word of God. However, this book is of dubious, contested provenance and contains multiple instances of contradictions and errors that fundamentally compromise its claims to being the literal inspired word of God.
This is to say nothing of the fact that it promotes bowel-explodingly unpleasant and unethical behaviour, such that even if one were prepared to accept the book as being true would force one to reject it on moral grounds.
The book flies in the face of falsifiable science (covered ad nausem on here) providing a rather simple test for Occum's Razor. Enough I think, to discount it, without going into religion and how rubbish *that* is.
Hinduism is so utterly heterogenous in its beliefs that one is tempted to disregard it simply on that ground alone. Sikhism is again of earthly provenance. Buddhism is philosphy not relgiion for the most part... after that you're getting in to the small religions, and I can't be arsed to keep repeating myself.
It's also obvious that religions are regionally-based, at least initially. One has to ask why a God that desired the love/devotion/servitude of all mankind would choose to reveal him/it/herself to one small group of people not all?
It's almost as though he didn't exist, isn't it?
Apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is real. Praise his Noodly Appendage.
Ramen.
In my opinion asking why someone is a non-believer is an invalid question. We come into this world with no knowledge of the concept of God or religion. 'Disbelief', for want of a better word, is the default position.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim it is so and not with those that choose not believe.
If I were to say that I don't believe the yeti exists no one would care but if I said that it does everyone would want pictures. Why should god and religion be any different?
The burden of proof lies with those who claim it is so and not with those that choose not believe.
If I were to say that I don't believe the yeti exists no one would care but if I said that it does everyone would want pictures. Why should god and religion be any different?
Religious texts are so riddled with holes and contradictions; stories borrowed from other religions; translated, mistranslated, texts edited by religious leaders to suit their needs, religious festivals stolen (Christmas for instance), sins that get downgraded (stoning adulterers is now uncool), picking and choosing what to believe and accept which changes over time and with fashions (for instance the Bible says people who work on the sabbath should be put to death, I imagine even Mani wouldn't accept that one). There is so much in the Bible that we would now dismiss as vile and draconian yet still we accept the rest as though we can pick and choose which of Gods words to follow.
The list just goes on and on and on and frankly I'm dumbfounded how any sane and rational indivdual can take any of it seriously let alone base their life around it.
The list just goes on and on and on and frankly I'm dumbfounded how any sane and rational indivdual can take any of it seriously let alone base their life around it.
A fine pi55 take:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaur a.asp
The text following the letter is also a good example of the hypocrisy of many of those that preach. Do as I say don't do as I do.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaur a.asp
The text following the letter is also a good example of the hypocrisy of many of those that preach. Do as I say don't do as I do.
I believe in the non-contradictory integration of perceived evidence as the means to differentiate between knowledge and that which I choose not to believe. I believe the human body performs two separate functions in two distinct corresponding areas. The organs and orifice designed for eliminating bodily waste products should not be confused with the function of or such content harbored within the mind. To verify that the body and mind are functioning properly assess and confirm that that which proceeds from the lower orifice does not emanate from the upper orifice.
I hope everyone enjoyed their dinner! Desert anyone?
I hope everyone enjoyed their dinner! Desert anyone?
In order to disbelieve something, we must have a presupposed subject or theory given by others that is assertive.
The Bible? God?
Believe in or disbelieve in what?
A story wrapped in archaic, written by many about a being no one has seen(that's alive anyway) and inspired by the words of the Creator/s that haven't been heard since.
Jesus?
A man or myth............er both.
The Bible? God?
Believe in or disbelieve in what?
A story wrapped in archaic, written by many about a being no one has seen(that's alive anyway) and inspired by the words of the Creator/s that haven't been heard since.
Jesus?
A man or myth............er both.
You have to be rather careful here - it's very easy to get drawn into the language of faith and talk about what you "believe" only to be accused of setting up science as a surrogate religion.
You also have to be careful of wielding Occam's razor as it can cut your head off. In the 17th Century, Relativity might well have fallen foul of it!
From a personal perspective the whole thing hinges on the concept of a soul - there are many religions with many Gods and Godessses and some with none.
I've yet to encounter one without some concept of a soul.
The concept of soul is bound up with the nature of time - are "you" the same "you" that you were 20 years ago? would "you" be the same "you" without the same memories of experiences.
We know that our memories and very personalities can be so damaged not to survive life, let alone death so the very notion of a soul cannot be right.
What is religion without the soul? What is God without it but some extra-terrestial creator figure?
You also have to be careful of wielding Occam's razor as it can cut your head off. In the 17th Century, Relativity might well have fallen foul of it!
From a personal perspective the whole thing hinges on the concept of a soul - there are many religions with many Gods and Godessses and some with none.
I've yet to encounter one without some concept of a soul.
The concept of soul is bound up with the nature of time - are "you" the same "you" that you were 20 years ago? would "you" be the same "you" without the same memories of experiences.
We know that our memories and very personalities can be so damaged not to survive life, let alone death so the very notion of a soul cannot be right.
What is religion without the soul? What is God without it but some extra-terrestial creator figure?
Regarding the soul - well don't you ever "feel" spiritual, sort of even? Does music, art, emotions etc move you to a higher level of feeling that you would venture to say was something spiritual? Your soul had been touched somehow?
Naomi24 often describes in rather vague terms her own spirituality, yet she is an ASH. And isn't that the point? That spirituality has to be difficult to describe with these clumsy tools that we call words?
Naomi24 often describes in rather vague terms her own spirituality, yet she is an ASH. And isn't that the point? That spirituality has to be difficult to describe with these clumsy tools that we call words?
