What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god Veeky Forums? Letas talk theology philosophy

Not that user, but "suffecient evidence" of God's existence would be jesus coming down and doing his multiplying fish act or something. I'm not going to take some abstract would-be-could-be shit as a reason to base my entire life over the worship of a diety.

Conducive to universalism and race-mixing.

I do believe in God and the Catholic Church.

Atheists are just edgy faggots but everybody already knew is a long time ago. The only thing dumber than following an organized religion is believing that abiogenesis can occur without a deity.

Do you deny Jupiter's existence and look at reality using that filter, resorting to naturalistic explanations for lightning and thunder?

>i am an idiot and proud of it

>Deities are mandatory for abiogenesis

Its not assuming God is not real, but assuming a reductive methodology were you discard anything that does not appear necessary to what you are observing.

But even if we make a strong case for a God, what type of God would we be talking about, actus purus? that's more the God of Aristotle than the God of the bible

I kinda wish I believe, I just don't and I don't see that there's anything I can do about it

I have yet to be presented with a theistic religion which is both internally consistent and also consistent with what we have been able to learn about the universe.

Christianity (and particularly Reformed Christianity) comes the closest by far, but it still relies on claims about the world which are not consistent with how the world functions. If the Bible is true, then death did not enter the world until the fall of Adam. But we know by observing the evidence left behind in the earth that there was death before humanity.

There's also the fact that Christians tend to be really shitty people who construct for themselves a form of the religion which is entirely self-confirming rather than requiring of themselves the kinds of sacrifices that Christ demanded. It kind of runs contrary to Christ's promise that he would preserve for himself a faithful church that the gates of Hell could not prevail against.

I am willing to believe in a god, but have yet to encounter any claim for god that holds up.

Not an argument you retard

That's pretty much a given

t. Your Ass

Eh, I live in London and it's not that bad. Like 40% of my school year up until the upper 6th form was non white and they were the best days of my life.

I feel like people who hate race mixing have never experienced it, in general at least.

>I feel like people who hate race mixing have never experienced it, in general at least.

Go fuck yourself

Source: southern california

No matter how hard they try, scientists have and never will never be able to simulate the creation of life from nothing.

I hate my mom.

Go fuck yourself

Source: Brazil

>conveniently re-purposed God of the Gaps argument

But what if we find a contemporary way of believing in god. One in tune with all that we know.
We can see the belief and understanding of god as an evolutiony process.
Sure some powerful structures aspoused a certain dogmatic belief but the idea of atheism was always around as well even in ancient thought.
First perhaps lets try to conceptualize faith in god through contemporary understanding and knowledge. If we accept that the bibl was written simply as a collection of stories borrowed from the popular oral stories of the middle east and modified to create a new moral understandings and changes in the way people thought of the world.
and of course we have to first understand the role of stories, especially those that are written down in ancient times. They were back then a sort of storage of cultural ideas, the beginning of a more complex analysis of the world exactly because they were written down, which allowed to start a certain written tradition. The bible was a cultural object that allowed to preserve and cement thought.
The very pretence of writers to write stories that are presenteds as truths of a god and of course these writing are a result of the surrounding culture is an interesting fact.
It is not that back then people knew less. I mean they did obviously know less but it was because there was less to know. Thre was no historical record or developed methodologies, it was impossible for them to exist back then.
So they back then had the ability to graspt and conceptuialize the world and much in it in a few books. For their time, in releative terms they knew as much as we know apropriate to our times.
They chose to look at natural phenomena and ascribe some divine intent to it and yet many things they did were seen as unrelated to god. Like doing mundane things. They acted and were able to predict certain things about their actiosn without even thinking about it.
Just like we look at sciences today.

You've already fucked yourselves.

Source: Rest of America

Go on and tell me about the infinite monkey shitting gold theory or whatever you fedoras are spouting these days

cont.
Just like scientific methodology today that we take for granted and that allowes us to predict certain things, to solve problems. IT is a form of truth as much the simple actions of ancient people were a form of truth.
But what is it today that is equivalent to their personifications of different forces or in general the conception of goals as given by some better intentioning being.
We can for example say that today we are almost prisoners of different systems that predict for us how are lives are to be lived. They are not personified and much harder ot grasp.
I dont now but i think it all deserved a lot of thought. I personally cannot yet conceptualize of god as something more than a cultural phenomena but it seems to me there is need to look deeper and dig into it.

Why is it so damn hard for you people to accept the fact that we don't know?

We don't. Fucking. Know. We're barely sentient offshoots of chimpanzees who achieved self-awareness through blind luck - it's little short of a miracle we even survived the Toba catastrophe. What makes you think we're capable of achieving even the tiniest glimpse of supreme cosmic truth? What makes you think we can understand the raw truth of reality, assuming such a thing even exists?

Stop it with this inane vanity and accept the fact that WE JUST DON'T FUCKING KNOW

Ah, but we in London are not poor cunts. The poor africans and whatnot in London actually have fairly decent standard of living and nor do we have ghettos/favelas. The problem you have isn't niggers or whatever is lurking in Brazil, it's the fact that they're so fucking poor and have been living in sums/ghettos for however long.

I lived in Lambeth, which is one of the most violent areas of London, and it really wasn't that bad. Compare that to Compton or whatever.

We've learned how to split atoms, how to simulate forward time travel, figured out about black holes, white holes, all this new incredible shit yet they are still uncertain about how abiogenesis occured or even if it has occured in this universe because of that whole infinite parallel universes theory.

Reality is evidence of a creator

>We've learned how to split atoms

Wow its fucking nothing

>how to simulate forward time travel

What

>figured out about black holes

No we haven't. In fact we haven't even come close.

>white holes

Are entirely hypothetical

Your interpretation of how much science has achieved is greatly over-inflated.

But the idea of worship of a deity has to be contemporaralized. Perhaps the idea of "devoting your lif to god" is anchrosnistic..
The whole idea of god as an actual person can be said to be anchronistic as well.
God in the bible from a contemporary perspective is a source of moral guidence, moral testing. God as the entity through which we present and strugle with questions.
You can even treat god as ourselves or our ideal selves posing questions to ourselves who exist in a non ideal reality.
Stories in the bible and god's tests in which we the readers are asked to ponder over differnt questions can be as ideal but not actual conceptions that allow us to think of an ideal us and an ideal world. To ponder about it and define it. but we must of course question the idea of some sort of personal devotion. We can treat the bbile as a bedrock of interpretation. an ancient source out of which our culture rose.
And you can say that there are many ancient texts but not many of them have the pretence of presenting themselves as books about a god with which we interact.
The very pretence of writing such a thing is important in itself becaue the pretence of a work changes the way we are asked to interpret and understand it and thus the role of ancient greek philosophical writings(as an example) is different.

>le were just insignificant monkeys u can't kno nuffn

Because the reality that's "out there" is the same one that's down here you mong

My apologies for not being a fucking fedoranerd. My point is that we've made incredible discoveries yet are still unsure about the creation of life. Also, no living creature is capable of living in space. What that means is that abiogenesis happened ON EARTH and not specifically when the universe first exploded and expanded(if we're assuming that theory is correct)

So nobody will address any of these points?

>matter literally self-organizes into life
>blind luck

pick one

The God is evidence of someone creating him.

Its an important question, of the idea of a pantheon of gods and what it means to us.
I am not very aquainted with ancient literature about the greek gods. IS there ancient greek literature written about their gods as actually existing as oppose to stories which do not pretned to be truthfull? as in mythologies..
I dont yet have specific thoghts about polytheism but it can be seen as another way of coneptualzing the divine.
Treating natural phenomena as endoubted with intent is an interesting ideas and perhaps we can do it as long as we update our interactions with things liek lighting to what we nkow of them. As in use all our modenr knowledge of the world when we interact or try to to interact with such "gods".
Its definately something to think about and what it would mean.
surely at a time when our own intentions are questioned and our free will is sometimes defined as theoratically determined or simply a complex natural process we can start ascribing intent to what we percieve as natural phenomena just interaction with it is done not by sacrifcing goats but through our contemporary knoweldge of these phenomena.
They sacrificed animals cause based on their knowledge it should have worked why should we not use our contemporary knoweldge jsut as they di dback then?

Perhaps the god we need whcih means we need to first understand what we need from a contemporary god.

A deity could've existed in one of the infinite parallel universes where that logic doesn't apply then created this universe for all we know

You can say we understand the truth of reality because we are part of reality ourselves and thus our grasping of reality is truth. There is no higher truth or other truth. So what we understand is as true as it comes from our perspective. And I dont see what not knowing means in your post. We dont know how X works so we should not try to understand or think about it? I dont understand your post DESU.

Well, try to thnk of the bible and interpretations of the bible within their political cultural context. The bible written by people who wrote certain things for certain purposes. We can try to understnd these pruposes and the idea of god togfether with it all. There is no need atcking the literal interpretations or even interpretations as honest ones, meaning interpretations that try to understand what "god" wants to say. We can question these assumptions and the different interpretive methodsa themselves because when someone interpreted the bible with his pressupositions he was influenced by his own pressupositions and the pressupositions of his culture and intellectual circle.
There is no need to struggle with dogmatic apologetics but isntead insepct the background to their work and their thought and interpret god and religon based on our contemporary understandings.

ONLY PLEBS ACTUALLY THOUGHT A BIG BEARDED SKY WAS HURLING LIGHTNING BOLTS

ZEUS WAS JUST A NAME FOR WHAT LIGHTNING AND STORMS AND ALL THAT SHIT REPRESENTED AND SYMBOLIZED IN THE GREEK CONDSCIOUSNESS; NAMELY THE DIVINE WRATH THAT AWAITED ANYONE WHO WOULD DEFY THE NATURAL ORDER

ENOUGH WITH THIS SHITTY FUCKING "LE GREEKS COULDNT FIGURE IT OUT THEY ACTUSLLY TUOUGHT IT WAS AN OLD MAN IN THE SKY XDDDDDDD" MIDDLE SCHOOL MEME. HOW FUCKING AUTISTIC ARE YOU THAT YOU THINK THE GREEK PANTHEON WAS BELIEVED TO ACTUALLY CAUSE EARTHQAUKES AND SHIT INSTESD OF JUST REALIZING DEITIES WERE JUST PERSONIFICATIONS OF INSCRUTABLE NATURAL FORCES

GOD FUCK

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I have some ideas on a few of these, take it how you will though:

>Plato and Aristotle
I'm not really sure how the imagery in the Divine Comedy factors into actual accepted belief, but if it's to be taken seriously virtuous souls who never were able to hear of Christianity or get the chance to be converted do technically reside in Hell, however it's on the very edge (before you would even pass the gates) and they don't experience suffering, they just live normally and they don't get to make it to Heaven.

>love thy neighbor/enemy, turn the other cheek
My best reasoning would be that all of us, even the worst sinners, are creations of God and to act violently or withhold forgiveness from any other human would be to spite the work of God. Alternately, God wants us to live as much like him/Jesus as we can, and forgiveness is one of God's main qualities.

That's not how logic works but you won't believe me.

Yes, no Greek at no time ever unironically believed in Zeus, they just understood it as a metaphor. Everyone living at all times believed in whichever is most convenient for your argument. That's why philosophers presenting alternate versions or interpretations of the gods and myths never encountered any resistance. Same with the age of the earth, nobody ever unironically believed the universe wasn't recent, that's why when more information about the age of the earth was presented everyone immediately accepted it without controversy.

Well if Christians can backpedal and claim that such and such bible passage is a metaphor everytime they feel they need to save face then why can't Pagans?
>Yahweh didn't literally come down from heaven to kill Moses and claim his baby's foreskin, that's like totally a metaphor dude, or an angel, or whatever, Jesus died for you XD

They were not metaphirical understandings though. It was somewhere on the edge of truth/fiction.
There were huge shrines built for the gods after all, you dont just do that for nothing.

Revisionism of any kind isn't good, which is specifically why I used both a Christian and pagan example.

I believe that some kind of deity exists but not the God of the Abrahamic religions. I find it difficult to accept that God with His infinite wisdom would doom all of humanity to disease and death because the first two humans disobeyed Him.

Oh my bad, I thought you were a Christian using double standards (that is an average Christian).

You do realize that Plato and aristotle wrote about their oppinions of the gods right?

Some ancient greek thinkers identified the universe as a god some thought there is one god that is unlike men in mind and body, i.e.e somthinh we cant imagine.
Some beleived in gods but not in the mythical gods with their human actions and shit...?The plebs probably thought zeus did hurl lightning on the earth though.

Wasn't there another philosopher whose position was that the gods and heroes of myth were just euphamisms for actual events? Nobody would need to say that if it was already the majority opinion in their circles.

In short, much like today there were many varied beliefs with the plebs believing in the simplest explanations.

Cringe.

Because I do not see immediate evidence, nor do I feel any inclination to believe in a religion for personal benefit or otherwise.

I'm fine with people having their religious beliefs, but I have no interest in the subject.

You only know how logic works within our reality and are attempting to apply that logic to something that theoretically exists outside of our reality

Why do the councils declare some denominations of christianity heretical over the smallest differences?

Why would they take their gods so seriously if they were just le metaphors for nature? Would you slaughter an ox for some abstract personification of lightning? Would you kill Christians for refusing to worship to the gods?

It's really more that I don't believe in revelation.

I believe in my god because it told me about itself. I don't believe in other gods because they have not contacted me.

>Theology
Spooky

Which god is that, kek?

Well god hasn't been born yet, so it hasn't named itself.

>Infinite punishment for finite sin
>Virtuous pagans like Plato and Aristotle are in hell, meanwhile king David (who, if we are to trust the bible, is a terrible person) is in heaven or Abraham's bosom or whatever, just not hell
Post-Calvin ideology; belongs in the trash.
>Obvious influences from other religions while claiming to be exclusive revelation
Cultural influence; needs to be kept separate from objective theology.
>Theology based entirely on Greek philosophy while maintaining that pagans were ignorant devil worshippers and the Church possesses the wholeness of truth
Literally wrong on most of that statement.
>Preaches forgiveness of monsters like ISIS and the guy who did Nice
Implying that evil is too powerful to be overcome by God's mercy and forgiveness. Despair.
>Love your enemies
>Turn the other cheek
"This is hard to do so it must be incorrect."
>Neither Greek nor Jew
Dude, come on.

this desu senpai

Science has literally created single cell life.

I've never seen evidence of archaeology dismissing the bible's claims. Also, you should read more theology, good Christians don't dismiss pagan achievement.

This is some hot blasphemy, my man.

Because the engine of nature is death and being willing to sacrifice livestock indicates that a society does not believe itself above the natural order of loss and gain, give and take.

It was believed to preserve and sanctify the natural order. Only plebs actually thought there was an old man in the sky wearing a toga with his mouth watering thinking about that sweet, sweet oxen fat

Come on guys use your Goddamn head. Some of you have the most cartoony fucking grasp of history and religion

Every now and then I'm like its a dumb story He doesn't exist. Then I snap out of it and I'm like yeah I'm real I'm here there's obviously something out there

Archeology dismisses things like the isreal slaves in Egypt, which is an extremely central piece for the old testament.

The bible has plenty if truths, but the foundations are works if fiction. Most likely because judaism stemmed from oral tradition for generations.

It does seem a bit...

I guess people don't exist if there is no God. I guess I didn't write this sentence either.

I saw a documentary showing evidence of the Israelite slaves if the current timeline is shifted back about 200 years. It was something about the nomenclature surrounding the "city of Ramses." Exodus Evidence or something, not sure if it's totally accurate.

That´s what quitters say! Are you a quitter user?

But we do know? Miracles still happen people still believe

logic and reason
really makes you think

>What is the #1 reason you do not believe in god Veeky Forums? Letas talk theology philosophy.

Because I consider all religions the same as contemporary religious people consider mythology.

A Christian today is as likely to be right that Yahweh is real, that a Greek was that Zeus was real anno 2300 B.C.

as a Greek was*

Agreeing with this.

The only reason yahweh held on so well compared to other gods were the dietary restrictions.

Everything people can't eat is linked to something that was extremely lethal to people in the past. It displays itself as evidence to people that don't understand disease.

If the tablets found in what was once Sumer are correct, then every religion on earth is a fraud. The creation story in the bible is a condensed version that leaves out a lot. The tablets tell that we were bioengineered by a race from another planet to be slaves for mining gold to repair the atmosphere on their home world. About as believable as any other story of gods, and frankly makes more sense. Since civilization just sort of appeared out of nowhere, and evolution doesn't quite explain our being here, But we may never know for sure because religion is used to control the unwashed masses and academia is well . . . unreliable.

A lot of that is made up. The sumerian tablets basically describe a polytheistic genesis and say that the gods have given up on us ever since the flood.

The two main things that theists generally point to as requiring divine intervention are the creation of life and the creation of the universe itself, prior to the Big Bang. Anything else can pretty readily be explained within our current understanding of the laws of physics, or we can at least make a pretty good guess and are waiting for science to advance.

To preface my position, I do not operate under the assumption that consciousness is in some way divine, or indeed special. I consider consciousnesses, including mine, to be physical things, operating just like computers. A series of logic gates, organic rather than electronic in nature, which accept an input from various senses, apply a series of operations to that input, and produce an output in the form of a physical action - just as a computer driving a robotic body is fed data by its sensor suite and outputs physical action.

Taking this into account, one has to consider all that life is to be merely an ordered assortment of particles that attempts (generally) to order more particles in a similar fashion - thus, reproducing. Since evolutionary theory (which is backed up by archaeological evidence) shows that simple forms of life can over time produce more complex forms of life, one can extrapolate that life begins with the first pattern capable of replicating itself, no matter how simple. The smallest microbacteria, while small, still posess a riciculous amount of atoms arranged in a very particular way. his could be held as evidence for a God, by necessity of divine intervention. However, if we delve seriously into Hitchiker's Guide-esque arguments, we can consider that the universe, to quote that book, is BIG. Really big. As in, there are without a doubt, and by many orders of magnitude, more planets in the universe than there are atoms in that microbacterium.

1/?

Given enough time coupled with random motion, it is inevitable that life as we know it will arise anywhere where the necessary elements are present - Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen, primarily. The random assembling of particles - yes, by sheer luck - into the earliest form of life is something that does not necessarily require eons before it can occur. The likelihood that it has occurred at any point in time is simply a function of how much material is available for random motion to place together, and how much time has passed.

Since there is amount of material in the universe so vast that we might as well consider it infinite, I see no reason that life shouldn't spontaneously come to be at some point a few billion years after the Big Bang. It happened to happen here, and we happen to exist here as a result. Occam's Razor supports this, and I'll explain why after my next point - the Creation of the universe.

2/?

Humans, if we don't go extinct or regress technologically, will inevitably create or become gods.

When we reach the singularity, we will either merge with technology, or it will overtake us. Either way or successors will carry the torch of knowledge. This cycle will continue across millennia until we reach total control of the universe.

>implying the Greek pantheon existed (even in a prototypical form) that early,

Nice, you've proven you know literally nothing about history.

Most of what people hear about those tablets comes from Sitchins work. Not sure on the existence of a god of any kind but where can i find better info on those tablets that isn't bullshit? Anyway , probably won't know the truth in this life and if there is an afterlife or whatever i'll most likely be punished for my unbelief. If there isn't ,still wont know.

The most common argument is that something cannot arise from nothing, and that all action has a cause. However, I have s very simple argument to refute the necessity of a God putting things in motion, so to speak.

If we take the hardline Atheist view of the universe, we have no way to explain the universe's coming into being. It is an unresolved and possibly unresolvable entity. This is absolutely true, and I would be a fool to deny it. As science now stands, we have no way to explain it.

However, if we take the theistic standpoint that a divine entity created the universe, we still have an entity whose existence we cannot explain. Religions and theologians have various positions on how God came to be but the point is, no matter how you look at it, the existence of a being of infinite power that operates outside of all known laws of the universe is impossible to scientifically explain, at least at the point where science now stands.

Which one is more likely to be true?

Since I'm not a fedore-tipper out to destroy Christianity (a net force for good in the world, in my opinion) or any other religion in particular, we ignore all the rules, strictures, worship, divine words, prophets, and all other things that make a God less probable, and focus simply on the existence of a divine, creating entity.

Since saying "the universe popped into existence of its own accord"/"has always existed" is equally as hand-wavey an argument as saying the same of God, we can say that both take the experimental data into account equally well.

So we break out Occam's Razor: in explaining something, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. Thus, where two theories account for the experimental data equally well, the one which makes the fewest unfounded assumptions should be held as true.

3/?

I can't dredge up even a scrap of faith in a greater power.

No God:
-the universe spontaneously came to be; a pinprick of hyper-condensed matter

God:
-an intelligent being with infinite power spontaneously came to be.
-this intelligent being decided to create a pinprick of hyper-condensed matter that would become our universe

Thus, the argument for the existence of God makes a gigantic extra assumption, meaning that as science now stands, we should take as true the argument that a divine creator was not responsible for the universe.

Oops, forgot to add

4/4