Forums → WEPR → Reasons to be an Atheist .
| 660 | 146105 |
Alright I have been researching theories talking with other Atheists and I have discovered some people who are Atheists but for the wrong reasons like...
1.Settling a score with God because they hate him for (whatever)reasons.
2.Just because.
Some good reasons...
1.There is no evidence.
2.A book written by primitive people is no proof for any God/Gods.
3.Nothing can be omniscient and omnipotent.
Any other reasons can be stated for I am interested in some of your reasons or reasons not to be.
- 660 Replies
and it took 7 days to create the world yep for sure
6 days, actually. The Bible says that God rested on the 7th day. That's why Sunday is called the Sabbath and 7th Day Adventists go to church on Saturday and do nothing on Sunday. If you're going to make a statement, learn the the other side enough for your statement to be correct.
... and then theres the fact that only beleives get into to heaven what kind of twisted person comes up with that "dont beleive me well go to hell happy tourchor...
I've said before in this thread I think that even non-believers can be saved if they're good enough people. And not to sound like a grammar nazi or anything but...tourchor? Christianity has changed a lot since last time you ever learned about it. Read up on the Protestant side of Christianity and compare it to the Catholic side and you'll see what I mean. Catholicism has kept a lot of the same traditions it's had since it started, while Protestantism seems to be more of a free-spirited side of Christianity...at it's core, that is. It's followers are the ones that blow it out of proportion and say "non-believers shall burn".
with the logic of the bible there are no dinosaurs because theres no evouvltion...
The book of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally...just saying.
I'm atheist and i don't get why people would beleive in god
I'm an Atheist as well, but I understand why. Along with what MageGrayWolf has said, following a religion (any religion, not just the one you're bashing. Which, according to you, Christianity represents all religion even though Islam is the most popular religion of the world) can help you follow good morals; such as be kind to others, don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie. Everything else that seems really strange is more than likely a tradition that has been kept since the religion started. And someone else said on the first page of this thread that believing in a god or gods gives them a sense of security. What's wrong with a sense of security? Sure it's false, but what ever happened to the saying that ignorance is bliss? Let them be happy, you're not going to change anyone's minds, here.
So learn a thing or two about religion in general (not just Christianity) before making accusations and assumptions.
Islam is the most popular religion of the world
dair5 gave me a nice link last time that will help getting this straight. Christianity is the biggest religion.
Statistics of the world's religions are only very rough approximations
And even if it is accurate, it still doesn't affect my statement that Christianity doesn't represent all religions of the world, which was the main point with the most popular religion of the world being more of a supporting detail.
t still doesn't affect my statement that Christianity doesn't represent all religions of the world, which was the main point
wich i didn't quote because it's a good point.
but because your saying check it 1st, learn out it, look it up, etc.
i thought i'll post that because you also don't always seek evryhting up no1 does that all the time. (oke maybe some, but i sure aint)
I never said to look it up to see if it's entirely accurate, I meant that the sight shouldn't be relied on too heavily because it even says the statistics are very rough approximation. Sorry for any confusion.
dair5 gave me a nice link last time that will help getting this straight. Christianity is the biggest religion.
It should be noteworthy that the average birthrate per muslim women is 3.00 (though this number has been on a decline recently, just 20 years ago it was 5.17), while the average per christian is 2.56 (this number has been on a much slower decline, being at 3.50 twenty years ago).
yea your confusing, also because i know you didn't get what i ment.
but to be honest it's not importend enoufg for me to go in debate about it. your ideas and points you make are good. so no worries.
about the statistics being rough approximated. that is because the religions do not always count there members. and if they do they do not always count them the same way. so you can't say this or that are the precise amount of people following this or that religion.
but even so the difference between 1 and 2 or 900mill people. i think 900mill people will be seen if they were around somewhere. the gap is to big to roughly fill it up. and other religions whit even fewer people then 900mill are listed sooo... i still stick whit the site about who's right.
It should be noteworthy that the average birthrate per muslim women is 3.00 (though this number has been on a decline recently, just 20 years ago it was 5.17), while the average per christian is 2.56 (this number has been on a much slower decline, being at 3.50 twenty years ago).
it's from 2005 not 1991.
also do not all christian born becom christian (my parents are both christian. and ive never been (not even baptized as a baby)) and i bet the same go's for muslims or any religion for that matter.
Backwards actually - they require some feeling, and the idea of a God makes for an excellent source.
How is this backwards?
"They attribute some feeling" ("they require some feeling" "to it being God." ("and the idea of a God makes for an excellent source."
Though on the point of God making an excellent source, knowing how the human brain works and given the sheer lack of evidence for anything supernatural existing, God doesn't actually make an excellent source.
Can't tell if we don't try
No, The very way logic work is quite often in contrast to religious concepts and faith.
The problem lies mainly in treating his sacrifice against that first sin. Looking at ancient history there were still quite enough other sins to go against. Saying it's all about the original sin was just easier for the people of that time to swallow - dealing with religion and all that (I'm afraid the language of the Bible is quite outdated by now). It was probably more of a means to show humanity "hey look guys, you've made life a contest of who hits each other harder, what do I have to do to make you see yourselves and consider an alternative?"
This would mean he is forgiving us for all of our sins (all be it in a very barbaric way) and the requirement to earn it doesn't make sense.
True enough. That's what we have minds for though
Then by that reasoning we should abandon faith.
Simple put by the point of view from before the sacrifice - "Earn what?"
Forgiveness, the thing that sacrifice was suppose to be giving. If God was real there is no reason what so ever he couldn't just simply say "your forgiven" and leave it at that without requiring the whole killing part.
The book of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally...just saying.
It was taken literally up til around the 18th century when scientific methods trumped it. Though today there are still people who regard ti as literal and as you can see mental gymnastic has to come into play for other parts of the Bible to make sense if it's treated as just metaphor.
can help you follow good morals; such as be kind to others, don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie.
It's more likely they already have these morals and are simply attributing them to the Bible. With or with out this book they would likely still follow these morals.
What's wrong with a sense of security? Sure it's false,
Let's apply this to another situation. Let's say you were going to walk a tight rope, you believe there is a net under the rope that will catch you if you fall. Does it really matter if the net is real or not so long as it provides you with a sense of security? Believing the net is there regardless of if ti is or not can lead a person to take more risks they would otherwise not do if they believed it wasn't there.
but what ever happened to the saying that ignorance is bliss? Let them be happy, you're not going to change anyone's minds, here.
Knowledge is far to often treated as being something negative.
almost evrywhere i look on that site is christianity higher listed then islam. also do i not see any birth rates given.
please explain to me why it's noteworthy that muslim woman bare 0.44 childs more then christian woman? because the site you give tells otherwise.
the site is saying that christians give birth to more kids.
and the site has counted that by 2050 christianity will still be the biggest
The last chart on the page shows the birth rate (no conversions), and my point being that Islam may eventually exceed Christianity.
Let's apply this to another situation. Let's say you were going to walk a tight rope, you believe there is a net under the rope that will catch you if you fall. Does it really matter if the net is real or not so long as it provides you with a sense of security? Believing the net is there regardless of if ti is or not can lead a person to take more risks they would otherwise not do if they believed it wasn't there.
I don't think the risk part applies. It's not like people often commit suicide because they feel safe dieing.
Knowledge is far to often treated as being something negative.
Very true. But I don't really think that has much to do with religion. For example, in my class (which is ironically a class that is regarded as smart) you get put down for knowing an answer no one else knows. I think people generally are intimidated or just don't like people who they think are smarter them.
Believing the net is there regardless of if ti is or not can lead a person to take more risks they would otherwise not do if they believed it wasn't there.
But sometimes life requires risk-taking. creating the AG website was risk that the admins took. Man never would've reached the moon or built the international space station without risk-taking. Europeans never would have discovered the Americas if they didn't take risks. who knows? There might be a huge money prize at the end of the rope.
Knowledge is far to often treated as being something negative.
I never said it was negative. Say the weather man predicted a category 5 hurricane with winds up to 500 mph (blowing it out of proportion, I know, but this is meant to be more hypothetical than realistic) is going to be going through your town and destroy literally everything. you're friends decide to throw a party on that day and decide to keep it on that day. You think that the hurricane is going to blow through and you try to tell them they'll die if they don't. They call you crazy and continue on with the party. The day of the Hurricane comes. You make final preparations and then go to where you decided to stay until the storm blows over. Then, a week or two later, you go back and everything is fine. You ask your friend what happened and you're told the worst that happened was 5mph winds and some rain. So not only did you waste the gas to get your butt out of there, you also missed out on a good time with some good friends.
The point was that sometimes knowledge can be negative, but most of the time it's not, considering that's the only situation I can think of to where it is in fact negative.
The point was that sometimes knowledge can be negative, but most of the time it's not, considering that's the only situation I can think of to where it is in fact negative.
That's not knowledge though, it's a prediction. I can predict that by 2050, robots will be smarter then humans, but i don't know that that will actually happen. Knowledge is about facts, and a prediction isn't a fact.
You must be logged in to post a reply!