Forums → WEPR → Reasons to be an Atheist .
| 660 | 146859 |
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
No having a threat to beat you into the ground if you don't do believe would not be free will as it uses coercive tactics to influence the choice rather then one's independence.
I'm confused. Am I interpreting it wrong? I don't really get what you mean.
I'm confused. Am I interpreting it wrong? I don't really get what you mean.
It's not a free and independent choice if your being coerced to make that choice.
Looking over this I hate to say it but I think we have gotten off topic.
Doesn't say anything about making oaths. This is about being respectful to God. This again is not a moral guideline but one that only applies to God like worshiping God and not making idols.
Swearing a false oath in the name of God is disrespectful to Him. And the bible in my house says not to swear false oaths in the name of the lord, so I guess that would be different interpretations.
As for many of your examples, you're looking at them way too literally, which is completely irrational. If you interpret them with any thought applied, most of them can be applied to modern life. So you don't say I honor my father and mother so I can live long in the land God gave me, you say "I honor my father and mother", because ****, that really makes perfect sense.
And yes, there are exceptions, meaning there are valid reasons to steal or kill, and thus comes the whole purpose of judgement. If you stole or killed for a morally good reason, then you won't have that being held against you when you are judged (keep in mind this is all theoretical, as, of course, the existence of God hasn't been proven).
And if you do know a place where ****ing someone the spouse of someone else is morally acceptable, please tell me where it is, because I would love to live there.
It's not a free and independent choice if your being coerced to make that choice.
Nope. It's still free and independent choice. You don't have to follow any of this, just like you don't have to follow any laws. But if you break them, and it's judged to be immoral or evil, then you'd be punished. I fail to see how that's coercion. That's merely justice.
Swearing a false oath in the name of God is disrespectful to Him. And the bible in my house says not to swear false oaths in the name of the lord, so I guess that would be different interpretations.
I have to wonder what version your using. However I will say several commentaries do note that this include but is not exclusive to making false oaths. The Hebrew word vain used here can also translate to mean emptiness. Another thing to note the Hebrew translation uses Yahweh specifically in place of where it's translated as the Lord. So I would still say this more of holding God's name in respect more then dealing with making oaths.
As for many of your examples, you're looking at them way too literally, which is completely irrational.
I'm trying to see it from a perspective of how it was originally intended, something you've already accused me of not doing. I'm beginning to think I'm in a lose lose situation here where I'm either not following the context or doing so to much.
If you interpret them with any thought applied, most of them can be applied to modern life. So you don't say I honor my father and mother so I can live long in the land God gave me, you say "I honor my father and mother", because ****, that really makes perfect sense.
First off that forces us to ignore some of what's there, but fine. As I've already indicated showing honor doesn't always make perfect sense.
And yes, there are exceptions, meaning there are valid reasons to steal or kill, and thus comes the whole purpose of judgement. If you stole or killed for a morally good reason, then you won't have that being held against you when you are judged (keep in mind this is all theoretical, as, of course, the existence of God hasn't been proven).
The problem here is this list doesn't make any indication of exceptions to the rule.
And if you do know a place where ****ing someone the spouse of someone else is morally acceptable, please tell me where it is, because I would love to live there.
I have heard of two couples who are married who have agreed to have sexual relations as if all four are married to each other. As I said if all parties involved are okay with the situation so ****ing what, let them if that's what they are happy with.
Nope. It's still free and independent choice. You don't have to follow any of this, just like you don't have to follow any laws. But if you break them, and it's judged to be immoral or evil, then you'd be punished. I fail to see how that's coercion. That's merely justice.
It's not an independent choice because a negative consequence is being applied and enforced by the person issuing the rule. For instance with the example of breaking a law where one lives going to jail isn't a natural consequence to doing this. The law makers have gone and said break X law and and established that the result is jail time. So the threat of jail time can be used to force or intimidate people into following said law. Yes it's used in the benefit of the society but it's still a form of coercion.
I'm trying to see it from a perspective of how it was originally intended, something you've already accused me of not doing. I'm beginning to think I'm in a lose lose situation here where I'm either not following the context or doing so to much.
Not exactly. When looking at them as they were written, during that time and in that context, it makes sense to interpret them literally, because that's what they were written for. However, in a modern context some updated interpretation makes much more sense, because we are looking at them from a completely different context. So unless you are applying the Ten Commandments to a group of B.C.E. escaped Hebrew slaves, taking them word for word makes no sense. In other contexts, you'd look at the idea.
First off that forces us to ignore some of what's there, but fine. As I've already indicated showing honor doesn't always make perfect sense.
Like I said, you'd be ignoring some of what is there because it doesn't really apply to many other contexts. And of course there are exceptions, if you have an abusive parent or a parent who isn't able to act as a parent or whatever variant of parental issues you can think of that merit the child being emotionally or physically separated from the parent.
The problem here is this list doesn't make any indication of exceptions to the rule.
That's what other parts of the [insert religious text here] is for. God will judge you, and if you are good, you'll go to heaven. There are interpretations that make it out to be much less forgiving, but they don't really fit with the general motif of God.
I have heard of two couples who are married who have agreed to have sexual relations as if all four are married to each other. As I said if all parties involved are okay with the situation so ****ing what, let them if that's what they are happy with.
Obviously that would be an exception morally, but it does somewhat contradict the institution of marriage (however stupid that institution might be), which is based on fidelity to ones spouse.
It's not an independent choice because a negative consequence is being applied and enforced by the person issuing the rule. For instance with the example of breaking a law where one lives going to jail isn't a natural consequence to doing this. The law makers have gone and said break X law and and established that the result is jail time. So the threat of jail time can be used to force or intimidate people into following said law. Yes it's used in the benefit of the society but it's still a form of coercion.
Yes it is an independent choice, because no matter what the threat is, I could still go out and kill somebody, or steal something. I will always have that choice. What comes after that choice isn't something that would define my free will or lack therof, what comes after that choice is justice.
Like I said, you'd be ignoring some of what is there because it doesn't really apply to many other contexts.
Please explain these other contacts because you keep repeating this and not showing any examples.
taking them word for word makes no sense.
So stealing is totally ok in your eyes?
God will judge you,
Isn't he benevolent?
Yes it is an independent choice, because no matter what the threat is, I could still go out and kill somebody, or steal something. I will always have that choice. What comes after that choice isn't something that would define my free will or lack therof, what comes after that choice is justice.
Do you mean cause and effect. Anyways there are numerous African countries where you can't get away with things like murder stealing etc. Like Chad in Africa.
Please explain these other contacts because you keep repeating this and not showing any examples.
I did show an example. When the Ten Commandments were written, they were written for a specific group of people, i.e. the Hebrews who had recently escaped slavery. So when you read them, and they sound kind of off, that's because they were written in that situation. Unless you are in a situation exactly like that, looking at some of them as they were specifically written makes no sense, to the extent that it would be a cheap way to write them off because they won't make sense word for word. When in another context (i.e. not escaped Hebrew slaves), it's the idea that's prevalent, not the words.
So stealing is totally ok in your eyes?
Please read earlier posts. There were certain commandments that had been agreed were universal, not stealing being one of them, unless there is a good moral reason for stealing (like it literally being the only way you can survive).
Isn't he benevolent?
Supposedly. I don't really see what this has to do with what me and Mage were discussing, but a benevolent God would still judge someone for being evil.
Do you mean cause and effect. Anyways there are numerous African countries where you can't get away with things like murder stealing etc. Like Chad in Africa.
You're stretching a metaphor too far. That was just an example. And you could call it cause and effect, but that's not the focus. My point was that we have the ability to choose, we'll just (theoretically, if God exists) have to face those consequences afterwards, like with many things.
My reasons for being atheist are
1. I always respected science, and science has proved religion wrong so many times that they should all be thrown out the window
2. The reasons why god was created was that people needed an answer for natural phenominons and were too lazy to investigate so they used the god card and I still believe that is the case.
3. (this one is just for christianity) people always say that god is always forgiving.... Then why is there a hell? Why did Christ curse that fig tree because it didn't bear any fruit? I consider people who say he is always forgiving hypocrites if they know those things.
4. There is the concept of an afterlife, my reasoning that there isn't is none of the religions say that other animals go to this afterlife as well, but they are pretty much the same as us so why wouldn't they have an afterlife if we do? Why would we have this one extream quality if no one else does?
my reasoning that there isn't is none of the religions say that other animals go to this afterlife as well, but they are pretty much the same as us so why wouldn't they have an afterlife if we do?
Hinduism covers that.
Hinduism covers that.
Also Hinduism is reincarnation if I'm correct, an interesting new take on what happens when you die since no other religion does that.
I did show an example. When the Ten Commandments were written, they were written for a specific group of people, i.e. the Hebrews who had recently escaped slavery. So when you read them, and they sound kind of off, that's because they were written in that situation. Unless you are in a situation exactly like that, looking at some of them as they were specifically written makes no sense, to the extent that it would be a cheap way to write them off because they won't make sense word for word. When in another context (i.e. not escaped Hebrew slaves), it's the idea that's prevalent, not the words.
If we are going to be warping the interpretations to make them fit where we want and ignoring some of what's actually there then we might as well throw context out the window.
Yes it is an independent choice, because no matter what the threat is, I could still go out and kill somebody, or steal something. I will always have that choice. What comes after that choice isn't something that would define my free will or lack therof, what comes after that choice is justice.
Just because the end result serves justice doesn't mean it not still a form of coercion. You might consider stealing or want to kill someone but because of the pressures these laws put on you it could make you decide not to. Just having a choice doesn't equate to free will when that choice is peppered with consequences handed down by the person giving the choice to you.
Here are a few videos illustrating.
Free Will - "God" style: a gift?
Free Will - "God Style" PART 2
Free Will - "God Style" PART 3; Finale
2. The reasons why god was created was that people needed an answer for natural phenominons and were too lazy to investigate so they used the god card and I still believe that is the case.
I wouldn't call it being to lazy. It's more like they hadn't developed the abilities to properly reason some of these things.
my reasoning that there isn't is none of the religions say that other animals go to this afterlife as well, but they are pretty much the same as us so why wouldn't they have an afterlife if we do?
This depends on the denomination of the religion your dealing with. My mom who was Catholic believed that animals had souls and if you were to ask most Wiccans they would likely say even plants and possibly even more inanimate objects have souls.
Also Hinduism is reincarnation if I'm correct
what i understood was that they have something kinda like 2 worlds. 1 for humans on earth and 1 for devas (gods) on i dunno name but i mean their afterlife place. (let's call it heaven oke?)
and that spirits are switching from "world" evrytime they die on earth or ?¿? on "heaven"
If we are going to be warping the interpretations to make them fit where we want and ignoring some of what's actually there then we might as well throw context out the window.
Well, not exactly. Basically this is how it breaks down. When the ten commandments were written, the were written for the Hebrews just escaping slavery. However, when you are not an escaped group of Hebrew slaves, it makes more sense to look at the Ten Commandments as a set of moral ideals rather than actual commandments, because the exact words were written for pre-Christ Hebrews, and thus taking it exactly as it was written for any group that aren't pre-Christ Hebrews will of course make them sound nonsensical.
This is where I realize that I might have been really disorganized and forgot to mention my entire point. I do not believe the Ten Commandments, as they were written, have a lot of application in a modern society. However, I do believe the Ten Commandments, as a set of moral guidelines, do have place in modern society, and in both past and future societies.
Just because the end result serves justice doesn't mean it not still a form of coercion. You might consider stealing or want to kill someone but because of the pressures these laws put on you it could make you decide not to. Just having a choice doesn't equate to free will when that choice is peppered with consequences handed down by the person giving the choice to you.
I will have to concede that. You are very good at this, just so you know (you probably already do).
Well, not exactly. Basically this is how it breaks down. When the ten commandments were written, the were written for the Hebrews just escaping slavery. However, when you are not an escaped group of Hebrew slaves, it makes more sense to look at the Ten Commandments as a set of moral ideals rather than actual commandments, because the exact words were written for pre-Christ Hebrews, and thus taking it exactly as it was written for any group that aren't pre-Christ Hebrews will of course make them sound nonsensical.
If ti was written for a bunch of escaped slaves then I would think it makes sense to look at it as being for a bunch of escaped slaves.
This is where I realize that I might have been really disorganized and forgot to mention my entire point. I do not believe the Ten Commandments, as they were written, have a lot of application in a modern society. However, I do believe the Ten Commandments, as a set of moral guidelines, do have place in modern society, and in both past and future societies.
Just because there are parts where it's similar to rules we currently live by and we are forced to twist the meaning around and remove parts to make it fit, I think that makes it a poor guide for morals in the modern era. Since we do have to play these reinterpretation and cherry picking games with it we are then left with not getting morals from these texts but someone applying the morals they have to them.
Another thing about thing about this is if we have to largely reinterpret these text to to make them fit there is no measure to say who's interpretation is right and who's is wrong.
You must be logged in to post a reply!