Forums → WEPR → Reasons to be an Atheist .
| 660 | 146843 |
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
1. Can you think of an evil act that a man committed because of his religion?
Bin Laden. That guy who killed kids in Norway.
2. Can you think of an evil act committed by an atheist because he is an atheist?
The looters in england have no serious religious restraints such as don't steal, because if the police aren't stopping them, they feel they can do it.
3. Can you think of an evil act that can only be done by a believer in the name of a religion?
Not really. Other nuts can kill people and do other things for non-religious purposes.
4. Can you think of a good deed done by a believer in the name of a religion that couldn't have been done by an unbeliever (and not in the name of a religion)?
MLKJ's religious beliefs were a driving force behind him. If someone just said "we should be equal because we feel bad when we aren't," it dosen't have the same influence as "God created everyone to be equal and we must not be oppressed."
The looters in england have no serious religious restraints such as don't steal, because if the police aren't stopping them, they feel they can do it.
You can't really make the claim that they were atheists though - not without going around and asking the looters themselves.
Not really. Other nuts can kill people and do other things for non-religious purposes.
9/11 springs to mind here as an example of an evil act that was committed by believers in the name of a religion - the crusades and witch-burnings too.
I just happened to finish watching this.
In the Name of God
There's no evidence to disprove a god either.
We can disprove specific gods. Something like this has to be taken on a case by case basis with disproving given how heavily ambiguous god is. In science when we have numerous contradictory claims we usually regard this as an indicator that something is wrong. As for any tests one thing to look for are results better than chance. For instance with the use of dowsing rods we had people walk over covered buckets, some filled with water others not. We find that the results of them finding the buckets of water verses not had about the same 50/50% chance. This is evidence that dowsing does not work. When such similar tests are applied to god we get the same results.
We also don't accept incredible claims without incredible evidence. So if there is no evidence either way for an incredible claim then we don't accept that claim as true.
Any one who believes the book is true, believe that God wrote it, not people. Also, not every religion relies on an ancient text.
Not true, there is also the belief that God just inspired the works, but it was ultimately humans who wrote it.
In fact God writing doesn't make any sense given the stories were originally not even written stories but oral ones that were then later written down.
I think what he meant was that any crime that is done for religon can also be done even if it's not for religon. Terrorist don't need a relion to terrorise.
I would also like to add the vile actions taken as a direct result of religion may be a good reason not to like that religion or even that deity, but not a good reason to disbelieve.
You can't really make the claim that they were atheists though - not without going around and asking the looters themselves.
But they couldn't have been truly God-fearing if they're willing to steal for their own greed. I mean it's not like they were stealing food due to famine; TVs aren't food.
It's also impossible to disprove god.
I can see that furthering this will only continue to move around the circle.
So the emperor of a great roman emperor, who wasn't born into a christian family, felt he needed to be protected? I'm fairly certain he felt perfectly fine with his current state of protection.
Leaders are targeted all the time. Especially back then. Perhaps he wanted God's favour to help him in his conquests.
Terrorist don't need a relion to terrorise.
Name one terrorist who wasn't religious (I'm sure there have been some, however, i've never heard of any)
But they couldn't have been truly God-fearing if they're willing to steal for their own greed. I mean it's not like they were stealing food due to famine; TVs aren't food.
Well, let's look at the USA, one of the more... religious countries in the Western world - look at all the crime that goes on in some areas of a country that's full of supposed 'god-fearing Christians'.
But they couldn't have been truly God-fearing if they're willing to steal for their own greed. I mean it's not like they were stealing food due to famine; TVs aren't food.
You might want to take a look at the link I provided.
Name one terrorist who wasn't religious (I'm sure there have been some, however, i've never heard of any)
By most accounts, Stalin was atheist (or his own god, nothing higher than him). He's responsible for the death of at least 20,000,000 people (mostly those under his rule). Many consider his purges as acts of terrorism. They were certainly not created by religious beliefs.
look at all the crime that goes on in some areas of a country that's full of supposed 'god-fearing Christians'.
Most people aren't truly God-fearing anymore, they just like the religious labels and try to justify their crimes.
Name one terrorist who wasn't religious (I'm sure there have been some, however, i've never heard of any)
Here's a link to some of those who terrorize for non-religious reasons.
I can see that furthering this will only continue to move around the circle.
Which was my point from the beginning.
Leaders are targeted all the time. Especially back then. Perhaps he wanted God's favour to help him in his conquests.
I would have thought that he'd have felt secure, but that is a possibility for his conversion.
Most people aren't truly God-fearing anymore, they just like the religious labels and try to justify their crimes.
What sore of religion worth following contains parts capable of justifying crimes?
What sore of religion worth following contains parts capable of justifying crimes?
Well, looking at the holy books, I'm going to have to say 'All the Abrahamic ones apparently'. There are passages within each of their holy books that can be used, to varying degrees, to justify actions that would be considered criminal.
You must be logged in to post a reply!