NationStates Jolt Archive

The topic below got me thinking. Just as Leistung wanted, I would like to keep this to topic if possible. And as serious as possible, without any idiotic remarks.

I admire what Leistung believes in and he/she is a Christian I could probably hang out with. As an atheist myself I find it hard to get along with bible nut-jobs who claim to know everything and quote the Bible as soon as they see fit, only to be livid when confronted with a, to me, ridiculous statement from the bible that makes absolutely no sense in present day.

Why am I an atheist? Simply because there are way too many contradictions in the "good book", too many ludicrous statements and too much bullshit. If needed, ask for particular examples. To me, if there was a God, this whole planet would be so much better off. To me, if there is a God, it is not a God I would want to be associated with, given all the crap we see every day

I find it hypocritical to believe that one cannot have a meanigful life without God, I find it stupid to think one cannot have morals without living acc. to the Bible, and I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

I have no problem with people having beliefs as long as they stay out of the public arena. To each his own.

The point of life??? Who knows but for me it is to enjoy myself (not at the expense of others), travel, explore, learn and spend time with the people close to me and make the best of everything before me prior to being shoved 6 feet below

Your topic title says "Why are you not a Christian" - I think that says it all really, there are so many religions in the world, all claiming to be correct and claiming that the others are wrong. All of them are similar in their amounts of evidence - very very little - so I see no reason to believe in any of them, let alone any reason to choose a specific one above any other.

i agree with this guy beer slingers.

The topic below got me thinking. Just as Leistung wanted, I would like to keep this to topic if possible. And as serious as possible, without any idiotic remarks.

I admire what Leistung believes in and he/she is a Christian I could probably hang out with. As an atheist myself I find it hard to get along with bible nut-jobs who claim to know everything and quote the Bible as soon as they see fit, only to be livid when confronted with a, to me, ridiculous statement from the bible that makes absolutely no sense in present day.

Why am I an atheist? Simply because there are way too many contradictions in the "good book", too many ludicrous statements and too much bullshit. If needed, ask for particular examples. To me, if there was a God, this whole planet would be so much better off. To me, if there is a God, it is not a God I would want to be associated with, given all the crap we see every day

I find it hypocritical to believe that one cannot have a meanigful life without God, I find it stupid to think one cannot have morals without living acc. to the Bible, and I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

I have no problem with people having beliefs as long as they stay out of the public arena. To each his own.

The point of life??? Who knows but for me it is to enjoy myself (not at the expense of others), travel, explore, learn and spend time with the people close to me and make the best of everything before me prior to being shoved 6 feet below

Because it's a bunch of fucking lies. DI's sig sums it up nicely.

Your topic title says "Why are you not a Christian" - I think that says it all really, there are so many religions in the world, all claiming to be correct and claiming that the others are wrong. All of them are similar in their amounts of evidence - very very little - so I see no reason to believe in any of them, let alone any reason to choose a specific one above any other.

This. Add to that the "official" Christian fangroups, which seem to thrive on deception, lies and promoting ignorance as well as blind obedience. Add to that how those same groups behaved throughout history, and Christianity in any organised form quickly loses its appeal to any decent human being.

I am not a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of G-d, the Messiah, or anything other than a really nice heretical rabbi.

I am a Jew for two reasons. One is that it is my heritage. I was born a Jew, the son of a Jewish woman. My ancestors were slaves in Egypt. They made a covenant with G-d, and I have accepted this covenant unto myself.

The second reason is that I truly believe in the teachings of Judaism. I believe that the Torah is the word of G-d (though not always to be taken literally). I believe that He knows what is best for us, and that the best life can be found by following His commandments.

I am not a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of G-d, the Messiah, or anything other than a really nice heretical rabbi.

I am a Jew for two reasons. One is that it is my heritage. I was born a Jew, the son of a Jewish woman. My ancestors were slaves in Egypt. They made a covenant with G-d, and I have accepted this covenant unto myself.

The second reason is that I truly believe in the teachings of Judaism. I believe that the Torah is the word of G-d (though not always to be taken literally). I believe that He knows what is best for us, and that the best life can be found by following His commandments.

Why did you censor the o in God?

Why did you censor the o in God?

Because Jews tend to have bothered to read the Bible.

Because Jews tend to have bothered to read the Bible.

Actually, when it comes to words on a computer screen, leaving out the "o" is entirely optional. I just do it out of respect.

Because Jews tend to have bothered to read the Bible.

So is he not using the lord's name in vain or what?

Why did you censor the o in God?

Because he's a Jew, and does not want to offend.




*Note the above statement was purely for entertainment value and does not/will not/cannot imply any actual prejudice/bias/cruelty on my part.

Actually, when it comes to words on a computer screen, leaving out the "o" is entirely optional. I just do it out of respect.

Respect to..?

I am not a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of G-d, the Messiah, or anything other than a really nice heretical rabbi.

I am a Jew for two reasons. One is that it is my heritage. I was born a Jew, the son of a Jewish woman. My ancestors were slaves in Egypt. They made a covenant with G-d, and I have accepted this covenant unto myself.

The second reason is that I truly believe in the teachings of Judaism. I believe that the Torah is the word of G-d (though not always to be taken literally). I believe that He knows what is best for us, and that the best life can be found by following His commandments.

Fair enough which brings me to a question i ask all religious people: When do you decide to take the word literally or not? One of the problems I have with many Bible nut jobs is that they tend to cherry pick the word of the Bible. Isnt it quite possible to be an extremely evil person and claim that you live by the word of God (I know I am falling into Christians again here) since there is so much basic cruel stuff in the bible?

Hope you understand what I mean

Why am I not a Christian? The reasons are several, and not entirely simple.

First, there is the matter of history. I am a historian; and while my specialty is the modern period (1800-today), I am scarcely unaware or ignorant of other periods. Simply, the Bible is wrong on virtually every utterance of historical fact; the events depicted are rarely to never confirmed by the reality of the historical record.

Similarly, the tales of the Testaments, old and new, are similar to the point of absurdity with the myths and legends of many other faiths. Now, one might say, "but these are teaching tales, morality plays." I would answer that this is not how the information is portrayed; further, that, then, it passes disrepute upon those aspects that are supposedly true, for how can a work be both fiction and fact? Better to serve the cause of truth to consider it all fiction.

Another reason: to be a Christian, one would have to worship YHVH, God, the Father, whatever you wish to call him.
Why is this a problem? Consider the book of this so-called god, and his actions. In the Old Testament he commands or commits:

Murder.
Mass Murder.
Rape.
Genocide.
Infanticide.
Cruel and foul tortures.
Mass Enslavement.
Human Sacrifice.
Adultery.

and many other crimes, many times only shortly after making them crimes!

Further, he is known to torture and murder his own worshippers! Consider the story of Job. Oh, Job, through his piety and selflessness gets to prove himself to God, sure; he gets his fortune restored, a new bunch of kids, and lives to some amazing age.
But what about his FIRST family?
They get to splatter when GOD knocks Job's house down. Well, gosh, I guess there can only be one good ending in the story. Riiight.

Then there's the New Testament - well, you'd think things would get better. Not really - ol' YHVH just gets a little more subtle in his bastardry. I mean, aside from having his "only son" nailed to a tree, we get the revelation that every person who dies without being a Christian, regardless of how good or bad he is, goes to Hell. Oh, and everyone who died before Jesus got sent there ANYWAY - but that's okay, the Son broke them out. What's a few millennia worth of eternal flame, between friends?

The point of this diatribe is that YHVH is EVIL. From everything he does and says, that is the only conclusion I can draw. Perhaps that's overstating it; but either way, we are talkng about a God who is simply unworthy of my worship.

MY final reason for not being Christian is also my reason for not being anything else - for being an Atheist.

My epiphany came when I was studying Astronomy in High School. I had also read up on Geology, Paleontology, and of course History. And I suddenly beheld, with startling clarity, some concept of the scale of the Universe.

I understood what 65 million years actually means. I saw the size of the Milky Way, however imperfectly, and understood how important I, all mankind, and Earth itself was to the sceme of things.

Which is to say, of no importance whatsoever.

Compared to that, the Bible, the God it supposes, and Christianity, are products of small minds. All mankind's knowledge and wisdom are as nothing.

And are the most important thing of all.

If we can liberate ourselves from the lies and shadows, if we can confront the man behind the curtain and see him for the charlatan he is, the universe and all that's in it can be ours. But it is Science, Logic and Intellect that will build our Heaven - and if we do not build it here, it wlll never be.

I saw the name of the thread and decided to take a look out of interest.
personally, I am born a Christian, and since im Irish, I am specifically a Catholic, for as many of you know, much of the troubles in my country is down to people from 2 Christian religions, Catholic and protestant.
I have however looked at the question logically, and when there is as much chance of there being a God or a specific religion being correct, as god being a large slice of cheese on a plate that we should all worship, its kind of pointless.
I however prefer to go down the science route, however there is positives to being religious, as has been stated earlier, its often down to tradition, family history, and a belief that something is there looking down and protecting all of us.
My own honest opinion is though, that Religion is the cause of most wars in the world, nearly every conflict in the past or present has been down to religion, or at least it played an important part in it. If there really was a god, then i doubt he/she or it would be too happy to have everyone fighting over them and killing each other. Also if i was a being of supremem power, why would I be so petty as to desire people to pray to me, surely I would already know.

Anyway thats just how I feel, hate it if ya like,

Actually, when it comes to words on a computer screen, leaving out the "o" is entirely optional. I just do it out of respect.

Ahem, this always interested me.
His name is not God, so why bother with this you-know-who gimmick. We already use God capitalized to indicate that we are writing about The God of the Jews without invoking His name.
Aren't you being too much politically correct?

Respect to..?

Respect to other people that may be offended by other behaviour.
I find very idiotic the tecnique many atheists use of insulting the people they are talking to instead of using rational arguments better suited to the discussion of theology.

Now to the OP.
Altough I approve much of the tenets of Cristianity i find myself pretty biased against Churches.
Also I find hard to believe in a religion that tells me they have the ultimate Truth based on the fact that I have to believe that this Truth is The Truth and that the Truth of those others is not The Truth, ot at least not the whole Truth (it does sound silly, doesn't it?).

Discalimer: Velka morava is himself agnostic and lives (mainly) in a country where over 60% of the population declared themselves either agnostic or atheist in the last census (2004).

I'm not Christian because I'm not religious. Many religious people have stated that they are such because they felt some sort of "divine touch" or "divine presence" at some point in their life. I've never felt any such thing, not even remotely. I just have no sense at all of what makes someone believe in some sort of supernatural supreme being.

Of course, apparently being unable to believe in a supernatural higher power I never got to the step of choosing a specific religion, such as Christianity.

"But it is Science, Logic and Intellect that will build our Heaven - and if we do not build it here, it wlll never be."


Touché! Love this last line.

I am not an xtian because I have yet to encounter an xtian idea that has survived human implimentation uncorrupted, nor have I ever encountered an xtian that would not, at some point, attempt to convert me.

Why are you not a Christian ?

Because I don't need it. It's like asking why I don't need a lobotomy.

The Christians are an obscure old club which is almost death. In Europe no one is going to church anymore and USA will follow when it would reach a decent level of civilization.

I'm not a Christian because the only way I could be a member of the Church and still retain my integrity would be to change it radically, and I don't think I have the ability or authority to do so directly.

I was a Catholic once. That was until I grew up.

Christian belief and morality is derived from what, to them, is the revealed word of god, ie the Bible. That's a very flimsy basis for an system of beliefs and morality. Deny the validity of the Bible and, oops, there goes the whole system down the toilet. To me, morality should have some internal coherence.

I hear people speak of the coming of Christ and the Anti-Christ. They say you'll never know who or what the anti-Christ is, and that most people will cherish him/her/it (I'll put the "it" in a better perspective) and come to love him...etc, etc. What if the Bible was written by the Ant-Christ? No disrespect intended, it's just a thought. Maybe the AC created it to distract and deceive? Who knows. Think about it and reply. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I hear people speak of the coming of Christ and the Anti-Christ. They say you'll never know who or what the anti-Christ is, and that most people will cherish him/her/it (I'll put the "it" in a better perspective) and come to love him...etc, etc. What if the Bible was written by the Ant-Christ? No disrespect intended, it's just a thought. Maybe the AC created it to distract and deceive? Who knows. Think about it and reply. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

*Allows you to listen to his thoughts.*

Hmm.. I should have got dry roasted peanuts. I'm trying to lose weight so potatoe chips were not the best choice in hindsite...

I was a Catholic once. That was until I grew up.

Christian belief and morality is derived from what, to them, is the revealed word of god, ie the Bible. That's a very flimsy basis for an system of beliefs and morality. Deny the validity of the Bible and, oops, there goes the whole system down the toilet. To me, morality should have some internal coherence.

Well as you should know Catholicism has more than just the bible it also contains canon law which is also held on the same basis as those from the bible. But that point is moot.

The Bible contains tenets that run counter to my understanding of ethics. Obeying them would be morally wrong, ignoring them while still believing in the sanctity of the rest would be hypocritical, and putting them down to errors in translation would be unrealistic or dishonest. The solution, then, is to treat the whole as a product of man (and man's environment), which allows me to consider each idea on its own merit.

So let me sum up what I believe: I believe that Jesus was a real person. He was wise and far ahead of his time in his understanding of humans and ethical behavior. He was brave enough to confront wrong where he saw it, and eventually he was silenced for becoming too dangerous to the politicians.

Here's what I don't believe: I don't believe that any part of his birth, life or death was anything other than natural. I also rather doubt (though I recognize this is an assumption) that he endorsed killing or ostracizing anyone, as some of his attributed quotes suggest. Finally, I don't believe that the things Jesus preached are good ideas because Jesus said them, and Jesus was a good man - rather, that Jesus was a good man because most of what he preached are very good ideas.

You may argue that a lot of the things I believe in are essential parts of Christianity, and the things that I refuse to believe are disputed or trivial parts. If that makes me a Christian, then I am one. If not, then I ain't.

However, I do know that a vast number of people would disagree very strongly with you, and they also are very strongly convinced that they are the true Christians. You can argue with them for all I care, but as for me, I have better things to do.

The Bible contains tenets that run counter to my understanding of ethics. Obeying them would be morally wrong, ignoring them while still believing in the sanctity of the rest would be hypocritical, and putting them down to errors in translation would be unrealistic or dishonest. The solution, then, is to treat the whole as a product of man (and man's environment), which allows me to consider each idea on its own merit.

So let me sum up what I believe: I believe that Jesus was a real person. He was wise and far ahead of his time in his understanding of humans and ethical behavior. He was brave enough to confront wrong where he saw it, and eventually he was silenced for becoming too dangerous to the politicians.

Here's what I don't believe: I don't believe that any part of his birth, life or death was anything other than natural. I also rather doubt (though I recognize this is an assumption) that he endorsed killing or ostracizing anyone, as some of his attributed quotes suggest. Finally, I don't believe that the things Jesus preached are good ideas because Jesus said them, and Jesus was a good man - rather, that Jesus was a good man because most of what he preached are very good ideas.

You may argue that a lot of the things I believe in are essential parts of Christianity, and the things that I refuse to believe are disputed or trivial parts. If that makes me a Christian, then I am one. If not, then I ain't.

However, I do know that a vast number of people would disagree very strongly with you, and they also are very strongly convinced that they are the true Christians. You can argue with them for all I care, but as for me, I have better things to do.

This is sort of my line of thinking as well. Just because I am not a Christian, doesn't mean I don't believe that Jesus existed or had some pretty good ideas. I just don't think he was the son of a deity or a deity himself. Of the Christians I keep company with, which are few, almost all believe basically as I do, with the exception being that they believe Jesus himself was divine.

I am actually a baptized and confirmed Catholic, though I left the church in my heart and mind about six or seven years ago. I would still go to mass with my father and sister occasionally just to listen to the sermons of one particular priest. He got what I think was the core message of Jesus, and it was amazing to hear him preach. If the whole Catholic Church shared his beliefs about what was important and what was not, instead of probably viewing him as a heretic, I think perhaps I'd still be a Catholic today.

But only perhaps. While the Church's official stance on issues such as gay rights, birth control and the ordination of women really bugged me, it was a deeper problem and realization that finally brought me to make up my mind and leave.

Part of it, of course, was the whole, omnipotent or benevolent question. That was the biggest issue. If god was both, why then all the suffering? Why all the plagues, famines, wars, genocides, murder and such? Certainly free will could be brought up, but why not create souls that were more inclined to do the right thing? And that doesn't explain plagues. Why does ebola exist? That doesn't have anything to do with free will. You just get it and die. It isn't the result of any choice or mistake, like HIV can be (the choice to use drugs or have sex without protection... not saying it's just punishment, though, I don't think anybody deserves to suffer and die just for one stupid mistake, and many cases involved no choice at all and people were victims of chance). If god is good but also benevolent, why should this be?

But god can't be omnipotent. Not even the Christian God of the bible, as if he was, Satan would not exist. An omnipotent being could do anything, literally anything, including wiping another being from existence with a thought. There could be no ongoing cold war between the two, because if god was omnipotent, he would win in an instant. But this is not the main point.

Given that I came to the conclusion that god can't be both benevolent and omnipotent, I decided, rather arbitrarily, not to believe in the omnipotent portion. Because, I reasoned, if god was omnipotent, god was not worth worshiping. Virtue, not power, is worthy of praise. Something with omnipotence but not ethics is less a god than you or me.

Additionally, the bible, I finally admitted, though I had long known it, was not written by god or any higher power. It was written by men, with all the uncertainties and incorrect conclusions and social biases they possessed. No omniscient being would make such glaring errors. Rabbits don't chew their cud. And I would assume the writing style to be better as well. The old testament is a transcription of basically a tribal religion, and as such I treat it as I would any other mythology I don't really believe in, that is, somewhat useful for telling what people believed and what was important to them at the time. It is an interesting cultural artifact with some good stories, nothing more. At least to me. The New Testament is a bit different, much of it chronicling the life and preachings of a single Jewish spiritual leader of the day who likely was executed for going against the reigning powers of his time. It should be noted, of course, that this was also written down by men, with all their imperfections, though at least some authors' names are given in this case. However, there is no telling really which of the quotes in these chronicles are true, or even if the authors are who the book says they are.

In light of this, basing my faith on my own personal feelings is no less solid a foundation for spiritual belief than the Bible. I came do identify more with another god, and gods, based purely on what felt right to me. Perhaps just as irrational as basing belief on an old dusty tome written by many different unknown authors, but a lot more meaningful to me. I am no longer troubled by trying to bridge a gap between my personal feelings on issues and any official church view on the subjects. I do not need any religious authority to tell me what to believe, my beliefs are my own.

Because christianity doesn't make sense to me.

I find it hypocritical to believe that one cannot have a meanigful life without God, I find it stupid to think one cannot have morals without living acc. to the Bible

I completely agree with the above statement, actually. Of my group of friends, I am the only one who isn't an atheist or agnostic, and none of them just randomly decide to knock off a convenience store because they aren't religious, and so have no morals.

While anyone can have a meaningful life regardless of their (non)affiliation, the reason I find many Christians have remained religious is because God makes their lives seem more meaningful. The idea that the big man upstairs is looking out for you, out of a world of billions, makes them feel like there's always an ally on their side. While my life would always have purpose whether I was Christian or not, having faith in something bigger makes me feel that less focused on myself, and more on the big picture.

In a lot of ways, the Bible is merely a long fable, full of metaphors and allegories which far too many people take literally. The trick is knowing where the morals are, because in this fable they're in every word, and not just the last page. If you take nothing more than, "God does really weird things..." out of it, then alright, that's what you take out. But when you start digging deeper to see the morals behind the stories (and that's what they are--stories), it opens a whole new dimension to the Bible, and you realize that it's just an romanticized version of the Ten Commandments.

I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

Before I respond, let me just say that I believe in the theory of evolution.

Is it so difficult to believe that an omnipresent being wouldn't have the power to instill life with the ability to survive, and evolve? The idea that science and religion are two separate entities goes against common sense, in my opinion.

I'm not a Christian for the same reason I'm not a lot of things -- because I'm something else.

My epiphany came when I was studying Astronomy in High School. I had also read up on Geology, Paleontology, and of course History. And I suddenly beheld, with startling clarity, some concept of the scale of the Universe.

I understood what 65 million years actually means. I saw the size of the Milky Way, however imperfectly, and understood how important I, all mankind, and Earth itself was to the sceme of things.

Which is to say, of no importance whatsoever.

Compared to that, the Bible, the God it supposes, and Christianity, are products of small minds. All mankind's knowledge and wisdom are as nothing.

I couldnt agree with you more. But i even go farther. Despite our incurable egocentrism and the notion that we are the most important things ever created, i am of the firm belief that we are the equivalent of mould on an orange and in fact the earth has an acute case of the humans. Thats how important we really are on the Galactic scale of things. And thats OK with me and i still sleep just fine at night knowing that my existence is meaningless and completely insignificant and that in all probability most of the other "living" things in the universe that exist probably dont even have the ability to even perceive me or even theorize my existence because humanity is so insignificant. And thats still 0K.

Is it so difficult to believe that an omnipresent being wouldn't have the power to instill life with the ability to survive, and evolve? The idea that science and religion are two separate entities goes against common sense, in my opinion.

To me it actually is because if there were an omnipresent being, we wouldnt have so much crap happening all over the world. If you separate the two (for example, just focusing on the creation of the universe and leaving aside what takes place in it and the "afterlife"), perhaps I could see a way to believe someone created it all, but in light of Christianity I cant belileve it. It is just too hard for me to believe in this "God"; the kindness and power of him/her/it. I am just so tired of hearing all the bullshit excuses for what is happening, the crap explanations of the Bible and so on. I dont mean to offend you with this. IMO, an omnipresent being would be a much kinder, gentler and caring being; not someone who allows all the starvation, wars, diseases and so forth.

Set aside, there could be a creator but it wouldnt be someone whose supposed text in the Bible should be used as a guide for present day life. There is no reason in that at all IMO; just blind and ignorant faith.

Basically, there were two things that I did when I was a teenager that helped my self-esteem: I stopped reading fashion magazines and I stopped trying to believe in the Christian God.

How I came about this latter is a little long, but it's basically that I tried really, really hard and couldn't bring myself to believe.

The long version: I think that I always had a couple of issues with Christianity. I never liked the idea that non-believers were condemned to hell, I never got a proper answer out of Sunday School teachers when it really came down to it on a variety of issues, but I still considered myself a Christian and I still went along with it.
When I got older, I started to go to the youth group at my church and we would have all these social events which were fun, but occasionally there would be preachy religious things. Like I was fine with the prayer circle thing and general discussion, but at some point a former member of the youth group (he had grown up) came to visit and gave us a talk and people would put on Christian rock which I thought was shitty... but I was fine with this even if I could poke holes in the logic of the talk and point out that music without overt religion was often better.
One weekend we had a trip to this Day One thing. It was basically an enormous Christian youth festival sort of thing... so a weekend of sermons and shitty Christian rock. They handed out contracts which we were pressured to sign saying that we would save ourselves in both body and heart for marriage, refrain from drinking alcohol et c... and then there was the altar call. Basically, the altar call is when you stand up and go towards the front (we were in the balcony so we went to the edge of this) and open your heart to Jesus and he would fill your heart with love and other such nonsense. So I went up, I opened my heart to Jesus and absolutely nothing happened. People around me were hugging and crying and I was just there, alone. At this point I thought that it was my fault I didn't feel anything special.
After this experience I still went to church and youth group even though the things that bothered me originally bothered me more but, I thought I had friends there and I was still under the impression that it was my fault that I wasn't believing as much as everyone else. And then I went away for a couple of weeks on a trip and nobody even noticed that I was gone so I sort of stopped going to church and I just read the Bible at home thinking that I would start to believe based on this.
Needless to say, reading the Bible didn't help. In fact, it made me feel worse about the whole religion so I decided it was bullshit and started looking into other religions. Eventually I stopped doing this and I accepted that none of them had the answers. For a long time I just went with the position that it was impossible to know whether there's any god or not, but more recently it's occurred to me that nobody even bothers to define what they talk about when they talk about god which makes any discussion of the subject meaningless.

Oh, and basically this dramatically improved my self esteem because I stopped thinking that I was doing something wrong in finding it so hard to believe and I also stopped believing that I was inherently sinful.

To me it actually is because if there were an omnipresent being, we wouldnt have so much crap happening all over the world. If you separate the two (for example, just focusing on the creation of the universe and leaving aside what takes place in it and the "afterlife"), perhaps I could see a way to believe someone created it all, but in light of Christianity I cant belileve it. It is just too hard for me to believe in this "God"; the kindness and power of him/her/it. I am just so tired of hearing all the bullshit excuses for what is happening, the crap explanations of the Bible and so on. I dont mean to offend you with this. IMO, an omnipresent being would be a much kinder, gentler and caring being; not someone who allows all the starvation, wars, diseases and so forth.

Set aside, there could be a creator but it wouldnt be someone whose supposed text in the Bible should be used as a guide for present day life. There is no reason in that at all IMO; just blind and ignorant faith.

I don't think Leistung was speaking of the God in the bible specifically.

I don't think Leistung was speaking of the God in the bible specifically.

He was, and actually called him omnipresent.

He was, and actually called him omnipresent.

Actually I was referring to a proverbial God, and was using the Bible as an allegory to a moral code.

As to the point of "there wouldn't be war if there was God," that goes against every basic principle of the Christian faith. The idea of God is that he's someone to lean against, not someone to fight your battles for you. One of the major themes in the Bible is freedom, and people have the freedom, for better or for worse, to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Basically, there were two things that I did when I was a teenager that helped my self-esteem: I stopped reading fashion magazines and I stopped trying to believe in the Christian God.

How I came about this latter is a little long, but it's basically that I tried really, really hard and couldn't bring myself to believe.

The long version: I think that I always had a couple of issues with Christianity. I never liked the idea that non-believers were condemned to hell, I never got a proper answer out of Sunday School teachers when it really came down to it on a variety of issues, but I still considered myself a Christian and I still went along with it.
When I got older, I started to go to the youth group at my church and we would have all these social events which were fun, but occasionally there would be preachy religious things. Like I was fine with the prayer circle thing and general discussion, but at some point a former member of the youth group (he had grown up) came to visit and gave us a talk and people would put on Christian rock which I thought was shitty... but I was fine with this even if I could poke holes in the logic of the talk and point out that music without overt religion was often better.
One weekend we had a trip to this Day One thing. It was basically an enormous Christian youth festival sort of thing... so a weekend of sermons and shitty Christian rock. They handed out contracts which we were pressured to sign saying that we would save ourselves in both body and heart for marriage, refrain from drinking alcohol et c... and then there was the altar call. Basically, the altar call is when you stand up and go towards the front (we were in the balcony so we went to the edge of this) and open your heart to Jesus and he would fill your heart with love and other such nonsense. So I went up, I opened my heart to Jesus and absolutely nothing happened. People around me were hugging and crying and I was just there, alone. At this point I thought that it was my fault I didn't feel anything special.
After this experience I still went to church and youth group even though the things that bothered me originally bothered me more but, I thought I had friends there and I was still under the impression that it was my fault that I wasn't believing as much as everyone else. And then I went away for a couple of weeks on a trip and nobody even noticed that I was gone so I sort of stopped going to church and I just read the Bible at home thinking that I would start to believe based on this.
Needless to say, reading the Bible didn't help. In fact, it made me feel worse about the whole religion so I decided it was bullshit and started looking into other religions. Eventually I stopped doing this and I accepted that none of them had the answers. For a long time I just went with the position that it was impossible to know whether there's any god or not, but more recently it's occurred to me that nobody even bothers to define what they talk about when they talk about god which makes any discussion of the subject meaningless.

Oh, and basically this dramatically improved my self esteem because I stopped thinking that I was doing something wrong in finding it so hard to believe and I also stopped believing that I was inherently sinful.

Everybody's just guessing, really. Totally winging it. Nobody's really got the answers, everybody's just got their own ideas. Anybody who says they have the whole, complete infallible truth I think should basically be dismissed out of hand.

And why is it that it seems to be completely impossible to make good rock music about Jesus? It's like a law of physics, any rock music that is about praising Jesus will instantly be corny suckage. I've even heard Christian metal, and wow, was that terrible.

Fair enough which brings me to a question i ask all religious people: When do you decide to take the word literally or not? One of the problems I have with many Bible nut jobs is that they tend to cherry pick the word of the Bible.

OK, I think I get the overall thrust of your question, so I'll try to answer as best I can.

The reason I am not Christian is that I was brought up Muslim, and if I had subscribed to an essentially Abrahamic view of the world, I would have stayed with Islam, as I think it has a clearer idea of monotheism than Christianity does. As it is, I'm not interested in Abrahamic religion, except non-religiously as a historical phenomenon.

As for the "word of god" in regards to my faith, it isn't that simple. Texts are allegorical and metaphorical. I think all religious texts are, truth be told.

So you have to interpret those things to understand what the author is trying to express, and you have to work at it yourself. I can pick up a book and tell you what it says about the gods, and you can memorise that. That wouldn't make either of us theologians. That comes with taking the time to reflect on the text, to obtain other background information needed to give you a more complete picture of where the author is coming from.* That wouldn't make me religious, for that is using that as a basis to form a more conscious relationship with the gods, nd enriching the interpretation based on that relationship. However, it's still an interpretation and always will be.

There are texts dealing unambiguously with ethical conduct, but these texts are not divinely narrated and so are not "the word of god" as one might say, however they do embody much of the spirit of the divine order of things.

* Which is a problem I have with many religious people. They take their texts literally, in a completely different historical and cultural context.

And why is it that it seems to be completely impossible to make good rock music about Jesus? It's like a law of physics, any rock music that is about praising Jesus will instantly be corny suckage. I've even heard Christian metal, and wow, was that terrible.

Christian rap - http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=christian+rap&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

It made me cry blood.

Is it so difficult to believe that an omnipresent being wouldn't have the power

You mean omnipotent.

Christian rap - http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=christian+rap&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

It made me cry blood.

I don't like most regular rap, so I couldn't be a fair judge as to the Christian rap's quality.

You mean omnipotent.

They have distinct meanings. Potent is all powerful but Present is all seeing i believe, and if you are talking about God seeing "knowing" the future in guiding his actions omnipresent i believe would be the proper usage. I could be wrong lol.

You mean omnipotent.

Omnipotence infers that God is dabbling in each of our lives at every moment. Hence why omnipresence would more accurately describe being there, but not being here.

Omnipotence infers that God is dabbling in each of our lives at every moment. Hence why omnipresence would more accurately describe being there, but not being here.

But you said why can't an omnipresent God do such and such, but he'd have to be omnipotent to do that. Omnipotence mean all powerfulness, he doesn't have to be dabbling in our lives.

You mean omnipotent.

You might learn that assuming and telling people what they mean can be dangerous on here, young grasshopper.

You might learn that assuming and telling people what they mean can be dangerous on here, young grasshopper.

I'm not that new, I've been here since March, but he is wrong.

Christian rap - http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=christian+rap&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

It made me cry blood.

The genre is more commonly known on the streets by the abbreviated terms C-Rap or Crap.

I'm not that new, I've been here since March, but he is wrong.

You've only been here since March? You are a n00b.

I'm not a Christian because 1. I don't agree with many of it's teaching anymore, and I got tired of the fan club. I still believed in God, but I wanted to worship "it" in my own way, so after Easter '07, I left the Church and started finding my own path. It lead me to Paganism and Seax Wica. Where I am now happy and feel close to God again through Woden and Freya.

You've only been here since March? You are a n00b.

But not ridiculously new.

Because I, unlike the foolish Christians, actually care about the continued existence of the world, and thus I'm prepared to do Man's due, sacrificing the hearts of Man to our glorious Huitzilopochtli.

Here goes:

I was raised Christian. I went to a Lutheran church, but they, to their credit, encouraged us to be very unconcerned with denomination. Said the whole bickering between people over such minute differences was silly.

Anyway. Like I said, I was raised Christian. But even in Sunday school, the very first time I learned the Genesis story, I found it odd. "But when did the dinosaurs exist, then?" I asked. You see, I was one of those kids who knew a lot about dinosaurs. I could name most types if you showed them to me, and about how long ago they existed. (I wish I still remembered all that info...)
But still, I went along with it. For a long while, I kinda doublethought that problem away. When I was in Church, yeah. Genesis. Okay. But I also believed that dinosaurs existed long ago, etc. etc. I even kinda came to the conclusion that the Bible just "left out" the dinosaur age because it was about humans, not dinosaurs.

Then, in 7th grade biology, I began to learn about evolution. I mean, I'd heard of it before, but I actually started to learn it. And my science teacher said the whole deal on "Okay, so this doesn't disprove the Bible, it just means some of the stories didn't literally happen."

Cool, I thought. I can accept that, maybe. But even then, I was conflicted. But as I went on, I slowly started to find problems with with the Bible. I had actually read much of it, you see, by the time I started high school. But I buried those problems. Either tried to rationalize them or ignore them.

I formed my political beliefs on my religion, to a large extent. Abortion, surely, should be illegal, I thought. Gay marriage? What?! (Though, I did compromise on civil unions)
And then, as I thought, I slowly became a more moderate Christian, to the point where I was just a "John 3:16 Christian."

By this point, looking back, I think I may actually have been an agnostic atheist, but I couldn't bring myself to admit it-- even to myself.

Then, I started college. My freshman year, my roommate was killed in a car wreck. That... sent me into a deep period of introspection. I even tried going to God for help, but found nothing. And I continued to think. And then I thought some more. And I read books, articles, whatever I could get my hands on. Apologetics, polemics, whatever. And I thought and thought and thought. And then I slowly began to realize that I was an implicit atheist. When I had become one, I'm not exactly sure. As I said earlier, it may have been some point in high school, maybe it was later. It's hard for me to say, because for a long while, I was dishonest with myself.

But I realized that I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in the tooth fairy, or I do not believe in Russell's Teapot, or the FSM. (Actually, the FSM kinda helped me, as idiotic as this may sound, transition into atheism. For a while, I was a Pastafarian. I knew it was a joke, and that I was really an atheist, but it provided me a way to avoid going straight from self-identification as a Christian to self-identification as an atheist.)

And, my thoughts on being an atheist?
Well, it might surprise some that I'm a bit divided on whether I like it or not. I mean, a part of me would really like there to be some sort of God. The world would be easier that way, having some deity to comfort me when friends for some reason can't.

On the other hand, being free from unreasonable expectations is great. Freedom from fear of hellfire is great.
(Though, I still sometimes struggle with that... I know it's irrational, but it's just the way I was raised. Occasionally, I think about what the idea of hell really means, and it terrifies me. Intellectually, it doesn't concern me much, but some part of me just... clings to it. This is a big part of why I'm fairly anti-religion, because I think I'll struggle with this fear for the rest of my life, and I blame Christianity for that, and I don't want others to have to go through that.)
Sure, it may be a bit harder to find a moral code, because I have to think about it instead of just reading a book, but I find the code that I do end up with is a better one, even if it is forever imperfect, a work in progress, so to speak.

So, I know this might be tl;dr for most people. I know some of you might particularly care or find my story at all interesting. But there it is.

Here goes:

I was raised Christian. I went to a Lutheran church, but they, to their credit, encouraged us to be very unconcerned with denomination. Said the whole bickering between people over such minute differences was silly.

Anyway. Like I said, I was raised Christian. But even in Sunday school, the very first time I learned the Genesis story, I found it odd. "But when did the dinosaurs exist, then?" I asked. You see, I was one of those kids who knew a lot about dinosaurs. I could name most types if you showed them to me, and about how long ago they existed. (I wish I still remembered all that info...)
But still, I went along with it. For a long while, I kinda doublethought that problem away. When I was in Church, yeah. Genesis. Okay. But I also believed that dinosaurs existed long ago, etc. etc. I even kinda came to the conclusion that the Bible just "left out" the dinosaur age because it was about humans, not dinosaurs.

Then, in 7th grade biology, I began to learn about evolution. I mean, I'd heard of it before, but I actually started to learn it. And my science teacher said the whole deal on "Okay, so this doesn't disprove the Bible, it just means some of the stories didn't literally happen."

Cool, I thought. I can accept that, maybe. But even then, I was conflicted. But as I went on, I slowly started to find problems with with the Bible. I had actually read much of it, you see, by the time I started high school. But I buried those problems. Either tried to rationalize them or ignore them.

I formed my political beliefs on my religion, to a large extent. Abortion, surely, should be illegal, I thought. Gay marriage? What?! (Though, I did compromise on civil unions)
And then, as I thought, I slowly became a more moderate Christian, to the point where I was just a "John 3:16 Christian."

By this point, looking back, I think I may actually have been an agnostic atheist, but I couldn't bring myself to admit it-- even to myself.

Then, I started college. My freshman year, my roommate was killed in a car wreck. That... sent me into a deep period of introspection. I even tried going to God for help, but found nothing. And I continued to think. And then I thought some more. And I read books, articles, whatever I could get my hands on. Apologetics, polemics, whatever. And I thought and thought and thought. And then I slowly began to realize that I was an implicit atheist. When I had become one, I'm not exactly sure. As I said earlier, it may have been some point in high school, maybe it was later. It's hard for me to say, because for a long while, I was dishonest with myself.

But I realized that I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in the tooth fairy, or I do not believe in Russell's Teapot, or the FSM. (Actually, the FSM kinda helped me, as idiotic as this may sound, transition into atheism. For a while, I was a Pastafarian. I knew it was a joke, and that I was really an atheist, but it provided me a way to avoid going straight from self-identification as a Christian to self-identification as an atheist.)

And, my thoughts on being an atheist?
Well, it might surprise some that I'm a bit divided on whether I like it or not. I mean, a part of me would really like there to be some sort of God. The world would be easier that way, having some deity to comfort me when friends for some reason can't.

On the other hand, being free from unreasonable expectations is great. Freedom from fear of hellfire is great.
(Though, I still sometimes struggle with that... I know it's irrational, but it's just the way I was raised. Occasionally, I think about what the idea of hell really means, and it terrifies me. Intellectually, it doesn't concern me much, but some part of me just... clings to it. This is a big part of why I'm fairly anti-religion, because I think I'll struggle with this fear for the rest of my life, and I blame Christianity for that, and I don't want others to have to go through that.)
Sure, it may be a bit harder to find a moral code, because I have to think about it instead of just reading a book, but I find the code that I do end up with is a better one, even if it is forever imperfect, a work in progress, so to speak.

So, I know this might be tl;dr for most people. I know some of you might particularly care or find my story at all interesting. But there it is.

maybe you should look into religions other than christianity?

maybe you should look into religions other than christianity?

I have, and I haven't found any of their arguments compelling either.

But the thread is about why I am not a Christian, specifically. :p

I have, and I haven't found any of their arguments compelling either.
'k, just figured I'd make the suggestion
But the thread is about why I am not a Christian, specifically. :p

True, but since when do NSG threads stay on topic for long?

Sunday morning is when I go bowling. A just God would not make me choose between worshipping him and going bowling, ergo, he does not exist.

True, but since when do NSG threads stay on topic for long?

Touché.

I am not a Christian because I simply cannot and will not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God (at least, in any sense beyond that in which we are all "children of God"). I believe that Jesus, if he existed as written, was a pretty awesome guy and a good role model, but still just a mortal man.

I also have issues with organized religion in general - I kinda feel like the more organized and hierarchical and political it becomes, the less it has to do with anything resembling God. Instead, I go on quietly believing in God in my own way without any church, temple, mosque, etc. telling me how I'm supposed to do it. :tongue:

To me it actually is because if there were an omnipresent being, we wouldnt have so much crap happening all over the world.

Why ? Why assume the Creator is benevolent and nice ?
Seriously - in the case of Christianity we are talking about a being that fathered a son for the specific purpose of having him tortured to death. Seems to me that praying is not something one does to ask for a boon - but to beg for mercy.

the reason why i am not a christian is because i follow the righteous teachings of his holiness bertrand russell, peace be upon him.

Why ? Why assume the Creator is benevolent and nice ?
.


Because thats what all my good christian friends tell me

It's mainly because of the hats. I mean what is it with religions and hats?

Seriously though I think I still am technically a christian. I never actually separeted from the church I was baptised to as a child. In spirit I think I stopped beeing a christian about the same age I stoped believing in santa. I don't think that I have or that I need any specific reason for not being a christian. I just don't feel like it I guess.

Why, you ask? Well i AM an athiest, and im not a Christan because i do not believe that there is a god and if there was one the Judeo-Christan one wouldn't be it,

Why am I an atheist? Simply because there are way too many contradictions in the "good book", too many ludicrous statements and too much bullshit.
You don't believe in any gods because one collection of letters and writings seems wonky to you?
If needed, ask for particular examples.
I'm sure we all got the email about them. ;)

To me, if there was a God, this whole planet would be so much better off. To me, if there is a God, it is not a God I would want to be associated with, given all the crap we see every day
You assume a benevolent God and a benevolent God that only knows what you know and bows to your will and holds the temporary as more important than the eternal. You assume a God who has your priorities. What if it's not like that?

But not ridiculously new.

Perhaps only moderately new. But the older you are, the less excuse you have for not only assuming what someone means when it's unclear, but then telling them what they mean.

I'm not a Christian, but I have no amazing reason for it. I simply do not believe myself to be a Christian.

I am not a Chrstian because I could no longer remain a part of a hate-based belief system.

Because I don't play that way. There we go.

Thanks for your honesty everyone, lots of interesting posts here, but, as I'm currently pressed for time, I'll just address a couple of sections of this post. (Oh, and I'm a Christian BTW :))

Why am I not a Christian? The reasons are several, and not entirely simple.

First, there is the matter of history. I am a historian; and while my specialty is the modern period (1800-today), I am scarcely unaware or ignorant of other periods. Simply, the Bible is wrong on virtually every utterance of historical fact; the events depicted are rarely to never confirmed by the reality of the historical record.


You may be interested to know that several professors in the Ancient History department at my (very secular) university are Christians. This is partly because of, not in spite of the Bible's historical account. I've discussed this with the non-Christian members of the department as well, and even they recognise the Bible's historical accuracy.

An athiest investigative journalist called Lee Strobel once set out to write a book disproving Christianity by investigating the historical evidence. He ended up getting converted, and writing a couple of books in support of the Bible's historical accuracy (the Case for Christ, the Case for Faith, the Case for the Real Jesus)

Would you care to provide an example of the Bible's false historical record? I may be able to assist you.


Similarly, the tales of the Testaments, old and new, are similar to the point of absurdity with the myths and legends of many other faiths. Now, one might say, "but these are teaching tales, morality plays." I would answer that this is not how the information is portrayed; further, that, then, it passes disrepute upon those aspects that are supposedly true, for how can a work be both fiction and fact? Better to serve the cause of truth to consider it all fiction.


If the Bible's accounts are true, doesn't it make sense that many of the events described in it are also found elsewhere? For example, almost every culture has a legend about a great worldwide flood. Remember Noah?


Further, he is known to torture and murder his own worshippers! Consider the story of Job. Oh, Job, through his piety and selflessness gets to prove himself to God, sure; he gets his fortune restored, a new bunch of kids, and lives to some amazing age.
But what about his FIRST family?
They get to splatter when GOD knocks Job's house down. Well, gosh, I guess there can only be one good ending in the story. Riiight.

The truth is, Job's family, due to their faith in God, had nothing to fear from death. Their suffering in this life was over, they got to go to heaven already.

The real suffering was Job's. However, the Bible doesn't guarantee an easy ride when you become a Christian. God sometimes uses suffering to help us grow as people, though we don't see this.

As for your list of evil God has committed, I can see why you might be thinking this. If this really is a big issue for you, please give an example I could use to explain.


Then there's the New Testament - well, you'd think things would get better. Not really - ol' YHVH just gets a little more subtle in his bastardry. I mean, aside from having his "only son" nailed to a tree, we get the revelation that every person who dies without being a Christian, regardless of how good or bad he is, goes to Hell. Oh, and everyone who died before Jesus got sent there ANYWAY - but that's okay, the Son broke them out. What's a few millennia worth of eternal flame, between friends?


People don't got to hell no matter how good or bad they are. The option of being saved from God's judgement through obeying the law is still open. The only slight problem is that everyone has broken God's law...

To allow everyone to go to heaven would be for God to allow a great deal of evil to go unpunished. I'm sure you agree if a High Court judge let a murderer off without punishment that would be pretty unjust. Same with God judging us.

So in his love he asked Jesus to (by his own free will, not some sort of child abuse) live a perfect life and take the punishment of our sins, paid the debt so to speak.As you can see, God maintained his justice and also showed his love through the cross.

Now this is open to anyone who puts their faith in God. Then, just as Jesus came back from the dead, we too recieve new life, and God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us become more and more like him (of course Christians still aren't perfect, but we should be slowly getting better)

God offers this to everyone, but some people still don't accept this gift. If they don't, they can't get new life and begin the process of becoming more like Jesus. One definition is a place without God. If people choose to live without God in this life, doesn't it seem fair that they'll live without him in the next?

That's the "quick" explanation why some people go to hell! :-p


Compared to that, the Bible, the God it supposes, and Christianity, are products of small minds. All mankind's knowledge and wisdom are as nothing.


Exactly. Humans are incredibly small compared to the universe, and our knowledge is minute. However, the Bible is not just man's knowledge and wisdom, its God, creator of the world, revealing things we need to know.

(and to the poster of the first post in this topic, what are some of these contradictions in the Bible? I've seen many claimed contradictions in the past but nothing too challenging to explain.)

You don't believe in any gods because one collection of letters and writings seems wonky to you?


Hope you read I was talking about Christianity. Once I have read about other faiths I will give you reasons for not believing in that crap as well, assuming neither of them can literally produce the mighty one in person

Thanks for your honesty everyone, lots of interesting posts here, but, as I'm currently pressed for time, I'll just address a couple of sections of this post. (Oh, and I'm a Christian BTW :))



You may be interested to know that several professors in the Ancient History department at my (very secular) university are Christians. This is partly because of, not in spite of the Bible's historical account. I've discussed this with the non-Christian members of the department as well, and even they recognise the Bible's historical accuracy.

An athiest investigative journalist called Lee Strobel once set out to write a book disproving Christianity by investigating the historical evidence. He ended up getting converted, and writing a couple of books in support of the Bible's historical accuracy (the Case for Christ, the Case for Faith, the Case for the Real Jesus)

Would you care to provide an example of the Bible's false historical record? I may be able to assist you.

I am always willing to review the facts of any situation; to keep an open mind is, I feel, the mark of a mature mind.

The obvious one here is the Captivity in Egypt. Simply put, the only evidence that the Egyptians even knew of the Judeans is a single Stelae claiming victory over them in battle for a single Pharaoh. None of the telltale signs of Judean culture have ever turned up at any Egyptian archaeological dig, and they are not mentioned on any historical documents.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is hard to countenance that an entire culture incorporated as a slave caste would have had NO effect on the dominant culture.



If the Bible's accounts are true, doesn't it make sense that many of the events described in it are also found elsewhere? For example, almost every culture has a legend about a great worldwide flood. Remember Noah?

Sure. And I know of the Greek version of the myth, and the Persian one (in both cases the survivors climbed to the top of mountains).
And the fact is, there IS archaeological evidence for a major flooding event in the Mediterranean Basin in the geologically recent past. It is likely all three versions of the myth stem from that time.
But there is NO evidence for a worldwide flood. And that doesn't even come close to the similarities between Samson and the deeds of Heracles, or the battle between David and Goliath, which is repeated almost word for word in Mycenean legend. Nor, of course, Mithras, whose similarity to Jesus (and pre-dating therof) is undeniable.


The truth is, Job's family, due to their faith in God, had nothing to fear from death. Their suffering in this life was over, they got to go to heaven already.

They still got splattered for no reason other than to test someone else's
piety. We can assume they went to a better place, sure, but they were still denied the joys of life and living they could have expected. Sure, many people die young - but in this case we know the reason why - and it's a pretty bastardly reason, to my way of thinking.

And anyway, that doesn't help with Job's slaves and servants, who, if I remember correctly are stolen away into foreign slavery by bandits. It would seem their suffering has only just begun.

The real suffering was Job's. However, the Bible doesn't guarantee an easy ride when you become a Christian. God sometimes uses suffering to help us grow as people, though we don't see this.

Oh, I can see that. Job holds to his faith, refuses to curse god, and is rewarded - cue applause. It's the fact that everyone around him got to suffer FOR HIS PIETY that I have a problem with.

As for your list of evil God has committed, I can see why you might be thinking this. If this really is a big issue for you, please give an example I could use to explain.

Well, let's see...When the Judeans reach the Promised Land, it's inhabited, so God orders them to kill all the other inhabitants - Genocide. The Daughter of Jephthah - God accepts Human Sacrifice (no angels bear her away from the fire, and God granted victory when Jephthah made the oath). Passover - all the First Born Sons of Egypt die (Infanticide, in at least some cases).

And these are just a few. In some cases, the action may be justifiable, but an awful lot of innocents get slaughtered too. And yeah, that was bothersome to me.


People don't got to hell no matter how good or bad they are. The option of being saved from God's judgement through obeying the law is still open. The only slight problem is that everyone has broken God's law...

Oh, yes "original sin". The ultimate no-win clause. Because an ancestor broke one command, every human being forever gets to suffer for it.
And you can honestly say YHVH isn't a complete dick?

To allow everyone to go to heaven would be for God to allow a great deal of evil to go unpunished. I'm sure you agree if a High Court judge let a murderer off without punishment that would be pretty unjust. Same with God judging us.

I can live with the wicked being punished. I have a major problem with the good and the innocent being punished.

Say a man was born in 12th century Massachusetts (or what would become Massachusetts). He lives a just and virtuous life, is beloved of his family and good to his friends. He does good works and charity all the days of his life, and upon his death is hailed as the very model of what a man should be.

And according to the Bible he goes to hell forever. It hasn't been possible for him to hear "the word"; no Christian has yet set foot on the shores of North America. But there can be no redemption for him.

Yes, it would be unjust for the wicked to go unpunished. Yet surely it is far MORE unjust that the righteous and the virtuous are also sentenced to eternal torment.

I would rather have no judge than one so capricious and uncaring.

So in his love he asked Jesus to (by his own free will, not some sort of child abuse) live a perfect life and take the punishment of our sins, paid the debt so to speak.As you can see, God maintained his justice and also showed his love through the cross.

Now this is open to anyone who puts their faith in God. Then, just as Jesus came back from the dead, we too recieve new life, and God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us become more and more like him (of course Christians still aren't perfect, but we should be slowly getting better)

God offers this to everyone, but some people still don't accept this gift. If they don't, they can't get new life and begin the process of becoming more like Jesus. One definition is a place without God. If people choose to live without God in this life, doesn't it seem fair that they'll live without him in the next?

That's the "quick" explanation why some people go to hell! :-p

Oh, I get it. I can just also see the inherent problems of making a single way to eternal happiness - and then failing to widely pubicize it. Or show any reason why it's better than what other religions offer.



Exactly. Humans are incredibly small compared to the universe, and our knowledge is minute. However, the Bible is not just man's knowledge and wisdom, its God, creator of the world, revealing things we need to know.

Erm. Now there's another problem.

Because we know the Bible was made by men. The choice of books to include and exclude was made by a conclave of learned theologians - it is because of disagreements there that the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles are different (the Othodox do not consider Revelations a book of the Bible).

We know there have been mistranslations and errors have crept in.

And there are contradictions.

In the Gospels, Jesus' life is treated differently in each. Most tellingly is the treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, widely regarded as the most important fo Jesus' own words - but spoken of only in Matthew. Such a speech would have resonated, but none of the other Gospels speak of it.

I seee no reason to consider the Bible anything more than the work of men.

Respect to..?

To Him.

To Him.Does he respect me and my choices in life?

Because, silly me has a hard time believing in a Zombie Jew who is God or the son of God who needed to be tortured and have prolonged death because some lady ate some fruit a snake told her to eat. And if I don't believe him I go to a place where I burn forever and ever. Which raises the question, will my skin burn off and magically be replaced or something cause I think if I burn for a long enough time there won't be much left.

The topic below got me thinking. Just as Leistung wanted, I would like to keep this to topic if possible. And as serious as possible, without any idiotic remarks.

I admire what Leistung believes in and he/she is a Christian I could probably hang out with. As an atheist myself I find it hard to get along with bible nut-jobs who claim to know everything and quote the Bible as soon as they see fit, only to be livid when confronted with a, to me, ridiculous statement from the bible that makes absolutely no sense in present day.

Why am I an atheist? Simply because there are way too many contradictions in the "good book", too many ludicrous statements and too much bullshit. If needed, ask for particular examples. To me, if there was a God, this whole planet would be so much better off. To me, if there is a God, it is not a God I would want to be associated with, given all the crap we see every day

I find it hypocritical to believe that one cannot have a meanigful life without God, I find it stupid to think one cannot have morals without living acc. to the Bible, and I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

I have no problem with people having beliefs as long as they stay out of the public arena. To each his own.

The point of life??? Who knows but for me it is to enjoy myself (not at the expense of others), travel, explore, learn and spend time with the people close to me and make the best of everything before me prior to being shoved 6 feet below

First the counter argument to atheism is not christianity. Thats a really silly position. There are other religions and you can believe in god without subscribing to a certain religion.

And just because there are bad stuff happening does not mean that god doesnt exist. There are bad stuff in the world but even the best parents still let their kids out of the house.

Because, silly me has a hard time believing in a Zombie Jew who is God or the son of God who needed to be tortured and have prolonged death because some lady ate some fruit a snake told her to eat. And if I don't believe him I go to a place where I burn forever and ever. Which raises the question, will my skin burn off and magically be replaced or something cause I think if I burn for a long enough time there won't be much left.

God =/= christian god & apples & trees & pedo priests & whatever

God =/= christian god & apples & trees & pedo priests & whatever

er, right. But this thread is about why one is not a christian not why is one an atheist. So the things I mentioned are valid for the purposes of this thread.

I am not a Christian (despite having one Catholic parent) because I don't feel the need to be one. Secondary to that is that I can not validate being Christian over being Muslim (like my other parent), Jewish, Zoroastrian, Rastafarian, Sikh, or a practitioner of any other faith (nihilistic atheism included).

Faced with an infinity of indistinguishable choices, making no choice seems like the only rational choice.

Though I do admire Pelagius.

I'm not christian (or muslim or jewish) because I hate jehovah/allah/yahweh with a passion. Have you ever looked at the bible form a neutral point of view? Try counting up the number of war crimes, genocides, mass murders, etc. that your "god" is responsible. Far more times, for the record, than Satan (or any other demon) ever did. And no, the "Oh, the bible isn't to be taken literally" claim will not suddeenly legitimize him. If your god WAS good and had any kind of power, then he would have talked to at least one of your 265 (or 266; thank you, Stephen 1.5) popes and told him that he would never do such evil things. But guess what? The bible -- much like jehovah's omnimalevolence -- remains unchanged.

-=-

As for the "G-d" thing, some of the more devout jewish people believe that erasing the name "God" (or throwing out, burning, etc. anything with that name) is automatically sinful, hence the dash. It's the same reason that the hebrew name for Yahweh is almost always pronounced "adonai" but spelled as if it should be pronounced "y'yah".

Does he respect me and my choices in life?

Dunno, but He created you. And the universe. I think that earns Him some respect, if nothing else.

I am not a Christian because I simply cannot and will not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God (at least, in any sense beyond that in which we are all "children of God"). I believe that Jesus, if he existed as written, was a pretty awesome guy and a good role model, but still just a mortal man.

I also have issues with organized religion in general - I kinda feel like the more organized and hierarchical and political it becomes, the less it has to do with anything resembling God. Instead, I go on quietly believing in God in my own way without any church, temple, mosque, etc. telling me how I'm supposed to do it. :tongue:

I'm always pleased when people post exactly what I'm going to post before I even post it.

:hail:

The thing that I've noticed in both threads, is that people don't want religion in politics. I think that's one thing that Christians and non-Christians can all agree on, right?

The thing that I've noticed in both threads, is that people don't want religion in politics. I think that's one thing that Christians and non-Christians can all agree on, right?

Hardly. The xtian right wants religion in politic. As long as it is their religion.

Hardly. The xtian right wants religion in politic. As long as it is their religion.An effort that may be easily thwarted by presenting to them a simple question: Which denomination?

As for my reasons for not being a Christian:

1. Lack of evidence. There's little to no more material backing up the story of Jesus than the story of Hercules, the only substantial difference is that Christians tended to support their story with pointy things.

2. Bad experiences. I don't want to be involved in a community where I get dumped in a trashcan by my youth group, and then the assistant pastor reprimands me for being mad at those responsible.

3. Opposition to intellectual progress. I believe in evolution, I don't care what women do with their bodies or who other people sleep with, and I plan to wear a condom before a wedding ring.

4. Aggressive culture. Exactly what it says on the tin, really.

First the counter argument to atheism is not christianity. Thats a really silly position. There are other religions and you can believe in god without subscribing to a certain religion.

And just because there are bad stuff happening does not mean that god doesnt exist. There are bad stuff in the world but even the best parents still let their kids out of the house.


Siiiiiigh! Geez Nova M. Germania. I know there are other religions but please read the topic again. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED IN REGARDS TO CHRISTIANITY. Too tired to explain again, read it carefully one more time

I am not a Christian for one very simple reason. There is not now, nor ever was, any such person/thing.

In all my years, there is absolutely nothing that I have seen, touched, tasted, smelled, or felt, that has ever reassured me that any such being has now, nor ever existed.
I dont disbelieve becuase I "hate God". Thats rather stupid. The only way you can truly hate "God", is if you actually believe such a thing even exists.

The Christian/Juaean/Abrahamic god is no different from Odin, Zeus, Oisiris or Mithras.
They are inventions of mankinds insecurity about life and our place in it.

People need to think there is a powerful person watching over us, and that we can relax a little. Thats fine. Sometimes such a belief can give one a bit of comfort and hey, who doesnt like that?

The issue usually comes when such a belief fosters the idea that one's own morality is appropriate for everyone, and acts like a douchebag to prove it.

... and I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

And I find it pretty tunnel visioned to think that these "scientific discoveries" somehow preclude the creation of the universe, since even the "established scientists" admit they cannot know what was "before" the Big Bang, or even preclude that this happened a few thousands of "years" ago, since noone yet has been able to establish that the speed of time is constant or has been constant in the "past" (yes, even its "eternal direction" cannot be proven).

It is even conceivable that whatever created the universe was, at that time, the only entity in existence, and therefore omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. In other words, god can be reduced to less than a microbe (or some pancosmic equivalent), without loosing its initial properties, and without it needing to have any meaning left today.

P.S. Yes, definitely agnostic, but definitely not atheistic. :)

And I find it pretty tunnel visioned to think that these "scientific discoveries" somehow preclude the creation of the universe, since even the "established scientists" admit they cannot know what was "before" the Big Bang, or even preclude that this happened a few thousands of "years" ago, since noone yet has been able to establish that the speed of time is constant or has been constant in the "past" (yes, even its "eternal direction" cannot be proven).

It is even conceivable that whatever created the universe was, at that time, the only entity in existence, and therefore omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. In other words, god can be reduced to less than a microbe (or some pancosmic equivalent), without loosing its initial properties, and without it needing to have any meaning left today.

P.S. Yes, definitely agnostic, but definitely not atheistic. :)

True, the discoveries do not preclude any creation but it still makes no sense to claim this was the design of a higher power. With science we at least have the opportunity to one day find out more about the whole enchilada. Until then, whether that happens or not, I refuse to put my faith blindly into an old text with tales of talking snakes and 500 year old men getting animals to fuck on a boat.

Agnostic...agreed!

I guess I'm not a Christian because it's convenient.

I guess I'm not a Christian because it's convenient.

A simple, yet honest answer. I like it. :)

Because I don't believe in God or his son. Pretty simple.

Coz the Christain view on what God is, is not my own view.

in a word, the dishonesty of chauvanism, in direct conflict with the pretense of morality and the supposed promoting of honesty.

i DO believe there is something big, friendly, and invisible, that gives great hugs, but other then those it chooses once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, anyone else who thinks they know any more about it then that, is deceiving themselves and or, has been conned into doing so.

christ, mohammid, even buddha and lao tsu, were, i believe, among those it choose to channel its will, but what human shortsightedness and greed have turned the communities of fallowers of organized beliefs into, simply conflicts directly with their own moral teachings.

now as far as i know, lao tsu, and to certain extent sidarta gutama, seem to still, mosty, get their point accross, but the 'western mainstream' seems to have completely lost sight of it, and instead, turned faith and belief, into servents of their own ignorant and indefferent destructiveness.

invisible little spirit creatures are still innocent, harmless, and nice to cuddle with though.

and the unknown itself, is not a source of harmful intent. just what human people have made of what they pretend to know about it.

It is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to exist.

God can not be simultaneously separate from his creation and still be omnipresent.

If god is omniscient, then free will is impossible.

Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and the existence of evil and suffering are also logically irreconcilable.

The Christian models of god usually involve omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, and omnibenevolence in a universe that also includes free will, evil, and suffering.

Basically I'm not a Christian for annoyingly pedantic reasons.

I am not a Christian because looking at it rationally it doesn't make sense. Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" and Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" helped me to see this and I suggest you do the same.

Because "God" is on its face absurd and Christianity as an institution has been pretty harmful and destructive throughout its history. Only with the advent of secular influences has it improved, and even now it is for essentially religious Christian reasons that people are offended by things like LGBT rights.

I feel that religious people tries to be good just to win paradise. For me, no religion is the correct one. And by that I mean no christian is the one, no jew is the one, no muslim is the one. No one is the one. Why should human be the only one anyway?

Because "God" is on its face absurd and Christianity as an institution has been pretty harmful and destructive throughout its history. Only with the advent of secular influences has it improved, and even now it is for essentially religious Christian reasons that people are offended by things like LGBT rights.

Not all Christian models of god are absurd, only those unduly influenced by Greek philosophers. Thomas Aquinas' model of god as the perfect king was based on the Platonic ideal of a ruler. But there are many Christian sects that have more intelligent models of Christ (though many were branded heretical for a long time) and contemporary theologians have moved beyond this model as well.

While there has been many atrocities linked historically to Christianity, it is also worth noticing that widespread respect for human rights, democracy, and the scientific method came about in Christian nations and communities. While other cultures around the world have also done so, I do not believe it is as widespread as we see in Europe and North America, nations with a predominantly Christian history. Nor are atrocities solely the mandate of religious institutions.

This continues today. The countries that have legalised SSM such as Canada, are predominantly Christian (2001 census info: 77% self identify as Christian).

This, of course, does not disprove anything you say. We are both correct. Religion is complicated that way.

First off, the idea that bad things happened in Christianity's name is a rather poor argument indeed. Violence has been carried out in the name of virtually all forms of ideology, religious or not, and that hardly necessitates their immediate dismissal.

However.

I am not a Christian because of the impossibility of the Judeo-Christian / Islamic God. A being that is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent is perfect, no?

If a being is perfect, then how could it ever Act? Individuals act because of unfulfilled desires (ranging from "I want to grab this spoon" to "I want to create the world"). But if there was something unfulfilled, that means that there is something imperfect. So if God ever acted, it would mean he was not perfect, which would mean he is not the God described in the Bible/Koran.

I will remain my weird "spiritual agnostic" self and not take up the mantle of Christian again until that problem can be answered satisfactorally.

There is no meaning to life, thats why its so special

and i dont need a god written about by nomads 2000 bc about something that created the earth, science contradicts

Where did all the 4 post newbie atheists come from? There seems to be a rise in the number recently.

if god were infallable, you wouldn't know it by the universe we live in.
i think the whole idea of anything needing to be infallable is something the human ego came up with.

so it isn't the idea of god or gods i have any problem with, i just don't think anyone would be any worse off if no one had ever come up with the idea that anything needs to be infallable.

but i also do observe, that reality, that big universe thing that seems to go on for close enough to for ever, seems to be pretty completely impersonal to me. the way things, just about everything, actually works, doesn't have much to do with personalities, or any need for anything to be in 'control'.

so i don't see their existence as making much if anything any less up to us then it would be if they didn't. i just also don't see that as completely excluding their existence either.

it IS a big universe out there, and we really, can never even bigin to know the half of it, so much as there is.

but the same argument FOR the existence of something or some many, powerful and invisible somethings, is also, preciesely the argument against formalized, organized belief, for the most part, having the slightest idea what its talking about.

If god is omniscient, then free will is impossible.


May I play devil's advocate? Would you care to elaborate on the above point?

In what way do you see the existence of an all-knowing (and, for that matter, all-powerful) entity as being incompatible with free will?

Does knowing that an event is about to take place, and always having the ability to act to impact that event always predicate that the omniscient and omnipotent entity must impact that action? Might not the entity choose not to act, thus maintaining the free will of those involved with the event?

And aren't you potentially assuming that the omniscient and omnipotent entity has motives similar to your own?

If an entity was omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn't he/she/it's motives by necessity be so different from your own so as to be opaque to the point of inscrutability?

Perhaps you might be able to observe the actions of said entity through the impact of its energies, but wouldn't its essential essence remain beyond the understanding of someone who didn't share that omnipotence and omniscience?

And when it came to the impact of those energies, might not a - perhaps slightly ironic - bastardised version of Clarke's Law potentially come into effect: that the actions of any sufficiently powerful being are indistinguishable from magic?

Summarised: if there is an omnipotent and omniscient entity, then isn't it more than slightly anthropomorphic to assume that said entity shares your conception of logic?

May I play devil's advocate? Would you care to elaborate on the above point?

In what way do you see the existence of an all-knowing (and, for that matter, all-powerful) entity as being incompatible with free will?

Does knowing that an event is about to take place, and always having the ability to act to impact that event always predicate that the omniscient and omnipotent entity must impact that action? Might not the entity choose not to act, thus maintaining the free will of those involved with the event?

Problem: choosing not to act is an act. Moreover, an all knowing diety would know exactly what was going to occur, for every single person, from beginning to end, exactly as it was going to happen.

Moreover it would know it wouldn't act, would know how to prevent such things from occuring, and would know that it would not do so.

Problem: choosing not to act is an act. Moreover, an all knowing diety would know exactly what was going to occur, for every single person, from beginning to end, exactly as it was going to happen.

Moreover it would know it wouldn't act, would know how to prevent such things from occuring, and would know that it would not do so.

Are you arguing that atheism must, by necessity, assume a position compatible with Calvinist doctrines of predestination when arguing that omnipotence and omniscience must be logical fallicies?

Would you care to address the second point regarding whether an omnipotent and omniscient entity would necessarily share your conceptions of logic?

May I play devil's advocate? Would you care to elaborate on the above point?

In what way do you see the existence of an all-knowing (and, for that matter, all-powerful) entity as being incompatible with free will?

Does knowing that an event is about to take place, and always having the ability to act to impact that event always predicate that the omniscient and omnipotent entity must impact that action? Might not the entity choose not to act, thus maintaining the free will of those involved with the event?...snip...

It has nothing to do with his omnipotence. It has to do with his infallible omniscience. Ih he can see the future, and it is impossible for him to be incorrect about what he sees, then we have no choice but to live out what he sees. Here is a link to a site that lays it out in both formal and informal logic:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

You can also look it up under the heading theological fatalism.

It has nothing to do with his omnipotence. It has to do with his infallible omniscience. Ih he can see the future, and it is impossible for him to be incorrect about what he sees, then we have no choice but to live out what he sees. Here is a link to a site that lays it out in both formal and informal logic:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

You can also look it up under the heading theological fatalism.

But the web page you cite admits there are counter-arguments to theological fatalism.

Just to take one example, Boethius - as you'll no doubt already know - argued that assuming an omniscient entity is by necessity bound by human conceptions of temporarily is itself a flawed position (with apologies for the oversimplification).

Which returns to my second main question. Why would you assume that an omniscient and omnipotent entity is bound by anthrocentric conceptions of logic?

Would you care to address the second point regarding whether an omnipotent and omniscient entity would necessarily share your conceptions of logic?

not really, because it's magic hand waving. I'm quite sure that any diety need not be bound by our human understanding, however the christian version of god most certainly is.

This is not a post of "why don't you believe in god at all" this is a post of "why aren't you a christian?" And GoG's argument largely mirrors my own. I'm not speaking as to whether there is not a diety out there of some kind, and if there was, you're right such a thing would probably defy any human attempts at definition.

But a christian god is clearly defined, as having specific qualities. You can't say "well, you can't define god" in an attempt to excuse a defined god. Christianity defines god in a specific way. Those definitions are incompatible with themselves.

Now, you're right, that god probably does NOT fit in with definitions, but then again, I wasn't the one trying to define it.

This is not a post of "why don't you believe in god at all" this is a post of "why aren't you a christian?" And GoG's argument largely mirrors my own. I'm not speaking as to whether there is not a diety out there of some kind, and if there was, you're right such a thing would probably defy any human attempts at definition.

But a christian god is clearly defined, as having specific qualities. You can't say "well, you can't define god" in an attempt to excuse a defined god. Christianity defines god in a specific way. Those definitions are incompatible with themselves.

Now, you're right, that god probably does NOT fit in with definitions, but then again, I wasn't the one trying to define it.

You're quite right that the thread is focused on a specific conception of God rather than general atheism. My apologies; I must be unusually dense today.

Which particular Christian definition of God's omniscience are you objecting to? Are you and GoG perhaps more sympathetic to a Calvinist definition that, like you, denies free will in favour of accepting the necessity of predestination where omniscience exists? Is it just the more traditional Catholic / Orthodox definition that you object to?

Which particular Christian definition of God's omniscience are you objecting to? Are you and GoG perhaps more sympathetic to a Calvinist definition that, like you, denies free will in favour of accepting the necessity of predestination where omniscience exists?

Essentially, yes. I find the idea of free will and omniscience to be fundamentally incompatible. While I do believe that if there were a god, such thing would defy any petty labels we try to slap on it, if we're going to go down the road of defining god, we should stop short before such a point where our labels become self contradictory.

Thus predestination and omniscience are not incompatible, and I agree that it's as good a definitional system as any.

Just one that makes me philosophically uneasy.

Thank you for your last answer; I regret not being able to continue this discussion further as I have to go home, and there's no broadband on the train. Pity.

I'm not a Christian largely because I don't believe. I am uncertain of the legitimacy of Jesus's existence as anything more than an "Everyman" character designed to galvanise the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem by Domitian, but I could be wrong. Also, if Jesus DID, in fact, exist, there is textual evidence he was very mistrustful of organised religion in any context, and that "Christianity" is a creation of the adventurer Saul of Tarsus, who used it to extort money to try and buy his way into Peter's good graces.
There is a definite gap in an individual who consistantly refers to himself as the "Son of Man" and a religious following that uses the Greek term for "Lord" in it's name.
If Jesus did exist, he'd be appalled at what his teachings have become-while I find it difficult to argue against anything he personally said, much like Siddartha Gautama.
I think my problems with Christianity stem more from the petty purposes to which it was bent more than anything on behalf of it's originator.

Dunno, but He created you. And the universe. I think that earns Him some respect, if nothing else.

Depends on why he did it, now does it not ? Suppose I decide to have a child for the explicit purpose of torturing him/her. For kicks.

Does the kid owe me any respect ?

Actually I was referring to a proverbial God, and was using the Bible as an allegory to a moral code.

As to the point of "there wouldn't be war if there was God," that goes against every basic principle of the Christian faith. The idea of God is that he's someone to lean against, not someone to fight your battles for you. One of the major themes in the Bible is freedom, and people have the freedom, for better or for worse, to make their own decisions about their own lives.
Actually the God of the Bible leaves you no freedom at all.Hell awaits anyone who strays from 'the way' and the only fights you are allowed to fight are His fights.

maybe you should look into religions other than christianity?
what for?If anything there are WORSE religions than modern christianity.

what for?If anything there are WORSE religions than modern christianity.

Heheh such as?

I am not a Christian because of the impossibility of the Judeo-Christian / Islamic God. A being that is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent is perfect, no?

If a being is perfect, then how could it ever Act? Individuals act because of unfulfilled desires (ranging from "I want to grab this spoon" to "I want to create the world"). But if there was something unfulfilled, that means that there is something imperfect. So if God ever acted, it would mean he was not perfect, which would mean he is not the God described in the Bible/Koran.

I've heard the argument that an omnibenvolent, omniscient, and omnipresent Being is a contradiction, but this is a new one. It's interesting.

I guess a counter-argument could be that if a Being couldn't act, it isn't omniscient, and thus not perfect. Being limited to nothing is far from all-powerful. The original argument is still valid, but it seems the outcome of assuming it is true is just as illogical as assuming it is false.
Of course, then it breaks down to the omnib-omnis-omnip (I don't like writing it all out) argument, which also argues against a Christian God.

But the web page you cite admits there are counter-arguments to theological fatalism.

Just to take one example, Boethius - as you'll no doubt already know - argued that assuming an omniscient entity is by necessity bound by human conceptions of temporarily is itself a flawed position (with apologies for the oversimplification).

Which returns to my second main question. Why would you assume that an omniscient and omnipotent entity is bound by anthrocentric conceptions of logic?

And it also has refutations of each of the refutations. To continue with Boethius, it doesn't matter if god exists outside of time. If god is seeing my future from some timeless reality, as opposed to within our time space, he is still seeing it perfectly, and I am still bound to do what he sees.

I do not assume that an omnipotent being is bound by logic. In fact, I explicitly said that such a being is logically impossible. To be omnipotent, you would have to be outside logic.

Like the whole 'can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?' thing.

If the answer is yes, then he is limited in how much he can lift, and therefore not omnipotent.

If the answer is no, then he is limited in his creative ability, and therefroe not omnipotent,

If the answer is 'yes, he can create it, and then he can lift it," then he is no longer bound by logic. Like our exemplary unicorn, he may as well be both pink and invisible.

Thank you for your last answer; I regret not being able to continue this discussion further as I have to go home, and there's no broadband on the train. Pity.

You'll be back.

Because I heard Jesus was a secret Muslim.

Heheh such as?
Islam comes first in mind though there are others for sure (hinduism,etc),fact is the christian world today is nice cause it's no longer christian,it has become materialistic and liberal and this is progress!

Because Satan gives me cool stuff.

Because of the ease with which people dismiss Genesis but expect me to believe Acts

Because Satan gives me cool stuff.

Fuck being an atheist get me in on that!
Also when you spell a swear word wrong it tells you but doesnt give it to you as an option cept for ass

Essentially, yes. I find the idea of free will and omniscience to be fundamentally incompatible.

It isn't that contradictory, once you realize God, in this definition, can and does also exist outside of time. In that way, he sees past, present, and future all at once, while we live it out in the moment.

Siiiiiigh! Geez Nova M. Germania. I know there are other religions but please read the topic again. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED IN REGARDS TO CHRISTIANITY. Too tired to explain again, read it carefully one more time

Rejecting Christianity does not necessarily mean accepting atheism. It could mean switching to some form of paganism, as I have. Christian God is hardly the only deity in the market.

Oh just to add this piece of irrelevant eh posting - some Jovies turned up to my door today - sad times, really, I just woke up and all :(

And it also has refutations of each of the refutations. To continue with Boethius, it doesn't matter if god exists outside of time. If god is seeing my future from some timeless reality, as opposed to within our time space, he is still seeing it perfectly, and I am still bound to do what he sees.

I do not assume that an omnipotent being is bound by logic. In fact, I explicitly said that such a being is logically impossible. To be omnipotent, you would have to be outside logic.

Like the whole 'can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?' thing.

If the answer is yes, then he is limited in how much he can lift, and therefore not omnipotent.

If the answer is no, then he is limited in his creative ability, and therefroe not omnipotent,

If the answer is 'yes, he can create it, and then he can lift it," then he is no longer bound by logic. Like our exemplary unicorn, he may as well be both pink and invisible.



You'll be back.

An omnipotent being, by being able to do anything, is inherently able to do things that should be impossible, defying logic and physics.

To me it's a moot point, since the deity I believe in is not omnipotent.

The topic below got me thinking. Just as Leistung wanted, I would like to keep this to topic if possible. And as serious as possible, without any idiotic remarks.

I admire what Leistung believes in and he/she is a Christian I could probably hang out with. As an atheist myself I find it hard to get along with bible nut-jobs who claim to know everything and quote the Bible as soon as they see fit, only to be livid when confronted with a, to me, ridiculous statement from the bible that makes absolutely no sense in present day.

Why am I an atheist? Simply because there are way too many contradictions in the "good book", too many ludicrous statements and too much bullshit. If needed, ask for particular examples. To me, if there was a God, this whole planet would be so much better off. To me, if there is a God, it is not a God I would want to be associated with, given all the crap we see every day

I find it hypocritical to believe that one cannot have a meanigful life without God, I find it stupid to think one cannot have morals without living acc. to the Bible, and I find it totally insane to believe the earth was created by an all-knowing God thousands of years ago in the face of all the scientific discoveries we have had in our lifetime.

I have no problem with people having beliefs as long as they stay out of the public arena. To each his own.

The point of life??? Who knows but for me it is to enjoy myself (not at the expense of others), travel, explore, learn and spend time with the people close to me and make the best of everything before me prior to being shoved 6 feet below
I'm not a christian for many reasons, but most importantly, as Maurice Chavez so astutely reminded me, it simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Essentially, yes. I find the idea of free will and omniscience to be fundamentally incompatible. While I do believe that if there were a god, such thing would defy any petty labels we try to slap on it, if we're going to go down the road of defining god, we should stop short before such a point where our labels become self contradictory.

Thus predestination and omniscience are not incompatible, and I agree that it's as good a definitional system as any.

Just one that makes me philosophically uneasy.

One view of omniscience or semi-omniscience is that while the future may not be pre-determined, a deity would know every conceivable action that every being would take, and know exactly what possible scenarios every action could create. While this amount of knowledge would seem unfathomable to us, to a god it might be a perfectly reasonable amount of information to hold in his/her mind. While the future would not be preset, the deity would know every possible outcome of every choice of every thing that makes choices.

I do not hold this view personally, as the deity I believe in, I don't believe knows the future, just everything that has every happened in the past and everything that is happening now. Which gives her good guesses.

Also, you should have a TG, unless NS is acting up.

It isn't that contradictory, once you realize God, in this definition, can and does also exist outside of time. In that way, he sees past, present, and future all at once, while we live it out in the moment.

It does not matter how the omniscient god sees our future. Only that he sees it infallibly. It doesn't matter if his perspective is from within time or outside of time.