I reject God because.......

I thought it time to create the all purpose thread for those who reject the notion of God. So where do you fall?

1. I cannot believe in a God that would allow (fill in the blank).

2. I cannot believe in a God that I cannot prove exists.

Are there any others? These seem to be the only two sticking points with those who reject faith, at least, these reasons seem to give in debates.

 

3. I cannot believe in a God because it is a man made myth to explain what we do not know.

 

I don't actually reject the notion of a brilliant God, why would I?

The problem is, we don't have any examples of that being represented in faith!

 

I would think that this falls under #2 does it not?

 

Creating an idea to explain something and proving something does not exits is too differnet things I think.

 

I cannot believe that a God who allegedly created a man in his own image would also create millions of biting, chewing, stinging, blood-sucking and poisonous insects and reptiles to torture him.

 

I'll champion that and play devil's advocate, isn't adversary a brilliant component in the strengthening of form?
Some of the most beautiful expressions of humanity have risen from a tortured mind!

 

I believe is possible for a God to exist. I know it is none of those described in any of the books currently worshipped. Why? Because we can show these books to be incorrect, contradictory, and dishonest frauds.

Most steal from previous holy books so blatantly that it is a miracle any person could bring themselves to believe such tripe. In fact, that could be the one thing these ridiculous fables have going for them.

So stupid and wrong on so many accounts that the only possible reason anyone would choose to follow is that they must be right!

On second thought, ill attribute it to the tendency of man to wish think and find patterns where none exist.

 

I think this falls under #1, does it not?

 

But essentially if you cannot prove God exists and reject him for this reason, then it would only stand to reason that man made him up in your mind. Again, I think this falls under #2.

 

I think that this falls under #2. Again, essentially your are saying that you don't have enough evidence to say there is a God. What am I missing?

 

I reject the concepts of God as that include an intervening creator who demands worship, obedience, etc. If there is such a being as described in the Bible, then it deserves no worship, nor has any right to demand anything of anyone despite it's power.

 

Does this not fall under #1? Basically, you are saying that if there be a God he would not allow "X" or force me to do "X".

 

No. I don't reject the existence of God. I don't care if He/She/It exists and if He/She/It does exist, I will not worship He/She/It or obey His/Her/It's commands. If I create something that is sentient, does that mean that I have the right to insist that it obey my commands and that I'll withdraw my love if it does not worship me in the way that I require? You and I are expressions of the Is. We conscious of the separations and can judge our little bits of of the universe. The intervening God described by the worshipful would be just another conscious, judging, perceiving entity within the universe.

So, I reject God, but I don't necessarily reject that there is a "higher" power.

 

I see no logical evidence that points to any god existing.

 

And you shouldn't! It would destroy the value of faith

 

For me, it's largely number 2, though there are times when I ponder number 1 as well. Mostly though, when you realize that you aren't necessarily afraid of dying and that being the end of it, you don't have that need to believe anything that comes along which tells you there's more after you die. It's not that I'm not afraid of dying, I am, especially if it's painful or drawn out, but a lot of that is the fact that I'll never see my loved ones again, something I won't be dealing with once I'm actually dead.

I live my life by the ideals of decency, respect, and compassion. I don't need a God ideal in order to be what I consider to be a good person, which is, unsurprisingly, very close to the ideals espoused by religion, minus the bigotry, sexism, and superstition.

 

I don't think no. 1 is so much of an argument why you wouldn't believe in a god. After all, there are plenty of god concepts that are completely immoral, that doesn't make them less true than one who isn't. The argument from "a god that would allow x" is a counterargument pointing out the flaws in arguments like "The existence of morals prove God". In any case, the argument is completely moot against a god-concept that is not omnibenevolent. Some say they wouldn't worship a god that would allow this or that, but that is different from not believing in him. Personally, I'll worship anything which torture me for not doing so.

As for number 2, that is the only reasonable reason to not believe in a god. Some say that proving a negative is impossible, but that is not true in general. However, it is true that the general god concept cannot be disproven, since no matter what argument you produce, you can always conceive of a god which has simply made sure that it cannot be detected through that method. The non-belief in a god (which has not been defined to be detectable) can not be proven, even if there is no god. Thus, the absence of evidence against a god is not even suggesting that god exists.

However, the claim that there is a god should be possible to back up with evidence. Therefore, if the burden of proof lies on non-believers, the question can never get a final answer, and if the burden of proof lies with the god claim, the question can only be settled if the god is real and can be asked to do anything verifiable.

 

I think your objections are partially interwoven in the "I don't believe in a God who would (fill in the blank) coupled with I just don't care.

So I think you have added #3 for my list which is I just don't care.

 

Like it or not, people use this line of reasoning for rejecting God. Once you have motivation to reject someone or something, never ending arguments can be conjured up with ease. In short, anything can be argued, anything. This then feeds into creating an argument that God simply does not exist. It is always an option for a God who has not been "proved" to exist. I think it a preferable option as well since it deals with the potential unpleasant thoughts that would be included in knowingly rejecting a living God.

 

It's a little more than that. The Tao that can be described is not the Tao. The god that can be described is not God.

 

The Bible says that God is love. Love is a rather complex and dynamic force. Is this really understanding God enough to define him or one that shows his complexity and adds to his mystery?

 

The bible can be proven wrong on most of its claims. It would have gotten more right if the authors were guessing.

Besides, we already have a word to describe that emotion. Calling it God would be pointless.

 

Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is unconditional love and we all have the capacity for it. But that's not a definition. That is just being. When you can just be, then you'll "know" God.

 

1: Jesus predicted that the end of the world would occur within his generation. Mark 13:30 and it never happened. So Jesus cannot be God.

2: Science -
Matter cannot be destroyed or created therfore it must have allways existed and must be infinite in nature. So why would we need a God to create something that cannot be created?

3: Contradictions -

The Christian God is supposed to be loving and all-powerful and yet bad things still happen.
He refuses to give "DIRECT" evidence to his existence and lets us continue to disagree about his nature and risking our souls to the torment of eternity because he wants us to act of "Faith"? Why would "Faith" be so important to him? The answer is that he is not real because a real god does not need faith to make us believe in him.