Why do people NOT believe in God?

[pkm2232]

<p>I attended Catholic school for nine years and currently am a senior at a Quaker school. Basically, I don’t believe in God because a) I dislike the irrationality and disagreement that religion provides and b) don’t have any proof that God exists. Until recently, we didn’t have the means to explain a lot of worldly phenomena. Thus, a higher being seemed logical. however, as we learn more about the natural world, we need God to explain things less and less. Think about it, if your parents had never told you God existed, would you believe in him?</p>

<p>And now, a few unconnected, but relevant arguments:</p>

<p>I hate it when people see my atheism as being ridiculous, here’s something I found to express my views on this:</p>

<p>

Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted mankind as retribution for having fallen for a trick effected through the
agency of a TALKING SNAKE doesnt get to call other people’s belief “ridiculous”.

</p>

<p>Why would God have done so much from roughly 4000 BCE - 30 CE just to then stop having regular interaction with HIS people. </p>

<p>The Bible, supposedly a “holy book” written by those “inspired by God”, has a TON of BS in it. Namely:</p>

<p>

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. Deuteronomy 22:20-1

</p>

<p>

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. Leviticus 20:13

</p>

<p>

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.Romans 13:1

Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Kim Jong Il? all put there by God apparently.</p>

<p>

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21

</p>

<p>I could go on…</p>

<p>Another thing I hate is that people think there is no morality without religion. I have morality. I don’t have a natural urge to lie, kill, cheat, and steal. I’d say that there are many churchgoing people who engage in the types of behaviors I listed above.</p>

<p>I am equally disgusted by radical extremists and pedophile priests</p>

<p>If there is one God, why are there over 4200 religions? </p>

<p>Lastly,
If you think about how many gods you don’t believe in (Zeus, Thor, etc.), then you shouldn’t find it odd that I don’t believe in your god.</p>

<p>I really don’t mean to attack religion. You have just as much a right to practice your faith as I do to not practice. All I wanted to do was state my beliefs and answer your question, and I hope I have done that.</p>

<p>** I don’t feel like proofreading, so please excuse typos **</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

Sithis, do you even know what rationality is?
Nowhere did I say that everything irrational is also unnatural. The two characteristics are separate from each other. Suicide is both. You’ve found Russell–I congratulate you. Now can you find anything that proves suicide rational and natural?

Well, there are numerous interpretations of what rationality means specifically. Which are you using? Can you find anything that proves suicide irrational and unnatural? And I mean, using empirical evidence, not merely a logical proof written by a philosopher. Not that you have really presented such thus far; you have stated the claims of various philosophers more as summaries or conclusions without a well laid-out proof.</p>

<p>Your initial claim was this:

Humans’ will to live is so great that they will fight to live on in the face of ordeals.

I countered that people who commit suicide defy this idea, to which you respond that suicide is “irrational and contrary to nature.” I never argued that suicide is rational, that was someone else; still you have made the claim that it is irrational and thus must prove this claim. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by “contrary to nature.”</p>

<p>I don’t see how any of your following arguments support your initial claim. You did not specify “most humans when not being irrational”–your claim entails that humans <em>as a species</em> have the characteristic you described, without deviation.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

Basically, I don’t believe in God because a) I dislike the irrationality and disagreement that religion provides

</p>

<p>No offense, but this is kind of dumb. I too am not a fan of organized religion. I am also not sure whether or not God exists.</p>

<p>But to base your faith in God(s) or Goddess(es) on whether or not you like religion isn’t a great argument. Now, your second point is good. But this first point doesn’t make a whole lotta sense.</p>

[anon67455021]

<p>what have you created trufflie</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>A recreation of Science-Religion: Which one wins?</p>

[Custardapple101]

<p>^None because each one is perceived differently. It’s the faith that keeps religion and it’s the facts that keep science.</p>

[HarryJones]

<p>^He was talking about [the</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html]the”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html).</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

Well, there are numerous interpretations of what rationality means specifically.

That humans are capable of reasoning and application of that reasoning (Decartes).

Not that you have really presented such thus far; you have stated the claims of various philosophers more as summaries or conclusions without a well laid-out proof.

Not all proofs look like statement 1 statement 2 conclusion.
Consider this, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics:
“Consider the nonrational part. One part of it, i.e., the cause of nutrition and growth… For this part and this capactiy more than others seem to be active in sleep…sleep is the inactivity of the soul…In the continent and incontinent person we praise their reason, that is to say, the part of the soul that has reason, because it exhorts them correctly and toward what is best, but they evidently also have in them some other part that is something apart from reason, clashing and struggling with reason. Just as paralyzed parts of a body, when we decide to move them right, they move left, the same is true of the soul; for the incontinent people have impulses in contrary directions… the part [of the nonrational] with appetites and in general desires shares in reason in a way, insofar as it both listens to reason and obeys it. This is the way in which we are said to listen to reason. The nonrational part also obeys and is persuaded in some by reason, as is shown by correction, and by every every sort of reproof and exhortation. [the rational part] as well as the nonrational part will have two parts. One will reason fully, by having it within itself; the other will have reason by listening to reason…”</p>

<p>Hence, irrational acts can be prevented, and irrational thoughts eliminated. Or have we, as a society, not tried to prevent suicide? (here’s your empirical evidence). On a smaller level, Ellis’s REBT and Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy have both claimed successes in many clients.</p>

<p>Suicide is irrational and unnatural: </p>

<p>We sometimes refer to deaths as of natural causes. When we contract diseases (serious ones that don’t go away by themselves), we seek a physician. When we are hungry, we eat something to restore metabolistic stasis. Among necessary actions, to consider doing it and abstaining from it both rational would be absurd. When we hold our breaths underwater, why do we come back up if remaining underwater indefinitely (i.e., until death) is just as rational? </p>

<p>Ascetics do exist; however, their actions contradict what their bodies tell them, and they are very aware of this. Suicidals who do not wish to preserve their lives any longer may stay underwater; they may refuse to eat; they may refuse physicians. And yet, they prefer other, faster methods that are just as irrational. for murder is the unnatural, sooner than otherwise termination of another’s life, and no one disputes the wrong in murder. Suicide is the same. </p>

<p>The short answer is, defiance of rationality does not make the defiance itself rational.</p>

<p>Yes, all humans possess the capability to reason–even when committing irrational acts, for no human undertakes any action he does not believe to be advantageous to himself (Plato, Aristotle); instead, they justify the irrational future action in such a way so that it would appear rational to themselves (this is where dianetics creeps in, but I don’t know enough about it). They cannot do this without the capability to reason.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

Hence, irrational acts can be prevented, and irrational thoughts eliminated. Or have we, as a society, not tried to prevent suicide? (here’s your empirical evidence). On a smaller level, Ellis’s REBT and Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy have both claimed successes in many clients.

The fact that we attempt to disuade people from suicide does not entail that we do so because of reason.</p>

<p>

Among necessary actions, to consider doing it and abstaining from it both rational would be absurd.

Does this not depend upon the context of the action in question?</p>

<p>

When we hold our breaths underwater, why do we come back up if remaining underwater indefinitely (i.e., until death) is just as rational?

Respiratory acidosis triggers the autonomic nervous system to effect an appropriate response. It has nothing to do with reason/rationality.</p>

<p>Still, you have not proven your initial claim, and continue to disprove it with every new post. Even if suicide is irrational and unnatural, this does not mean that the claim that “Humans’ will to live is so great that they will fight to live on in the face of ordeals.” is true. I mean, what is your reasoning here?</p>

<p>“Humans are rational. Suicide is irrational and unnatural, therefore people who commit suicide are not humans, therefore the claim about the human will to live is still true.”
is the only thing I can even approximate, and this reasoning is obviously wrong in several ways.</p>

<p>I rest my case now.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

The fact that we attempt to disuade people from suicide does not entail that we do so because of reason.

My point was, if it were natural, the government wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. (Declaration of Independence, 1st amendment). What other reasons might we have? That we want them to live? Because living is in fact natural? You didn’t read the excerpt of Nicomachean Ethics above, did you?</p>

<p>

Does this not depend upon the context of the action in question?

Necessary actions must occur. But please, provide an example wherein both doing a necessary act and not doing it are equally rational. </p>

<p>

Respiratory acidosis triggers the autonomic nervous system to effect an appropriate response. It has nothing to do with reason/rationality.

So suicide via drowning is impossible then? </p>

<p>

“Humans are rational. Suicide is irrational and unnatural, therefore people who commit suicide are not humans, therefore the claim about the human will to live is still true.”

Straw man. A better approximation would be “Humans are rational, suicide is irrational and unnatural, therefore the human employing rationality would not commit suicide, therefore the will to live is rational.”

obviously wrong in several ways.

If they’re so obvious, gladly point them out. </p>

<p>

“Humans’ will to live is so great that they will fight to live on in the face of ordeals.”

If suicide is irrational and unnatural such that the rational human would never resort to it, then he has no intention of dying. Hence, he will do everything in his power to ensure his self-preservation, for there is no reason why he’d simply allow another to kill him when he could have done it himself.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>Sithis and antonioray = new Mifune and MosbyMarion</p>

<p>This cannot end well.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>i have no intention on prolonging this with sithis because I have better things to do, but all he’s said is that I have not proven my original claim (when it was not my own) without explaining how and in what ways.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

What other reasons might we have?

The emotional consequences of suicide; some might hold the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and needs to be preserved if at all possible.</p>

<p>I read the excerpt, even though I don’t like working with excerpts (that have presumably been edited, too); it seems to basically suggest that reason is superior to irrationality.</p>

<p>

Necessary actions must occur. But please, provide an example wherein both doing a necessary act and not doing it are equally rational

Imagine that I am dying of starvation, and am presented with a great feast, which is known to be coated with a substance toxic to my physiology–then what? It is certainly difficult to quantify the rationality of a specific action, though.</p>

<p>

So suicide via drowning is impossible then?

Perhaps not, but it is incredibly difficult. Usually it would require a heavy object to weigh the body down and thus counteract the reflexive response to respiratory acidosis. It would be a very mentally and physically gruelling way to die.</p>

<p>

“Humans are rational, suicide is irrational and unnatural, therefore the human employing rationality would not commit suicide, therefore the will to live is rational.”

Your claim (or rather Aristotle’s claim, which you apparently believe to be true because you presented it as “evidence” in response ot another poster) was not that the will to live is rational.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

some might hold the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and needs to be preserved if at all possible.

How did they decide it to be intrinsically valuable?

it seems to basically suggest that reason is superior to irrationality.

That and among other things, it also says that every part of the soul is rational.

Imagine that I am dying of starvation, and am presented with a great feast, which is known to be coated with a substance toxic to my physiology–then what?

This would be a false dichotomy, or at least one that can only exist in fantasy land. Alternative produce are almost always available (grass, leaves, berries from trees)</p>

<p>

Usually it would require a heavy object to weigh the body down and thus counteract the autonomic response to respiratory acidosis.

A la Virginia Wolfe? Do you know what justification she provided? Moreover, the mere fact that the autonomic response exists to preserve life proves that preservation of life is natural. </p>

<p>

was not that the will to live is rational.

No, you’re right: originally, it was not much of anything. To that, however, you responded with “tell that to people who commit suicide,” as if suicide provides the exception to the rightness of the will to live. It does–just not a rational one.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

How did they decide it to be intrinsically valuable?

Ask them.</p>

<p>

This would be a false dichotomy, or at least one that can only exist in fantasy land.

Nope. It would take a sick and twisted mind for such a situation to occur, but it is possible in the real world.</p>

<p>

the mere fact that the autonomic response exists to preserve life proves that preservation of life is natural.

I have not argued that it is not “natural.”</p>

<p>

To that, however, you responded with “tell that to people who commit suicide,” as if suicide provides the exception to the rightness of the will to live. It does–just not a rational one.

The “rightness?” I had no interest in the ethical implications of the will to live, suicide, etc. I meant it as an exception to the supposed fact that “The human will to live is so great,etc etc…” Whether it is rational or not is irrelevant.</p>

<p>

you’re right

That’s all I wanted to hear.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

Ask them.

I have not argued that it is not “natural.”

I had no interest in the ethical implications of the will to live,

Just a bunch of I don’t knows and that’s not what I’m saying’s, huh?
Very well.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>^Are you saying that I should argue with you on points that I do not care to argue about, for positions that I do not necessarily hold?</p>

[antonioray]

<p>No you shouldn’t, but you have. If you don’t wish to continue, I don’t either. In fact, I don’t either way.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>I have not; no where have I argued that humans have intrinsic value, that the preservation of life is unnatural, or that the will to live is “right” or “wrong,” but whatever, I think we are done here.</p>

[anon67455021]

<p><em>Sigh</em></p>

<p>[Internet</a> Debates | Cracked.com](<a href=“Cracked.com - America's Only Humor Site | Cracked.com”>Cracked.com - America's Only Humor Site | Cracked.com)</p>