Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike Carmichael · 08-12-2002, 05:19 PM

Why don�t I in believe in God? Do you know what you are asking? No, I suspected as much. When you ask, � why don�t you believe in God?�, what you are really asking is one or two questions, and maybe both at the same time:

� Why don�t you believe in my god?�

�Why don�t you believe in the christian god?�

Take the first question, and apply it to yourself, and put into the subject matter, any and all gods that humans have, or have had.

When you understand why you reject all of the others, you will have a beginning idea of why I, and others, reject the notion of that one you believe in.

Take the second question, and apply the same reasoning to it. Tell me why the answer would be different if you were a Hindu, a Moslem, a Druid, or A Worshiper of Spot, the Cat.

Now that you understand the question, I�ll give you my answer:

Because the evidence is against it.

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

Cosym · 08-13-2002, 12:26 AM

There is no reason WHY I don't believe in God. You sem to have it backwards: people need a reason TO believe something. If I am ever convinced to believe in god, it will be for a reason. But so far, I have not encountered a reason to justify a belief, so I don't have one. End of story.

---The best book I can suggest to answer your question is "Atheism, The Case Against God", by George K. Smith---

Goodness: George H. Smith has a brother who wrote a book with the same title as George H. Smith's famous "Atheism, The Case Against God"?

Heathen Dawn · 08-13-2002, 10:03 AM

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. More belief than that is too great a strain. I prefer not to believe, but to revel in what the senses can perceive.

Whatever do you need God for when you have Nature? Nature is real, here and now, towering before us all, the great creative collection of forces which is worthy of all worship.

Natura est Dea et felicitas mea.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke · 08-13-2002, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SUTG:
<strong>KindBud -- What make you think there is no reason to believe in God? That is my question.

MadKelly -- I am asking why you think God is a childhood myth.

phlebas -- Does your reason for neot believing in God depend on whether I believe in Apollo or Zeus?</strong>

SUTG, you obviously haven't paid the least attention to what you've read. Your misunderstanding of phlebas is particularly glaring. If you can address the substance of what is said to you instead of merely brushing it aside, I'll be happy to continue the discussion.

Doubting Didymus · 08-13-2002, 05:15 PM

Um, this should be obvious, but SUTG gave up on the first page, and has probably not been back to read any of the responses any of us have posted past that point.

Much as we would like theists to stick around and support their statements, we can rarely get around the big red 'ignore everything' button that so many theists are lucky enough to be equipped with. We are wasting our time, and should be talking to those theists who do stick around, and are at least a little bit open to discussions.

Ted Hoffman · 08-15-2002, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Phlebas

Quote:

I'm saying that your reasons for not believing in Apollo or Zeus are the same as mine for not believing in God.

I think this is a weak argument. Largely because it employs a false analogy:

1. The Bible heavily uses actual places and actual people like in the OT, the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and in The NT we have people like Pontius Pilate who was mentioned by the Roman Historian Tacitus, it talks of Roman rule over the Israelites, which was a historical event, thus, the christians peddle the bible stories as history. (whether or not we agree that they are history is a totally different matter).
In contrast, the Greek mythologies dont have such a strong enmeshment with historical elements.

2. The story of Apollos with his father Zeus are universally studied under Greek mythology, NOT Greek history. This suggests their already established status as MYTHS.

3. The historicity of many biblical characters is commonly accepted among biblical and history scholars UNLIKE that of the Olympian deities.

So I would suggest anyone attempting to argue their reasons for NOT beleiving in God, come up with more tenable reasons.

Allow me to indulge myself and state that Dr. S's response was very succinct:

Quote:

To answer the question with a question--What god are you talking about? There are no gods around here to believe in or not.
There is only your story that there is a god. If the question is why don't we believe your story when you tell it the answer is you haven't presented any gods. Not only you but everyone else that tells the same story has no way of backing it up with any evidence.

Simply beautiful.
Its only a story!

Mageth · 08-15-2002, 07:40 AM

Intensity:

Your argument may persuade me to believe in historical Jews and Jewish history. Why should it persuade me to believe in the Jewish God?

There is, I assume, even more historical documentation of Greek and Roman history. Should that persuade me to believe in their gods?

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

DigitalDruid · 08-15-2002, 08:32 AM

My thoughts on Intensity's reply to Phlebas:

>>> 1.The Bible heavily uses actual places and actual people like in the OT .......In contrast, the Greek mythologies dont have such a strong enmeshment with historical elements.

This ditinction is surface-level. May I point out the genre of "historical fiction", where most of the people and the places are historical, but most of the events are not? Do the "strong historical enmeshment" make these books accounts of history? I think it was essential for a new sect (christianity) to project "historical realism" in order to find acceptance.

>>>2. The story of Apollos with his father Zeus are universally studied under Greek mythology, NOT Greek history. This suggests their already established status as MYTHS.

Spurious distinction. Why is it that the genesis account of creation is included in multiple reference books on world-mythologies in my public libraray?

>>>3. The historicity of many biblical characters is commonly accepted among biblical and history scholars UNLIKE that of the Olympian deities.

Irrelevant and possibly sprious distinction. Of course the christian apologetic "scolars" accept evrything in the bible as true. If you already accept the bible it is easy to accept "many" characters as historical.

But the vast amount of un-biased literature on the origin and veracity of the bible say just the opposite. For example, for a very well-researched account of the social forces shaping the christian myth of the bible read "The Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack.

Ted Hoffman · 08-16-2002, 04:46 AM

Mageth,

Quote:

Your argument may persuade me to believe in historical Jews and Jewish history. Why should it persuade me to believe in the Jewish God?

It shouldnt.

Quote:

There is, I assume, even more historical documentation of Greek and Roman history. Should that persuade me to believe in their gods?

It shouldnt.

But I hope you realize the weakness of the argument you made in trying to Juxtapose Greek Mythology and the Jewish historical narratives that have been colored by myth.

DigitalDruid

Quote:

This ditinction is surface-level. May I point out the genre of "historical fiction", where most of the people and the places are historical, but most of the events are not? Do the "strong historical enmeshment" make these books accounts of history?

The books are not historical accounts but they have historical elements. Greek mythology has none.

Quote:

I think it was essential for a new sect (christianity) to project "historical realism" in order to find acceptance.

This is true, but it doesnt change the fact that the sect has lots of historical elements enmeshed in the web of myth.

Quote:

Spurious distinction. Why is it that the genesis account of creation is included in multiple reference books on world-mythologies in my public libraray?

Thats because Genesis is obviously mythical. Is Roman rule over Jews Mythical?

Quote:

Irrelevant and possibly sprious distinction. Of course the christian apologetic "scolars" accept evrything in the bible as true. If you already accept the bible it is easy to accept "many" characters as historical.

I dont accept the bible as factual, but I realize it has historical events and it talks of actual places, even though its more than 80% myth.

Quote:

But the vast amount of un-biased literature on the origin and veracity of the bible say just the opposite

You, sir, are preaching to the choir. For the record, I am a jesus myther.

Kantian · 08-16-2002, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Intensity: The books are not historical accounts but they have historical elements. Greek mythology has none.

What does this mean to you?

Quote:

At the area commonly thought of as the site of the city of Troy there is not one city, but several over laid cities. When one city would fall, a new one would be paved right over the top of the old one. Troy VII is the level most associated with the Iliad, and Trojan War. Troy VII is dated 1275-1240 B.C. by Blegen (a very respectful archaeologist in his own right), but this city may in fact have began as early as 1325 B.C. and lasted untill 1190 B.C., the idea of a city of that size of Troy VII having only taken 35 years from founding till it reached its size is simply foolish. Nylander (a world renowned archaeologist) has debated that the date of the cities destruction is as low as 1200-1190 B.C. based on the Mycenaean goods which were imported during its existence. If people agree with Blegen, D�rpfeld, Schliemann, and many others, then the area now refered to as Hissarlik is the site of Homeric Troy. If people think of the Trojan War of Greek myth as being real, then Troy VII is the candidate for the fortress/city of King Priam. Later than Homer's epic though numerous Greeks placed the Trojan War at different date, for example: 1184 B.C. was decided upon by Eratosthenes, 1209. Or 1208 B.C. was used by the Parian Marble, 1250 B.C. was the date selected by Herodotus, and 1334 or 1333 B.C. was the choice of Douris. The hastey state of Troy VII suggests that it was destroyed in a large conflict, which destroyed the buildings out side the citadel as well as those within it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2002, 05:19 PM	#71
Mike Carmichael Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Sowega Posts: 10	Why don�t I in believe in God? Do you know what you are asking? No, I suspected as much. When you ask, � why don�t you believe in God?�, what you are really asking is one or two questions, and maybe both at the same time: � Why don�t you believe in my god?� �Why don�t you believe in the christian god?� Take the first question, and apply it to yourself, and put into the subject matter, any and all gods that humans have, or have had. When you understand why you reject all of the others, you will have a beginning idea of why I, and others, reject the notion of that one you believe in. Take the second question, and apply the same reasoning to it. Tell me why the answer would be different if you were a Hindu, a Moslem, a Druid, or A Worshiper of Spot, the Cat. Now that you understand the question, I�ll give you my answer: Because the evidence is against it. Thinking Freely, Mike Carmichael

08-13-2002, 12:26 AM	#72
Cosym Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York Posts: 22	There is no reason WHY I don't believe in God. You sem to have it backwards: people need a reason TO believe something. If I am ever convinced to believe in god, it will be for a reason. But so far, I have not encountered a reason to justify a belief, so I don't have one. End of story. ---The best book I can suggest to answer your question is "Atheism, The Case Against God", by George K. Smith--- Goodness: George H. Smith has a brother who wrote a book with the same title as George H. Smith's famous "Atheism, The Case Against God"?

08-13-2002, 10:03 AM	#73
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. More belief than that is too great a strain. I prefer not to believe, but to revel in what the senses can perceive. Whatever do you need God for when you have Nature? Nature is real, here and now, towering before us all, the great creative collection of forces which is worthy of all worship. Natura est Dea et felicitas mea. [ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>

08-13-2002, 05:15 PM	#75
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Um, this should be obvious, but SUTG gave up on the first page, and has probably not been back to read any of the responses any of us have posted past that point. Much as we would like theists to stick around and support their statements, we can rarely get around the big red 'ignore everything' button that so many theists are lucky enough to be equipped with. We are wasting our time, and should be talking to those theists who do stick around, and are at least a little bit open to discussions.

08-15-2002, 07:40 AM	#77
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Intensity: Your argument may persuade me to believe in historical Jews and Jewish history. Why should it persuade me to believe in the Jewish God? There is, I assume, even more historical documentation of Greek and Roman history. Should that persuade me to believe in their gods? [ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

08-15-2002, 08:32 AM	#78
DigitalDruid Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 712	My thoughts on Intensity's reply to Phlebas: >>> 1.The Bible heavily uses actual places and actual people like in the OT .......In contrast, the Greek mythologies dont have such a strong enmeshment with historical elements. This ditinction is surface-level. May I point out the genre of "historical fiction", where most of the people and the places are historical, but most of the events are not? Do the "strong historical enmeshment" make these books accounts of history? I think it was essential for a new sect (christianity) to project "historical realism" in order to find acceptance. >>>2. The story of Apollos with his father Zeus are universally studied under Greek mythology, NOT Greek history. This suggests their already established status as MYTHS. Spurious distinction. Why is it that the genesis account of creation is included in multiple reference books on world-mythologies in my public libraray? >>>3. The historicity of many biblical characters is commonly accepted among biblical and history scholars UNLIKE that of the Olympian deities. Irrelevant and possibly sprious distinction. Of course the christian apologetic "scolars" accept evrything in the bible as true. If you already accept the bible it is easy to accept "many" characters as historical. But the vast amount of un-biased literature on the origin and veracity of the bible say just the opposite. For example, for a very well-researched account of the social forces shaping the christian myth of the bible read "The Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.