Jamie_L

Well, for starters, many detailed stories conflict with observed reality. From Christianity, such things as:

Talking animals.
People rising from the dead.
Parting seas.
A worldwide flood.
A 6000-year-old earth created "as-is"
The appearance of angels
God communicating directly to people on a regular basis

On a more general note, Christianity fails the reality test with things like:
The existence of widespread suffering
The existence of widespread non-belief
The clear appearance of an unguided natural world

Other religions likewise conflict with reality all over the place. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the world operates precisely as we would expect if there were a mindless, unguided, uncaring set of physical laws.

If there is no god, the way the universe works makes perfect sense. If one tries to superimpose a god/god(s) onto it, then one has to start making apologetics to explain the way the world works.

Jamie

Wiploc

- How about for instance, censuses where you had to leave home and go somewhere else to get counted?

- And the killing of all the firstborn males.

- The firm dome of the sky. The windows of heaven.

And in another category:

- An omnipotent god who can't defeat iron chariots.

- A just god who does eternal Hellfire.

- A wise and all-knowing god who wasn't smart enough to put the tree outside the garden, or to start us off with Solomon and Ruth rather than Adam and Eve.

- A god who can be seen but can't be seen.

- A benevolent god who allows suffering.

- Etc. etc. etc.
crc

Abacus

Someone would need to design and build a device for detecting gods, and then make public any data collected for critical examination by others, especially the scientific community. And, it must be documented and made public how the device works, so that others may build their own devices and perform their own observations or experiments independently. And it must be demonstrated unequivocably by all parties involved in these investiagtions, that gods exist. I would consider this compelling evidence.

Ensign Steve

Wiploc, I have never heard this. What do you mean by it? (maybe I don't know enough about solomon and ruth to get it) Thanks!

Jen

Wiploc

If god knew the future, then when he decided to start us off with Adam and Eve, he knew they would Fall, and he was deliberately starting us down the path to destruction. He could have used other people. God knew who would fall and who would not. He chose to have sin.

In the alternative, maybe anybody would have sinned, no matter who god chose. In that case, we're looking at a design defect. God designed us to necessarily sin.

Either god should have chosen people who wouldn't sin, or he should admit that he made us unable to avoid sin --- sin is not our fault.

crc

Bathrone

Man invented the superstition of God(s) in response to the human condition, to fullfill emotional needs.

Ensign Steve

Wiploc, that makes sense. I figured that's what you were getting at, but I didn't get the Ruth and Solomon connection. I know Solomon was a wise and great king, but wasn't Ruth some sort of prostitute or adultress or something? Or do I have her mixed up with somebody else? Not that I personally find anything wrong with prostitution, but I think the judeo-christian god considers it sinful. I obviously have the wrong idea about Ruth. Maybe I'm thinking of Esther? Need to review my OT!

ElectEngr

It's the last great superstition of the caveman!

Also for the same reasons I don't belive in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy (to the tune of $2,500 for new dentures - bad genetics and bad dental hygene).

Later
ElectEngr

braces_for_impact

My main reson for unbelief in god? Simple. If a god were real and he were benevolent, then all the good tasting foods wouldn't be lousy for you. I will never be able to forgive him for that!

darkfrog

As a student of philosophy there is no greater question to be asked than, "Is there anyone out there."

We all know this as an age-old question that will probably never be answered to the satisfaction of all. However, I believe logic dictates several concepts that give us a general foundation of understanding for which to base all further understanding on.

I would say the first real statement that must be agreed upon is one of Descarte's famous quotes, "There can be nothing in the effect that isn't first in the cause." Now, I think that is a generally accepted notion, but is there anyone that disagrees with this?

I am simply making a statement of cause and effect. Rationally there can be nothing more in the effect than is in the cause.

In order to maintain the integrity of this discussion I would like to wait for response in agreement or disagreement before continuing. Please feel free to correct any logical mistakes you believe me to have made thus far.

-darkfrog