To think that God doesn't exist and is a manmade concept

[Perimama]

As it is taboo to talk religion politics with people socially, I often wonder whether many people think like me. As a species we have dismissed all the other "Gods" ie Greek gods etc. What makes the Christian God any different? I wasn't born into a religious household although I was baptized Christian. The whole concept seems so unbelievable to me.

Living with gods by neil macgregor is an interesting read and talks about a lot of this. The Bible by Karen Armstrong is another good one examining the history of what we know as the Bible.

Have just bought this - my liberal views are at odds with my ( previous) church

I wish I still believed! I used to think I'd see my cats again when I die and that various evil people eg Jimmy Savile would finally face punishment.

But I have become disillusioned with the whole thing now I'm in my 40s. I highly doubt that I would have been religious if it hadn't been for my mother teaching me all of this stuff at a young age.

Where was god on October 7th?

Where are they now while thousands of children are pulverised in Gaza?

your loving, miracle working, all forgiving God. Standing by while innocents are raped, multilated and dying from bombs and bullets and starvation.

Why doesn’t he answer their prayers? Work a miracle for them?

There is your proof that god does not exist.

@Guesswho88

"why does almost everyone (whether they believe in God or not) think that God should automatically be good?"

The whole concept of God as an all knowing, all powerful entity would be little comfort to human kind if it was evil. The point of faith is to take away confusion, fear and to an extent decision making. Humans find comfort in "God" and evil doesn't give much comfort. That's my take on it anyway.

I used, due to my mother's teaching, that I was special and one of God's chosen people. Now I know that I'm just one of 6 billion folk and when I die, I will rot in the ground just like everyone else.

@eardefender
How on earth could you know this? seriously? do you have time to scrutinize them all? really"

Of course not. But I have been interested in this subject for a very long time. And I haven't heard of a single miracle or answered prayer that stood more than a moment's scrutiny. Obviously I can't prove a negative but.....

And apparently its "God's plan".

One thing is certain, prayer is nonsense. Two decent, loving couples, each with a sick child, both pray, one child dies and the other lives. If the (desperate) response to the child who dies is "its God's plan" (thus ignoring the unconscionable thought of God preferring one child over the other), that would make prayer pointless as it's going to happen anyway. On the other hand, if prayer was actually effective it would mean God picks and chooses who gets help, so preferential treatment, the very antithesis of God's teaching.

So it's either ineffective and pointless, or its effective and biased...or, there's just no divine intervention at all and it's all just the luck of the draw (ie. one child's illness was easier to treat than the other, hence one survived).

If there is a God (and tbh I'd like to think there is), there most certainly is no divine intervention.

Anyone who believes in a God cannot think there is given the appalling things that happen. No decent, loving entity would stand idly by.

If all of the terrible, awful things happening in the world right now are ‘God’s plan’ then that’s not something I want any involvement in.

I'm an agnostic. I cannot prove God exists. Equally I cannot prove he doesn't.

If he does exist I suspect he got bored of his little project and binned us all off to do something more interesting. It's the only way I can fathom the existence of such appalling suffering in the world. Either that or he's an evil God masquerading (badly) as the 'loving' father.

I have seen things no compassionate God would permit. And if he does, that's not a God I ever want to worship

The onus is on those who claim there is a god, or gods, to provide evidence.

@eardefender
You can 'get' marriage because of the church, not 'in spite of it'. (Interesting use of words there). Marriage is a religious institution and a good example of how even secular people are still living in a religious way

Thankfully marriage in the U.K. is NOT a religious institution anymore. People may choose to have a religious marriage ceremony but they may also choose a civil ceremony. I got married purely for legal reasons. It had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

The link between morals and religion is interesting but I'm not sure that morals evolved due to the belief of the presence of the God/Gods or more because of the necessity of societies to have some moral framework in order to function.

Also the 'morals' of many religion are still painfully backward.

Church of England does not allow same sex marriage
The Catholic Church still bans the use of birth control
Other religions around the world still believe in things such as corporal punishment (sometimes including the death penalty) for 'moral crimes' such as being gay or sex outside of marriage, leaving your religion, or even just wearing the wrong clothes. Then we have practices such as female (and male) genital mutilation of children, child 'marriage' and religious and racial persecution.

Previous posters suggest we all get our morals from religion but I'm not sure I'd want to.

@JimJonesLivesInMyHead "I'm an agnostic. I cannot prove God exists. Equally I cannot prove he doesn't."

Well, technically, one can't be an atheist, only an agnostic. Even RichardDawkins says he is agnostic. Personally, I am agnostic about God in the same way I am agnostic about the sun rising in the east tomorrow. It may not. But it's going to.

God can exist despite all that stuff- they're not necessarily particularly nice.

Just because you think the argument for the existence of god is compelling, doesn't make not believing in god extraordinary.

It's much less extraordinary than believing that one specific god is the one true god and that all the others are fake.

It's been explained why, it's how our brains work and a feature of consciousness. We collaborate, that was selected for in evolution.
The ridiculous misunderstandings of evolution as if being the strongest is the only trait, read some Darwin! Every single behaviour over thousands of years interplays, we now can read dna and make predictions using this. We even fix genetic disorders in unborn children using virus with new programmed dna / rna in the splice method. There is no way anyone can say evolution doesn't apply to humans.
Then arguing with Erroll, an actual physicist, about matter as if their position has any weight.

Hi: I think you’ve tagged the wrong person here, as I didn’t say that.

( I'm a chemist not a physicist, @Boomboom22 ... should I be flattered or insulted?)

The notion that marriage is a religious institution seems quite historically and culturally blinkered. Civil marriages have been legal in England and wales since 1836, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) there never was a requirement for religion to be involved in Scotland.

I hope you don't mind me joining your discussion. About miracles ...

(The story so far (times, yesterday 8/12/23) ...)
eardefender (18:03): "There are so many miracles, ... etc etc."

CurlewKate (18:07): "As far as I am aware, none that stand scrutiny. I am obviously ready to be proved wrong."

eardefender (18:10): "How on earth could you know this? seriously? do you have time to scrutinize them all? really ?"

CurlewKate (18:35): "Of course not. ... Obviously I can't prove a negative but....."

(Me, yoteyak, joining in:) This idea - that we can't prove a negative - is a bit of a canard, I think, CurlewKate. (Think of Euclid's proof (Elements Book IX, Proposition 20) that there is no largest prime number, for instance; there are lots of others.) In the case of miracles, the negative was proved, in fact, convincingly, by David Hume in the eighteenth century. (Many people think so, anyway.) ...

Thing is, eardefender, to answer your challenge, we might scrutinise all miracles without taking time to scrutinise each separately, by looking at the general nature of what a miracle is.

As I say, and like so much of this argument (and other arguments about theism and religion), this has already been done:

David Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) Section X:
... "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. ... There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle ..."

"A wise man," Hume asserts, "... proportions his belief to the evidence."
... And so, as he says, "... The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish" ... "

Do you understand Hume's argument, eardefender? He claims to offer "... a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle." (My emphasis added.) Where do you think he goes wrong?

[I recommend all Hume's 'Of Miracles' (Enquiry, Section X), both to those who wish to believe in miracles and to those who don't. Here's an online copy: David Hume, Of Miracles]

Imo moral codes don't come from god. They come from societies, that decide what is and is not acceptable.

Godless tribes still have moral codes.

This is a very interesting piece about a tribe without god. The missionary that wrote it converted to atheism after spending time there.

https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god%3E

I imagine most people don’t believe. It’s an outdated concept thought up to control the masses.
I know there are religious people but honestly I have always assumed they just like the fantasy of it. I never really think they genuinely believe in the story. To do so, they would have to pick and choose which bits to believe and live by as it’s quite the tall tale with some horrific concepts tied into it.

Can't tell if you're being intentionally antagonistic or genuinely believe that everyone must think the same way you do- which surely would be a bit hypocritical. I have complete faith in God and follow my faith in everything I do. It is important to me. However I do not assume everyone else has that same view for themselves, that's the beauty is that we all get to decide for ourselves whether we accept or disregard it. Unfortunately these threads often end up with a lot of defensiveness, sometimes snarkiness, from people who want to let everyone know exactly what they think of religion and suggest anyone who believes must be backward etc. Often they trot out bits of the Bible without any context or understanding but use it to make their point (funny enough rarely any other religious text but people seem to find it acceptable to openly mock Christianity over any other faith)
If that's your belief then that's your choice, but it doesn't mean you speak for all and sundry.

@Calamitousness sorry I meant to say not all of my comment was directed at you, only the first bit. Typed too hastily as distracted by my dogs, my apologies.

@namechangenanny "However I do not assume everyone else has that same view for themselves, that's the beauty is that we all get to decide for ourselves whether we accept or disregard it."

Obviously that is absolutely fine, and makes for interesting discussions. I love talking about this sort of stuff. My issue is with people who expect/accept special treatment, or particular respect for their beliefs. Or who, in a country like the UK claim persecution. Or who assume a position of moral superiority.