my reasons

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to share some reasons I believe I'm an atheist.

I remember being 10 years old in sunday school. For whatever reason, I was in individual study with a woman, Carol Ann Mulkern. She said that everything we have is thanks to god. I tried thinking of an example of something god didn't make. "TV" I said. She told me that god had to give someone the idea to invent the TV. I think that was the initial spark for me. I thought, "can't people take credit for their own actions and thoughts?"

Some other time, about a year prior, I was walking home from sunday school and someone flicked a lit cigarette butt in my eye.

When I was young, we were pretty poor. My mother used to say that she believed god would one day see his way to letting us get a house. We always lived in apartments and public housing projects. In fact, my mother put me/us into foster care. I spent from 12 to 21 in care. My sisters only spent a year or two and went back to live with my mother.

I heard about the story of Job and his suffering based solely on a wager with the devil. I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain who hears or reads that story is that god, if he exists is a sick, twisted mofo not worthy of anyone's devotion or benediction.

that's all.

Are you aware Job felt much differently about all of that?

The problem here is the presence of what I call "Santa Claus Theology" having been taught to us when we were young ... and now that kind of stuff just cannot possibly square with reality.

I know. He refused to curse god's name and as such, god won the bet. Still pretty sick though.

I don't read Job as a wager. The way I break it down, Satan is going "to and fro" in the world doing whatever it is Satan does. God asks, "have you considered my servant Job?" The point, as I see it, is "While you've been tempting and afflicting others, is there a reason why you've left Job alone?" When it comes to suffering, being righteous is not an umbrella that makes you untouchable. Spiritual tests can come at any time for any reason, whether we understand those reasons/tests or not.

I read Satan's response as "Well, you haven't allowed me to touch him. Allow him to suffer like other people and he'll fall like other people."

And thus God gives the go-ahead for Job's trials. Something that I find particularly striking in the trials themselves is with the death of Job's children. Job insisted on "family reunions" for the purpose of checking up on his kids and making sure they worshiped God exclusively and remain under His protection. What I've always wondered is what they did the rest of the year that Job felt it so necessary to keep them under his thumb. The scripture hints that they may have been worshiping other gods and deserving of God's wrath. Now, since God is all-powerful, He can bring about His will even through evil actions or calamity (see story of Joseph in Genesis). It could be God is tacitly saying, "oh, and by the way, go ahead and take out Job's kids. They've been pissing me off long enough as it is." While the fate of Job's children does affect Job--as it would any good parent--it was their fault rather than Job's fault (obviously) or Satan's fault that they were destroyed. Therefore, Job's suffering in the fate of his children was circumstantial

That reveals one source of suffering in the world which is actually an indirect result of God's intervention and serves as evidence that God does exist. When God punishes one of us, we all suffer in some way because of our connection to each other. Let's just say, for example, my wife went on a murderous rampage and stabbed her co-worker to death. When she's sent to jail for life or the death chamber, I'll lose my wife and her children will lose their mother. The offense wasn't directed towards me or my children. And because I love my wife and my children love their mother, her actions which were not towards us do affect us because those actions led to her being taken away from us. If we didn't care, it wouldn't hurt us. But we DO care, just as human beings in general care about each other. If we DIDN'T suffer, I think that in part would make us less human and in some ways more miserable than we were in the first place (ironically enough).

So if Job's children are idolators, it comes as no surprise that God brought about His divine vengeance through the means of Satanic activity. Job can't be faulted for this because Job was trying to save them from destruction, and you can't fault parents for the actions of their children (and vice versa). Job's suffering is the indirect result of his children's sin because he loved his children.

Using that as a model, you can likewise view the remainder of Job's suffering in similar ways. Sooner or later, the sins of our neighbors reach our boundaries.

Also consider the results of Job's trials. Trials serve to strengthen the resolve of believers and mature their faith. Job had a deep concern for his own righteousness. He essentially tells his friends, "but I've done nothing wrong. I don't understand why this has happened." Job passes the "test," but he also learns an important lesson and came away with something he didn't have before--an understanding that God's reasons are His own. It could be that Job living out this lesson was the means through which God restored so much to Job. It also shows that God does listen to the prayers of those who suffer, whether God is the cause of suffering or whether suffering is the indirect result of someone else's actions.

I don't think the problem of suffering, especially with Job, is the result of some supernatural bully. God gave us the world and the freedom to act as we please. Along with that freedom is the risk to ourselves that we may act irresponsibly towards God and towards each other. Nevertheless, that freedom still exists. What's ironic about MasterJedi's reason in relation to Job is that while God is viewed as a bully, people in various nations around the world who have fought for independence and the freedom of their people are called "revolutionaries." We revere those who have fought for independence while we revile God who gave us that independence in the first place. If God is such a bully, why give us the freedom to reject Him?

Also, I agree with leejosepho 100% on "Santa Claus Theology." God will bless who He blesses and curse those He curses. I personally think God wants us to understand all that He does, but at the same time God cannot act if He is restricted to our understanding or refusal to do so. I think that gives God the appearance of being a bully. But on the other hand, if a soldier's actions are always contingent on understanding the reasons behind a commanding officer's orders, it's quite possible he will have a significantly reduced chance of survival in the field. A commanding officer is responsible for completing a mission and the survival of his men. We only have ourselves to blame when we place demands on God. There are unfortunately a large number of preachers who say "if you have this much faith/tithe this much/pray this much" you'll get the big houses and the big cars and enough money you'll never have to work again. Consider if that DID square with reality, it would completely ruin the economy. Living in the kind of world we've created for ourselves according to what WE want, there does necessarily have to be "winners" and "losers." Right now, I and my family happen to be losers.

If, though, we were all equally winners, the economy would be completely destroyed. That's a good thing in the sense that it would eliminate any need for a means of exchange. You want something? Simply ask. Someone comes to you with a need? Simply give. That may border on "Santa Claus" theology, but it's guaranteed to work if EVERYONE bought into it. We just don't live in that kind of world.

I have had my own past struggles with the story of Job, but at least one thing I see there is this:

Yahuah ultimately restored Job's life ten-fold, and our true adversary actually has nothing but "smoke and mirrors" (illusion) to offer.

anyway, those are my reasons.

How about reason number 1: there is no invisible superbeing in the sky and no sane reason to give credence to claims otherwise. It's Santa Claus for adults...except they never find out "he" isn't real because they're too dense.

Funny - why on earth would anyone need a reason to DISBELIEVE in God?

I do not need a reason to disbelieve in Binker, or perpetual motion, or flying saucers fueled by green cheese.

I need reasons to believe - in Australia, in the earth goiing around the sun, in quarks.

Evidence, please.

you guys are confusing me. Suddenly up is down...

That's not how evidence works. You give evidence to prove that something exists. You cannot prove, with evidence, a negative; only disprove evidence that is claiming a positive.

And if you don't get that...well, the churches have another sucker to leach off of and fill with their poison.

There is no evidence we have at hand proving there is an invisible superbeing in the sky. In fact if sucha superbeing existed we could not prove it because it is invisible. The superbeing lives right next door to Santa Clause.

ruveyn

That is no religion's concept of God.

It is your eyes - the lenses produce an upside down image.

Anyway - in THIS case you can legitimately say "you guys" and include me, since it appears it means your respondents not the MASS of your oppressors.

from now on, when I'm referring to you, I'll state your name. Paranoid much?

I was referring to other posts and how some of them seemed contradictory to their users.

You're the one who made the assertion, not me. So if you can't support what you said with evidence, why should we believe you? After all, consider how ruveyn responded to same: "we could not prove it because it is invisible." Your assertion "there is no invisible superbeing in the sky" isn't falsifiable, so in scientific terms it is not valid.

Further, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. About this time every year I get horrendous cravings for navel oranges and will compulsively seek them out. I can easily go through two or three pounds of oranges in a day, and I'm often confounded when I look for oranges in my home and cannot find them. By eliminating all food items, I can determine that in my house there are no oranges. Evidence suggests strongly that there are no oranges, and it is so until I myself or a member of my family can procure oranges for me. I get similar cravings for boiled peanuts. As I shell peanuts and return empty hulls to the bowl, I find an increasing empty hull to peanut ratio, making finding peanuts difficult. By getting rid of empty hulls I can determine whether I still have peanuts or not. Thus I CAN prove that my bowl is devoid of peanuts.

Hence proving a negative.

So...

Evidence, please.