Catholicism, at least, has repudiated that last part since Vatican II (mid-1960s).
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke — ‘Two possibilities exist: either there is a God, or not. Both are equally terrifying.’
Lack of evidence mostly. Also the nastiness of many religious people (starting with my SIL, an unreconstructed Catholic and highly judgmental woman, whom I could not stand.
I would like to point out though, that until Darwin it was hard not to believe in a creator. I think the evangelicals perceive this and that is why they fight evolution so fiercely. Until the true origin of life–no matter how primitive–can be explained, there will still be a problem. We believe it is possible by natural means, but we don’t know this.
But also a lot of stress and anxiety.
If you’re gay, being a believer can wrack you with constant shame and guilt. If you’ve been sexually abused, being a believer can further traumatize you by making you feel sinful, unpure, and unworthy.
If you have a close loved one who is an atheist, being a believer can make you spend stupid amounts of time worrying about their fate in the afterlife. If you find yourself having doubts or committing inconsequential offenses that constitutes sin in the eyes of The LORD, being a believer can make you spend stupid amounts of time worrying about your fate in the afterlife.
I would rather much deal with the uncomfortable uncertainties of life than any of the psychological tolls inflicted by belief in a judgemental deity.
That’s yet another reasons. Religions say position X is absolutely true and divinely justified, then a hundred years later after a vote or a dream they say that position ~X is true and divinely inspired.
Mr. Dooley said that the Supreme Court follows the election returns - so does God, apparently.
Yeah, think of all those poor bastards frying in hell because they ate meat on Friday back when it was a sin. Hehe. The joke’s on them, I guess. :smack:
Catholics with their no meat on Fridays and indulgences, and Mormons with their polygamy and no black clergy are something that makes it very hard for me to take either one seriously. Supposedly these things came direct from the infinite, eternal, all-knowing God at one point - and then one day he just up and changed his mind when sticking to those commandments was causing trouble for the church. Why was meat on Friday a sin one day, then one day not, or blacks tainted by the mark of Cain, then one day not? There’s no way to explain that that is consistent with the God they portray.
So many good answers. I’ll just say that my biggest hurdle to faith was finding out that every human culture ever described has beliefs, rituals and behavior that can be called “religious”, and that those religions have a few universals - food-, violence- and sex-related taboos, for example, or a sense of connection with something larger than oneself - but the details of beliefs vary greatly, from pantheism to Zen Buddhism. The arguments for the existence of Yahweh equally apply to Thor, Astarte, and Quetzalcoatl. That suggested to me that religion is a construct that arises out of human minds. When I later found an evolutionary biological explanation that showed how religion arises out of our pattern- and agency-detection modules, and that having an overactive agency detector is less evolutionarily expensive than having an underactive one, that was the final nail in the coffin.
I think religion is very important, and a significant part of human nature, as well as almost endlessly fascinating; but I have no real doubt that it’s a human creation.
Shaw’s hell had people freely moving back and forth from heaven. I can see a hell where every so often they take some people out and send them to heaven because their sin is no longer a sin, and get people from heaven who did things like slaughter the heathen for the love of Jesus, which is no longer Kosher.
My mother had a book called Heavenly Discourses from early in the last century. Ingersoll was in heaven, of course. When Billy Sunday died he was sent to monkey heaven, until the monkeys objected because he was too loud and crazy.
Satirical hell makes more sense than religious hell.
I see someone’s never been to the Bible Belt.
All the good answers have been taken.
But I’ll throw out this. I don’t have an emotional need for any religion. It was easier for me to believe when I was younger, back when I was a big ole worrywart. As a kid, I was always needing assurances that everything was going to work out. So I took solace in the idea that disappointments were spiritual lessons designed to teach me something profound and that some supernatural entity was out there to keep me from falling too hard.
But as I got older, I stopped worrying so much, mainly because I began to experience the minor and not-so-minor crises of adulthood. I realized I can solve problems with my intellect. I am strong enough to rescue myself. I am NOT helpless. Prayer may provide temporary relief from stress, but so does exercise and a warm bath.
I also realized that turning to people is much more efficacious than beseeching invisible entities for help.
I can’t get with a religion that preaches human weakness and helplessness in one breath and “free will” in another. It kinda-sorta made sense when I actually was weak and helpless. But it’s nonsense now.
The bigotry and sexism some of the major ones seem to exude.
Don’t you have it backwards? You have to have reasons to believe. Not-believing is the default. Why don’t you believe in magical pink unicorns that fly about the universe, or that the TARDIS actually exists?
Even if there were no belief issues at hand, and we were just discussing what charities to divert our excess income to, I wouldn’t support a single religious-based organization because they all promote intolerance and hatred of various people based on extremely superficial characteristics.
I have to admit I’ve never understood the arguments that are essentially boil down “I don’t believe in God because he’s such an asshole.” I can see somebody rejecting God and refusing to worship God on that basis, but refusing to believe in him? Hitler is generally regarded as a terrible person and that’s a good reason to not be a Nazi. But saying you refuse to believe in Hitler is delusional. His horrible deeds didn’t somehow cancel out his existence. And the same argument applies to God. There’s nothing that says God can’t exist and be a narcissistic sadist.
And if you do believe God is a fictional character, how can you be mad at him? His non-existence cancels out all his flaws. A non-existent God never demanded any worship or issued any commandments or caused any natural disasters or murdered any puppies.
In theory, yes. But in reality, most of the people who are on this message board grew up in a society where belief in a Judeo-Christian God was the default assumption. So we had to make a conscious decision to reject that belief at some point.
This the reason why when you ask people here why they are atheists, they tend to explain why they’re not Christians instead of explaining why they’re not Buddhists or Hindus or Taoists.
I think I was around 4 when I did that. Along with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Well, we have pictures and video and people who met Hitler, and presumably we even have remains, so it’s kind of hard to not believe he didn’t exist.
If you DID believe in God, why would you “worship” it? That’s one of the most bizarre things about religion. It’s some weird non-human thing doing stuff to people’s lives. The typical human reaction to such a situation is to try to kill it, not worship it. If a non-human tries to eat our children, we go out with flame-throwers and shotguns.
I think you missed my point. “I’ve never seen evidence that God exists” is a valid reason to not believe in God. “God is immoral” is not a valid reason to not believe in God. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.
As for your other question, if I believed there was an all-powerful all-knowing being who was capable of causing me infinite suffering if I disobeyed one of his laws, I’d almost certainly obey his laws. Heck, this being could get me to obey most laws just by threatening to kill me.
Now, if I thought we could kill this all-powerful all-knowing being, I’d consider joining the resistance. But “all-powerful” and “all-knowing” seems like an impossible combination to fight.
What better form of rejection could there be? “I reject your very existence! Take that, ya bum!”
(I agree there is an element of doublethink here… It happens… I have a friend who is furious at God for not existing. He knows it’s stupid, but it’s just how he feels.)
There is a slightly better case in logic: “If there were a God, he would be perfect in all ways. The God of the Bible falls short of perfection. Therefore, the God of the Bible is not ‘God.’”
Because the only reason to* believe in* God is wish fulfillment fantasy; it’s two sides of the same coin. People use that kind of argument in religious discussions all the time on both sides.
The arguments work because it’s all about emotion in the first place. What’s that old line? “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” Nobody reasons themselves into being religious.
Actually it’s not all that rare for people to become outright enraged at fictional characters. Even ones openly acknowledged as fictional. Sometimes to the point of murder/torture/genocide fantasies.