# Why?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [July 27, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761 "2006-07-27T16:20:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Duder](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Duder)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/21 "2006-07-28T18:37:18Z")
> [@Dan~](#):
>
> > [@Duder](#):
> >
> > Life’s not about being happy. You know who’se happy all the time? My friend mark. He’s mentally handicaped. He doesn’t know anything about the world, but he’s always got a smile on his face.
>
> Even if life’s not about being happy, suppose that’s all most people really want?
Off course. But what does it mean to want something? What conditions wants?
---
### Author:  [@Dan1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dan1)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/22 "2006-07-28T18:40:40Z")
> [@Duder](#):
>
> > [@Dan~](#):
> >
> > > [@Duder](#):
> > >
> > > Life’s not about being happy. You know who’se happy all the time? My friend mark. He’s mentally handicaped. He doesn’t know anything about the world, but he’s always got a smile on his face.
> >
> > Even if life’s not about being happy, suppose that’s all most people really want?
>
> Off course. But what does it mean to want something? What conditions wants?
What condition wants to want, other then growth in any direction?
---
### Author:  [@thezeus18](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/thezeus18)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/23 "2006-07-28T18:51:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Mucius.
> I was, intrigued by this affirmation:
> “Atheism is the dominating trend in human biology”
> Given what we see from anthropology and history, this does not seem to be correct. The general condition of man has been belief in the Supernatural. Mankind has a flair for establishing meaning. From this affinity come most of your systems of belief.
> Atheism is not at all a natural inclination. It takes training, education, and even then, the feeling persist, the need persist, to assign reality meaning and thus you find educated persons, whom should have rejected God based on the consequences of their expertise, but who still are theists.
>
> Christianity demands very little indeed. The demands increase with the education of the believer; yet desire generally wins. The demands are negligible if one maintains a division, but if one applies to their faith the same rigor they apply to empirical “facts”, then one is made, by the command of his/her desire, to redefine and redesign his beliefs so that Athens and Jerusalem fit within one picture. Not easy, but it is attempted.
>
> Is it so hard to understand why we crave meaning? Why we need to believe in something in a world such as ours?
Omar, atheistic, non-supernatural explanations are the ones we try to get at first. They are pragmatically more useful. Religion is a way to turn the weakness of not knowing in an atheistic way into a social benefit. If you can’t make technology from an unexplainable phenomena, use it to make people nicer.
I think it is natural for a human being to wonder why first, inferring causes from other earthly objects, and (if there is no answer) include it in a religion last.
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/24 "2006-08-07T19:50:03Z")
ok did any of you read the beginning of this topic? it wasn’t about anything other than why, as an atheist, you believe what you believe. you ask us theists/christians why, so I’m asking you. so could any of you actually answer me for once? i respect the discussion, but this was my topic and I would like my request to be respected, ok? if you wanted to discuss all this, go to some other topic, or better yet, create one of your own. thanks again!
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/25 "2006-08-07T19:57:54Z")
Since no positive claims are made, there is no need for a justification, really.
I have never been convinced that there is a Divine.
---
### Author:  [@NoHotDogBuns](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoHotDogBuns)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/26 "2006-08-07T21:12:24Z")
Why, you ask? Following the Christian bible is just as illogical as being atheist. The best route seems to be agnosticism. The Christian bible is chalk full of contradictions, regardless if you interpret it literally or symbolically. on the other hand, who can say there is no god for sure?
For the record, I don’t believe for a second that there is a God. I am just not willing to write something off that I have no way of proving or disproving, so I choose not to call myself an atheist.
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/27 "2006-08-07T21:28:41Z")
> [@Xunzian](#):
>
> Since no positive claims are made, there is no need for a justification, really.
>
> I have never been convinced that there is a Divine.
i’m not asking you to “justify” why you believe, just the reasons for it. I’m not implying that I think it’s stupid and needs justification, I’m actually just curious. that’s all. thanks for replying to the topic though. kudos to you for that.
---
### Author:  [@Oni\_Omega](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Oni_Omega)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/28 "2006-08-07T21:33:30Z")
> [@Xunzian](#):
>
> Since no positive claims are made, there is no need for a justification, really.
>
> I have never been convinced that there is a Divine.
how do you explain life and existence ?
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/29 "2006-08-07T23:29:00Z")
> [@NoHotDogBuns](#):
>
> Why, you ask? Following the Christian bible is just as illogical as being atheist. The best route seems to be agnosticism. The Christian bible is chalk full of contradictions, regardless if you interpret it literally or symbolically. on the other hand, who can say there is no god for sure?
>
> For the record, I don’t believe for a second that there is a God. I am just not willing to write something off that I have no way of proving or disproving, so I choose not to call myself an atheist.
be specific - so many atheists keep telling me that the Bible is “chock full of contradictions” and “completely ridiculous and illogical” - can someone please show me examples? - because I gotta tell ya, I’ve read the Bible myself, and it all sounds very reasonable to me. thanks.
---
### Author:  [@NoHotDogBuns](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoHotDogBuns)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/30 "2006-08-08T04:33:52Z")
Are you honestly unaware of any contradictions in the bible? I really don’t know where to start. I guess I will take the widly accepted LITERAL translation of genisis as a starting point.
[Creationism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) can be pretty silly. Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the world was created less then 10 000 years ago, that dinosaurs and man co existed, that 2 units of EVERY SPECIES ALIVE was stuffed onto a boat, is a person I would love to deem “exceptional” (46% of americans polled in 2006 subscribed to that doctrine. 109% of statistics are misinterpreted). Unfortunatly, my mantra is one preached by a mere 13% of the US of A. Anyhow, this isn’t a contradiction, so lets hit the real philisophical arguments.
This one is a classic, disproved, yet still relivent as a testiment to the lack of devine perfection one would imagine in the the “literal” translation of the word of God. God, so says the Bible, is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Evil exists. see? This paradox runs on the same lines as “could god microwave a burrito soo hot, even he couldn’t eat it?” (which is a beavis and butthead-atized derivative of “could God create a stone so heavy, he couldn’t lift it?”) Many have found ways around this argument, but none with any answers that compleatly satisfy the truly inquistive mind.
Bertrand Russell is my hero, becuase I lacked the imagination to raise such a simple point. If a sentient creator is the only thing we can logically conclude conjured everything as we know it… who was his creator?
I could go on for a while, but these are two pretty strong problems concerning christian religion. If you want more, I know for a cold hard fact, that there are people on here that will give you much more elaborate reasons for their lack of faith in the G man, becuase I am not the smartest cookie on these forums, and I don’t want to give us non-believers a bad name 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Bessy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bessy)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/31 "2006-08-08T05:23:38Z")
I can’t help but think that organized religion is poppycock. I don’t think spirituality is poppycock nor the belief in something beyond ourselves to guide us is p-c. Faith in something beyond our being is healthy, but to manufacture all these rules and specifics not to mention the magic of passed down stories seems insane. The word of God written by humans for humans… so does that mean everything that feels enlightened to a human should be deemed the word of God?
I feel the joy; I feel spiritually connected and deeply moved by things of nature and the daily miracles before my eyes. I meditate and feel the presence of something - a “force,” but sometimes, I wonder if it is just me. Just plain ole me guided and driven by, yeah…
me.
Guess that makes me an agnostic not an atheist, but (LOL) I wasn’t one before I came here in 2005. Damn you philosophers… now I am surely gonna go straight to hell.
😉
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2006, 1:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/32 "2006-08-08T13:04:41Z")
Well, my personal reasons for atheism are tri-fold:
1. As a scientist, God is a cop-out answer. It’s purely aesthetic. When you are studying a principle, you can say ‘God did it’ and be done. The problem with this is that, since it is impossible to prove the nature of God, your solution is un-provable. That is, quite simply, bad science. Granted, this allows for natural theological explanations, which are possible and acceptable. So, basically put 1 point down for agnosticism.
2. As someone who studies Confucian texts and is greatly influenced by that religio-philosophical tradition, I think this quote sums it up best:
When Adept Lu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, the Master said: “You haven’t learned to serve the living, so how could you serve ghosts?”
“Might I ask about death?”
“You don’t understand life,” the Master replied, “so how could you understand death?”
So, another point for agnosticism.
1. Good ol’ Brecht:
A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behaviour would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.â€
I don’t feel my behaviour would change. I live a good life and if God is petty enough to punish me for not groveling before him, then God is not the kind of being I want to associate with.
So, aesthetically, I don’t like the idea of the Divine, philosophically I am disinclined to study it because it is not relevant and personally it does not affect me. Given these, I see no reason to even admit that there might be a God, anymore than I might admit to any other unprovable agent. It is possible? Sure. But it is also possible that we are living in the Matrix, or that I am a figment of my girlfriend’s imagination. I don’t entertain these thoughts because they aren’t useful and, frankly, boarder on the absurd.
---
### Author:  [@Phaedrus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Phaedrus)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/33 "2006-08-09T00:36:23Z")
I could give a lot of reasons, and perhaps I should. But ultimately I need only one: I simply don’t believe in any of the (G)ods in common use nor do I find them plausible, and I can’t convince myself otherwise. My brain apparently lacks the gene needed to accept something on blind faith. Perhaps I simply have no choice.
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/34 "2006-08-09T01:36:29Z")
> [@NoHotDogBuns](#):
>
> Are you honestly unaware of any contradictions in the bible? I really don’t know where to start. I guess I will take the widly accepted LITERAL translation of genisis as a starting point.
>
> [Creationism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) can be pretty silly. Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the world was created less then 10 000 years ago, that dinosaurs and man co existed, that 2 units of EVERY SPECIES ALIVE was stuffed onto a boat, is a person I would love to deem “exceptional” (46% of americans polled in 2006 subscribed to that doctrine. 109% of statistics are misinterpreted). Unfortunatly, my mantra is one preached by a mere 13% of the US of A. Anyhow, this isn’t a contradiction, so lets hit the real philisophical arguments.
>
> This one is a classic, disproved, yet still relivent as a testiment to the lack of devine perfection one would imagine in the the “literal” translation of the word of God. God, so says the Bible, is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Evil exists. see? This paradox runs on the same lines as “could god microwave a burrito soo hot, even he couldn’t eat it?” (which is a beavis and butthead-atized derivative of “could God create a stone so heavy, he couldn’t lift it?”) Many have found ways around this argument, but none with any answers that compleatly satisfy the truly inquistive mind.
>
> Bertrand Russell is my hero, becuase I lacked the imagination to raise such a simple point. If a sentient creator is the only thing we can logically conclude conjured everything as we know it… who was his creator?
>
> I could go on for a while, but these are two pretty strong problems concerning christian religion. If you want more, I know for a cold hard fact, that there are people on here that will give you much more elaborate reasons for their lack of faith in the G man, becuase I am not the smartest cookie on these forums, and I don’t want to give us non-believers a bad name 🙂
try quoting scripture, all you have done is present philosophical debates already existing, but have no scriptural reference. if you have never read the Bible (and you may have, I’m just saying), then read it - it speaks for itself.
on the topic of why evil exists, it has already been addressed in other topics, just look at those.
also, there are so many “what if?” things anyone could come up with to try and refute just about anything.
Christians could ask “What if God finally came up to you in a recognizable, without a doubt, form, would you then believe?”
Atheists at the same time could ask “What if God created something that would make it impossible for Him to do something with or without it?”
both could say that those things would never happen, thus no conclusion is reached. so please try and avoid "what if?"s and other such issues. thanks.
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/35 "2006-08-09T01:43:02Z")
> [@Bessy](#):
>
> I can’t help but think that organized religion is poppycock. I don’t think spirituality is poppycock nor the belief in something beyond ourselves to guide us is p-c. Faith in something beyond our being is healthy, but to manufacture all these rules and specifics not to mention the magic of passed down stories seems insane. The word of God written by humans for humans… so does that mean everything that feels enlightened to a human should be deemed the word of God?
>
> I feel the joy; I feel spiritually connected and deeply moved by things of nature and the daily miracles before my eyes. I meditate and feel the presence of something - a “force,” but sometimes, I wonder if it is just me. Just plain ole me guided and driven by, yeah…
>
> me.
>
> Guess that makes me an agnostic not an atheist, but (LOL) I wasn’t one before I came here in 2005. Damn you philosophers… now I am surely gonna go straight to hell.
>
> 😉
everything that “feels enlightened” - please elaborate. the Bible isn’t just some other storybook - it’s based in history, and apparently just because it doesn’t seem to make sense to some people, they call it’s authors and subjects antiquated and false.
and still other things, like the writings of Confucius, or Plato, or Socrates, are obviously not the words of some God, but of recognized philosophers both in their time and highly regarded today. the Bible is more than just those things. there are so many ideas and events in there that make sense to us, but also there is something to figure out still. it’s kinda hard to explain, but it comes down to trust for some people i guess. oh well.
---
### Author:  [@christianthinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/christianthinker)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761/36 "2006-08-09T01:45:11Z")
but so far thanks to everyone who has replied to this topic. I have heard some very interesting reasons, so keep it up. God bless lol.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why/11761.md?page=1)