What made you stop believing in God?

[funcouple]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 1:07 PM, QuantumT said:

Common sense.

it takes more common sense to believe in a higher power than not to.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, funcouple said:

it takes more common sense to believe in a higher power than not to.

!

Moderator Note

If you take some time to read the thread, you will see that this is considered off-topic. 

 

[Curious layman]

Never really believed but didn't not believe either, just accepted it (god) as normal when I was I kid in U.K., started to really think about god during the famine in Ethiopia, seeing pictures of snipers killing kids in Bosnia didn't help either, not to mention the holocaust. 

There have been times when I've leaned towards religion in the past though.

[Trurl]

I think the purpose of this post is to compare believing vs nonbeliving. If you believed then stopped you have experienced both sides. To a believer this is important because the believer questions why you lost faith and what it means to your salvation.

I wasn't a believer then believed in a God but it took awhile before I decided to learn about him. So I have experienced both sides. But if someone no longer believes I am interested in their reasoning. Even Mother Teresa questioned her faith.

[Curious layman]

11 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I think the purpose of this post is to compare believing vs nonbeliving. If you believed then stopped you have experienced both sides. To a believer this is important because the believer questions why you lost faith and what it means to your salvation.

I wasn't a believer then believed in a God but it took awhile before I decided to learn about him. So I have experienced both sides. But if someone no longer believes I am interested in their reasoning. Even Mother Teresa questioned her faith.

True, while I " just accepted" god as a kid i admit I t didnt mean I believed in him. Religion was never mentioned in our house or by anyone else I knew. So it's more that I chose not to believe in god.

i dont think a belief in god implies that someone is irrational though. There are better scientists than me who believe in god!

Although at times, albeit briefly, I have seriously questioned if I'm right, sometimes I'd like to think I am wrong, that there is a god, but interestingly these are both fuelled by the same thing - despair and justice.

[Moontanman]

13 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I think the purpose of this post is to compare believing vs nonbeliving. If you believed then stopped you have experienced both sides. To a believer this is important because the believer questions why you lost faith and what it means to your salvation.

I wasn't a believer then believed in a God but it took awhile before I decided to learn about him. So I have experienced both sides. But if someone no longer believes I am interested in their reasoning. Even Mother Teresa questioned her faith.

For me "Faith" is the key word, once you accept faith as meaningful you can believe anything on faith. You can have faith that magic invisible pixies run the universe, no one can prove you wrong once magic is invoked. Faith is the worst possible reason to believe something. I am an apistevist, I base my beliefs around reasonable expectations based on past experience and factual evidence. There might be a god or gods or goddesses but so far no actual evidence for them exists... 

[seriously disabled]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

There might be a god or gods or goddesses but so far no actual evidence for them exists... 

If there is a loving and Omni-capable God then this world wouldn't be so messed-up and cruel to so many people.

Also look at how there's never any scientific evidence for any God. To believe something without evidence is just silly in my opinion.

And no matter what people say humans are not magical beings which are somehow detached from this world, our biological brains follow the same programmed routines as always.

Edited June 18, 2019 by seriously disabled

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

We aren’t debating the existence of a supreme being in this thread

 

[boo]

i think as a child i took a kind of pascals wager stance on it as in "i might as well go along with it because it doesn't hurt and if I'm right then good, if I'm wrong then it doesn't matter

then there was this one pivotal moment for me when some catholic cardonal spoke out against heavy metal music, and my mother innocently read the article in the newspaper, and following that she went to my room and took all of my heavy metal tapes and threw them out.

I never forgave the church for this LOL

I think if you could trace it all back to one point that might be it.

I went to a catholic school and we used to have confessions in the school chapel once per month on a Friday morning. This was always a pleasant surprise to hear we had Mass this morning ,because i would get to miss mathematics or Irish class which i invariably had not done my homework for anyways. always nice to dodge a bullet ! but i never played along with it.  i was the only kid in my year who sat at the back of the church and refused to go into the confession box like the other kids. they used to look at me strange as though i was the one being ridiculous.  When i was about 13 I also remember asking the school principal if i could be allowed to not attend religion class and instead go to the study hall to study like another kid (Jehovas witness) was allowed to do,  i was refused.

that was in the 1990s when a lot of scandals about clerical abuse in my country were suddenly made public for the first time. from this moment on i lost ALL trust in the church but since the story of god had been instilled in me as a young child i still found it hard to let go. its as though there is a slight feeling of guilt attached to it that i could not explain.

I finally wrote the whole thing off once i discovered Christopher Hitchins, read his books, listened to his debates, and I feel the process was completed when i discovered the work of Dr. Richard Carrier who has effectively proven that Jesus was also a mythical character. I identify a lot with what these guys say, it resonates a lot with the thoughts i had growing up.  Believing in god or Jesus is , to me the same as believing in Zeus or any other obscure god, or indeed believing that David Koresh was a god, I don't see any difference between them.

Edited August 22, 2019 by boo

[dimreepr]

43 minutes ago, boo said:

i think as a child i took a kind of pascals wager stance on it as in "i might as well go along with it because it doesn't hurt and if I'm right then good, if I'm wrong then it doesn't matter

If you think about it, pascals wager works both ways:

The atheist does good because it feels good now, whatever the bible says.

The theist does good because it might feel even better later, because of what the bible says.

Not much of a bet really, unless you forget to feel good now.

56 minutes ago, boo said:

i was the only kid in my year who sat at the back of the church and refused to go into the confession box like the other kids. they used to look at me strange as though i was the one being ridiculous.

There's a reason they say confession is good for the soul and it's not god... 

Confession is acceptance of ones failings, which is the first step towards forgiving yourself (kind of important for your mental health).

1 hour ago, boo said:

I finally wrote the whole thing off once i discovered Christopher Hitchins, read his books, listened to his debates, and I feel the process was completed when i discovered the work of Dr. Richard Carrier who has effectively proven that Jesus was also a mythical character.

Most "myths" have a message attached, disproving the myth doesn't making the message any less profound.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Further discussion on Pascal's wager has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119888-pascals-wager-and-atheism-split-from-what-made-you-stop-believing-in-god/

 

 

[Cynic]

I grew up pretty religious, went to a private Mennonite elementary school, also attended Sunday School and Bible School during that time.  After moving into the public school system, my dad, a closet catholic, pushed us into joining the Catholic Church. I went through formal instruction and was baptized. I was in high school by now and it was bothering me how different the Catholics and Mennonites saw things yet both believed they were right, obviously a problem. I was also bothered by the observation that religion was highly cultural. If I had been born in India, I might be a Hindu and believe that was the only correct belief.

So, with the view that getting this right was the most important thing in life, I started reading about different religions. It didn’t take long to discover they all had their holy scriptures, holy men, god(s), etc. but the evidence for one was no better than for another. This was a long slow process and as my belief subsided, my sense of urgency about it all lessened. I sort of percolated in this state for a while and, don’t remember exactly when, decided maybe I should just look at the other side of things, those who claimed there are no gods. In reading atheist literature, I think the final straw was having a science education and reading George Smith’s book, “Atheism, the Case Against God”.

I now believe in nothing supernatural. For me, there are two answers for any question as far as I’m concerned. The first is any answer that can be provided by proper experimental science; a testable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable answer. The second answer is, “I don’t know.” Anything else is just information. 

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Cynic said:

I sort of percolated in this state for a while and, don’t remember exactly when, decided maybe I should just look at the other side of things, those who claimed there are no gods.

There is a third sort of "side" to this, actually. Besides the beliefs that gods exist and that gods don't exist, there is also weak atheism. It basically states that you don't need either belief since neither has anything to support it. You can just say, "I'll wait for some actual evidence to help me decide". Claiming there are no gods is just as difficult as claiming any exist, so a good default position is act like there are no gods, but be willing to be persuaded by a preponderance of evidence.

[jfoldbar]

i grew up in a religious house, so believed in god. grew up being told all the stuff that made god seem real. things like "the world round us is evidence of god" "prophecies prove the bible" etc. before the internet days it was much harder for people to do their own research, and not to mention that, for religion,research is frowned upon.

but as i got older and lived on my own. internet came around. and i started to read things for myself. and, eventually it was the word 'belief' itself that probably finished it off for me.

belief definition   "to accept something as true without proof"

and it clicked. "are you for real?" i thought.

in every aspect of our lives most humans look for proof for things,without even realizing it.we want proof that the meat is good before we eat it. we want proof that the road is clear. we want proof that our friend is trustworthy. we want proof that the guy built our back fence properly.  

to just eat the meat without proof its good can make us sick. to cross the road without proof its clear can kill us. and so on

but suddenly as soon as it comes to religion, humans can throw all that out the window and they're cool to accept anything without proof. why the double standards? is this lying to oneself about what it means to be truly 'honest'. if youyre cool with double standards in 1(main) aspect of your life, then could you also be ok with double standards in other aspects of your life? does this mean you are truly trustworthy, when you pick and choose which standards to adhere to?

to be truly honest then this concept should also be used the other way. i.e. , to believe there is no god, is still just that, a belief. 

i think the correct stance would be, if something is fact then accept it as fact regardless of your personal feelings.

if it is neither proven or disproven then it should remain on the fence until either happens.

many psychological studies have shown that if we 'believe' something, when evidence presents itself that our belief  is wrong we are actually more likely to believe it, not less. this is a very dangerous psychological stance to have on any aspect of our life. would you really want your friend to 'believe' you stole his wallet without proof?

so to answer the question why did i stop believing in god? i just stopped believing full stop, in every aspect of life.

[kisai]

I never really believed.  But my parents were Catholic.  I was a voracious reader and my parents bought me a copy of The Children's Bible.

Now, I do read mythology, so no I didn't turn my nose up at the creation story or Noah's Ark or the Tower of Babel.  But while I was getting through Exodus and more to the part where the Israelites settle into Canaan, I noticed that they couldn't get along with anybody.  It just started to sicken me how much killing was in this book.

Then I get to the 10 Commandments.  And one of them is "Thou shalt not kill."  "Finally", I thought, "there will be a change!"

Very next chapter was God assisting Moses in killing the Midianites by having the battle be successful if Moses can keep his hands up.

I stopped reading.

 

[MigL]

Books like the Bible, which are meant for moral guidance ( not historical account ) usually reflect the morals of the times they were written.
The Old Testament part is much more violent than the New Testament, wherein the only time Jesus gets mad is when he upsets the money-lender's tables in the temple, and, he asks his Father to forgive his crucifiers.
This reflects the change in moral values that had occurred.

I would expect a 'Modern Testament' ( if one were written ) to have much different messages/guidance, especially in relation to the treatment of women, homosexuality, certain 'sins', treatment of the poor, etc.

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Books like the Bible, which are meant for moral guidance ( not historical account ) usually reflect the morals of the times they were written.
The Old Testament part is much more violent than the New Testament, wherein the only time Jesus gets mad is when he upsets the money-lender's tables in the temple, and, he asks his Father to forgive his crucifiers.
This reflects the change in moral values that had occurred.

I would expect a 'Modern Testament' ( if one were written ) to have much different messages/guidance, especially in relation to the treatment of women, homosexuality, certain 'sins', treatment of the poor, etc.

Just to note, they were Money changers, engaged in the business of currency exchange.

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Endy0816

[MigL]

Why would people need currency exchange in a temple ?
An airport, maybe.

Just kidding; its been a while since elementary school, and compulsory religion classes.

Edited March 25, 2020 by MigL

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

I would expect a 'Modern Testament' ( if one were written ) to have much different messages/guidance, especially in relation to the treatment of women, homosexuality, certain 'sins', treatment of the poor, etc.

I would expect a 'modern Testament' to have roughly the same messages, unless Hitler wrote them...

[ydoaPs]

On 3/24/2020 at 9:43 PM, MigL said:

Books like the Bible, which are meant for moral guidance ( not historical account ) usually reflect the morals of the times they were written.
The Old Testament part is much more violent than the New Testament, wherein the only time Jesus gets mad is when he upsets the money-lender's tables in the temple, and, he asks his Father to forgive his crucifiers.
This reflects the change in moral values that had occurred.

I would expect a 'Modern Testament' ( if one were written ) to have much different messages/guidance, especially in relation to the treatment of women, homosexuality, certain 'sins', treatment of the poor, etc.

Jesus also got mad when a fig tree didn't produce figs when it was not fig season.

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, ydoaPs said:

Jesus also got mad when a fig tree didn't produce figs when it was not fig season.

Got mad? That was an actual withering curse on a single tree.

I think the writer was throwing some shade at future politicians. Beware those who're all leaves and no fruit! 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's get back on track to the topic of the OP, please.

 

Discussing the details found in the Bible or the function of it should be in a separate thread.

 

[Airbrush]

I had Catholic grammar school and Catholic high school.  My parents were always devout Catholics.  My first problem with believing in god was the fact there were so many religions that disagreed with each other.  People fighting each other over religion looked absurd.  Another thing that happened was I learned Santa Claus was fake.  My mom explained away the nonexistence of Santa as a "spirit that lived in our hearts."  I read much of Bhagavad Gita and later Castaneda and thought that spirituality or shamanism was far more sophisticated, and intellectually satisfying, than Christianity.  I have been skeptical of all religions ever since.  However, apparently many people NEED IT.  On my death bed I will TRY to believe again just for comfort, during my last hours.

People don't really BELIEVE in religion, they only WANT to believe.  Following a religion is not a matter of belief, but social pressure and a WANTING to believe.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Absolutely agree.
Some people need Religion.
It gives them comfort and hope.
If that makes them feel better, who am I to try and take that away.

But, by the same token, don't preach to me, or try to convert me

[ArandomTheorist]

I stopped when I thought about why god doesn't communicate with humans, giving them intellect or guidance. That led to me thinking that god was just busy with other civilizations on far away planets, because humankind was kind of a experiment for god, with god creating more sapient species that get increasingly more to his liking. I thought this because of the story of Adam and Eve, where they both "betray" god, which might have made god try to make a better species. Finally, I thought, then why should we worship him if we gain nothing because he's too busy with other civilizations.

 

but now I just don't believe in god because I like logic and facts more than faith, and as we evolve, there will be more facts created as we learn. And also that I still don't get the whole "doesn't communicate" thing.