2006-09-25 04:31:50 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The total lack of any convincing evidence that there are any, and the strong evidence of the natural human tendency to make them up.
2006-09-25 04:32:43 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find the whole concept to be quite obviously extremely silly. There is absolutely no evidence of any type of supreme being. Then add the ridiculousness of canonized texts (the bible for instance) and it's pretty easy to see that organize religions serve a purpose that has absolutely nothing to do with some ficticious, self centered, omnipotent god.
2006-09-25 11:34:34 · answer #2 · answered by Morey000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to make a distinction between "rejecting the concept" and "not believing in." Philosophically, one could accept the concept of gods as long as it's logical, without actually believing in any. I could accept the concept of a completely benevolent, omniscient capital "G" god of the Bible if not for the contradictory descriptions of him regretting the creation of man (then flooding), being so unjust to Job, killing innocent babies, favoring certain peoples over others, punishing subsequent generations for their parents' actions....
2006-09-25 11:42:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lack of a reason to accept the concept of god(s)
Wanting there to be a god is not evidence of a god.
2006-09-25 11:34:09 · answer #4 · answered by Real Friend 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The absence of anything I can see that suggests there is a God, and because everything can be explained by science, there doesn't seem to be room for a God. A talented magician 2000 years ago isn't enough to influence how I live my life.
2006-09-25 11:34:12 · answer #5 · answered by Jethro 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't reject the concept. I just don't know enough about the 'gods' to make a definitive statement on the subject.
2006-09-25 11:33:20 · answer #6 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) When you see the history of all religions and gods, it's impossible to look at one god and one religion, and one tradition within that religion and say "This is the one true religion".
2) As for the xian god specifically, he was an evil jealous god in the OT and I have no interest in following a god that would kill 6 month old babies to change one leader's mind. Nor one that would have as his holy book, a mish-mash of stories and contradictions that people would kill each other over for thousands of years.
3) Again for the xian god, this world is impossible to reconcile with a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, and "omni-benevolent".
2006-09-25 11:33:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a Buddhist, it is to accept responsibility for your own actions, to understand the benefit of living an honorable life on its own merit and taking the consequences if one doesn't. I dropped all the 'crutches' and was forced to face up to life as it is . . . also eliminates excuses ( god told me to do it ). This does not however, eliminate the existence of more intelligent sentient beings . . . just the authority figure ( big daddy ) cop out.
2006-09-25 11:39:59 · answer #8 · answered by kate 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
History gives a person a different perspective on many of the myths, including how and why they were created and supported.
Gods and religion have been very useful both for social good and social control.
2006-09-25 11:34:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of evidence.
2006-09-25 11:33:33 · answer #10 · answered by mark r 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋