Warlock
Why do some of you non-believers have this starving need to tell others why they should not believe in God?
Because we see people believing in god for silly reasons that do not stand up to examination, or having silly beliefs about god that do not stand up to examination, or as funky points out, telling big fat lies even if only through ignorance.
"I believe in the Lord God because Jesus appeared to me, and I know we have to follow the Bible as God's literal word because it is true and accurate"
- is a good example of the kind of slack-jawed nonsense some people come up with.
Obviously a person who thinks this assumes;
- All other visions by all other people of all other entities are false
- All other visions by all other people of the same entity saying something contradictory are false
They thus place themselves in a special group yet are unable to provide any data that differentiates their paranormal experience from others they reject as false. This is not just silly, it is vain, delusional and often dangerous to other's liberty or happiness.
A person believing the above example to be true also obviously assumes almost everything we know about the world around is is wrong. Even though science works quite well with light bulbs, Space Shuttles, computers, nuclear power, brain surgery, etc., the minute the Bible contradicts it the Bible is true and science is false. They have no evidence to support such claims and ignore the evidence showing how silly their claims are for the most ludicrous of reasons.
Now, I admit the example given above is of the sort of religious person many other religious people run screaming from, but this is the sort of religious person that much of the "why they should not believe in God" stuff is directed at, because they believe in ideas of god that are just plain silly, offensive, or downright dangerous, and it's fun to play slap the fundy.
Most of the religious people here have far more liberal ideas about god, and would neither claim exclusivity of divine revelation or sole accurate interpretation. As they don't behave like idiots or believe idiotic things they don't get treated like idiots.
However, they get their feathers ruffled; invariably when you attack silly unreasonable beliefs in god some people who retain vauge beliefs in god feel their faith is under attack, even though their sort of faith (inoffensive and vague) is not under attack.
They're not really under fire; I could care less if someone believes in a non-sexist, non-homophobic, non-racist god who isn't an irrational unfair monster, or if they believe god made things the way they are but that it used the processes we see evidence for rather than magic.
I don't know why people in this category feel under fire when it is really the lowest form of Fundy or irrational idiot who IS actually under fire. Maybe it is because they have to rely on faith? And when you attack the beliefs of a Fundy Christian or Muslim, unfundy Christians or Muslims do not have hard evidence to support their beliefs, only a different species of belief to that held by their Fundy coreligionist.
Now, answer me this;
Why do certain religious people (group A, i.e. modern liberal belief) feel compelled to defend other religious people (group B) against having their beliefs questioned even if there is a vast difference between group A and group B's beliefs, often to such an extent that group B would say that group A are not proper believers?
I think secular people (group C) and many believers in god (group A again) have FAR more in common in terms of their beliefs about how one should act towards their fellow man and how society should work than those in group B (the fundies).
Yet group A and B stick together even when A and C would make better partners.
Why? I can speculate, but I'd like religious people's take on it.