Do you believe in God?

[PeterJB]

Sorry, still doesn't fit. The statement "I don't subscribe to any religion because none of them are backed by evidence" isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

On the other hand "Christianity is wrong" is an opinion (though one that is supported by an awful lot of evidence). Now here's the kicker: I've never said that. Not once. Theists take the first statement and argue against it as if it's the second statement.

Unfortunately, that means you're arguing against nobody. Please tell me you understand this.

I agree with on that there is virtually no empirical evidence for religion. It is anecdotal evidence that religion offers.

I'll admit that my frustration may be influencing my responses in this thread somewhat. But I simply demand that certain atheists in this thread give the thiests the same level of respect that we are rather valiantly giving them.

 

[Tic Tach]

I agree with on that there is virtually no empirical evidence for religion. It is anecdotal evidence that religion offers.

And I'm reminded of the saying: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

 

[hampus_dh]

Please read again.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I feel my answer towards that is also displayed above.

No it´s more like this, a "believer" vs a person who uses rational and logic thoughts.

Believer: I believe this world was created by a carrot.
Rational: What?
Believer: Why you hatin?
Rational: I´m sorry, i just can´t see the logics behind your belief.
Believer: Why? It says in this old book that it was a carrot that did it.
Rational: And?
Believer: Obviously it´s true... facepalm.
Rational: But science shows no signs of anything in this world being designed, especially when theories are now pointing at a multiverse and we just happened to come to life in one where everything was "ok" for life to start evolving.
Believer: Listen, stop hating, if you want to believe in science that is your problem.
Rational: But listen to yourself, you believe in a carrot because the book says so.
Believer: Not just that, i have had some carrot-experiences but i will not talk about them over the internet.
Rational: Ok fine, do you believe in Dinosaurs?
Believer: *checks bible*..... Nope i can´t find anything on these...what did you call them? Dinosaurs? Must be some sick joke you religious aethists try to pull on us.
Rational: We have proof of dinosaurs living on earth more then 65 million years ago.
Believer: *checks bible* Nope sorry i don´t belive you. They could have been giant dogs for all i know.

 

[Tic Tach]

Current evidence cannot be described as being 100% correct, unless the evidence 'fits in' smoothly with the present. For current evidence to be applied to the knowledge of the future, or past, it must fit the conditions of that time, which we often don't know. Scientists constantly 'correct' themselves as they have done through time (which I have said, and you have confirmed previously).
In the big bang theory, many points are still to be explained, according to current laws of science itself. If these points cannot be explained or do not 'fit in' with sciences understanding, then that must alter what they know about the future too.
Therefore, science can only be referred to as 'fact' when science has completed the jigsaw puzzle if you like, from every angle, which is I think is impossible.

That's my understanding if it, anyway.

My time is limited right now. Please watch this.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

No it´s more like this, a "believer" vs a person who uses rational and logic thoughts.

Believer: I believe this world was created by a carrot.
Rational: What?
Believer: Why you hatin?
Rational: I´m sorry, i just can´t see the logics behind your belief.
Believer: Why? It says in this old book that it was a carrot that did it.
Rational: And?
Believer: Obviously it´s true... facepalm.
Rational: But science shows no signs of anything in this world being designed, especially when theories are now pointing at a multiverse and we just happened to come to life in one where everything was "ok" for life to start evolving.
Believer: Listen, stop hating, if you want to believe in science that is your problem.
Rational: But listen to yourself, you believe in a carrot because the book says so.
Believer: Not just that, i have had some carrot-experiences but i will not talk about them over the internet.
Rational: Ok fine, do you believe in Dinosaurs?
Believer: *checks bible*..... Nope i can´t find anything on these...what did you call them? Dinosaurs? Must be some sick joke you religious aethists try to pull on us.
Rational: We have proof of dinosaurs living on earth more then 65 million years ago.
Believer: *checks bible* Nope sorry i don´t belive you. They could have been giant dogs for all i know.

👍 Perfect example of what really happens.

 

[PeterJB]

No it´s more like this, a "believer" vs a person who uses rational and logic thoughts.

Believer: I believe this world was created by a carrot.
Rational: What?
Believer: Why you hatin?
Rational: I´m sorry, i just can´t see the logics behind your belief.
Believer: Why? It says in this old book that it was a carrot that did it.
Rational: And?
Believer: Obviously it´s true... facepalm.
Rational: But science shows no signs of anything in this world being designed, especially when theories are now pointing at a multiverse and we just happened to come to life in one where everything was "ok" for life to start evolving.
Believer: Listen, stop hating, if you want to believe in science that is your problem.
Rational: But listen to yourself, you believe in a carrot because the book says so.
Believer: Not just that, i have had some carrot-experiences but i will not talk about them over the internet.
Rational: Ok fine, do you believe in Dinosaurs?
Believer: *checks bible*..... Nope i can´t find anything on these...what did you call them? Dinosaurs? Must be some sick joke you religious aethists try to pull on us.
Rational: We have proof of dinosaurs living on earth more then 65 million years ago.
Believer: *checks bible* Nope sorry i don´t belive you. They could have been giant dogs for all i know.

Last time I checked none of thiests in this thread are fundamentalist.

 

[High-Test]

No it´s more like this, a "believer" vs a person who uses rational and logic thoughts.

Believer: I believe this world was created by a carrot.
Rational: What?
Believer: Why you hatin?
Rational: I´m sorry, i just can´t see the logics behind your belief.
Believer: Why? It says in this old book that it was a carrot that did it.
Rational: And?
Believer: Obviously it´s true... facepalm.
Rational: But science shows no signs of anything in this world being designed, especially when theories are now pointing at a multiverse and we just happened to come to life in one where everything was "ok" for life to start evolving.
Believer: Listen, stop hating, if you want to believe in science that is your problem.
Rational: But listen to yourself, you believe in a carrot because the book says so.
Believer: Not just that, i have had some carrot-experiences but i will not talk about them over the internet.
Rational: Ok fine, do you believe in Dinosaurs?
Believer: *checks bible*..... Nope i can´t find anything on these...what did you call them? Dinosaurs? Must be some sick joke you religious aethists try to pull on us.
Rational: We have proof of dinosaurs living on earth more then 65 million years ago.
Believer: *checks bible* Nope sorry i don´t belive you. They could have been giant dogs for all i know.

It is quite evident that you believe all theists are idiots, afraid of science, and devoid of rational thought.

Why don't you just say so explicitly? Given the rage you so gleefully display, it might make you happier.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Why don't you just say so explicitly?

Because some people don't want to get banned .

 

[hampus_dh]

Bingo!

You have to be smart about it, much like the way religion is still around.

 

[huskeR32]

I agree with on that there is virtually no empirical evidence for religion. It is anecdotal evidence that religion offers.

I'll admit that my frustration may be influencing my responses in this thread. But I simply demand that certain atheists in this thread give the thiests the same level of respect that we are rather valiantly giving them.

Fair enough, except as I pointed out, your reply to Vandenal was a bit disrespectful as well. Both sides in this thread have crossed the line a bit, and it's regrettable. But in fairness, don't demand it if you don't give it.

I definitely hear you on the frustration thing too. For example, as long as people keep referring to atheism as a belief, I'm going to be frustrated by it, because it prevents the actual conversation from happening.

Here's the whole thread as far as I can see it:
-Theists answer yes
-Atheists answer no, and simply ask for evidence of "yes"
-Theists can't provide it, and demand that atheists provide evidence of "no"
-This is problematic because atheism isn't a claim, and therefore isn't something that can be (or needs to be) validated/unvalidated
-Cycle continues
-As evidence remains unprovided for "yes," atheists rightfully say that "yes" seems a bit of an absurd answer, and continue to simply ask for some evidence
-After it becomes apparent to the theists that they can't provide the evidence, they start claiming that it's disrespectful to not just let them believe what they want to believe. Now, I acknowledged above that some real disrespect has occurred here, but I think most of it is just a convenient way to steer the conversation away from what has become the main issue: no evidence.
-Atheists still ask for evidence, because after all, that's the crux of the conversation
-Conversation devolves into the pointless exchange it has become

Solution: Acknowledge what atheism really is so that you can properly argue against it, stop wasting time with the same old tactic of trying to put the onus of proof on the non-believers, and try to provide some rational thought in support of your theory. If you can't, you can't. Accept it, be OK with your own beliefs, and ignore the thread. You can't convince people who want evidence unless you have some. This won't change no matter how upset you get, or how many ways you try to play the disrespect angle.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I'm really amazed at the low level this discussion has reached. Currently that interests me more than the problem of God's existence.

It's a purely intellectual interest of course.

EDIT - HuskeR32, I'd like to make it clear I don't include you in my general view of what's recently going on. And let me state this. I totally understand your point. BUT ...

Some atheists STATE "there is no God". And THAT ... is a belief.

Anyway, I did do my search on these concepts and indeed there are two "atheisms" if you like. I read about it here:

Philosophers such as Antony Flew, and Michael Martin, have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature and in Catholic apologetics. Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism, most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction. The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith. Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility. Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".

 

[High-Test]

Bingo!

You have to be smart about it, much like the way religion is still around.

My favorite part is that you didn't deny outright the claim I inferred about your aforementioned belief.

In not denying it, and stating that "you have to be smart about [saying so]", you've tacitly accepted the claim that you believe that all theists are science-hating idiots devoid of rational thought.

Well done.

 

[arora]

I'm really amazed at the low level this discussion has reached. Currently that interests me more than the problem of God's existence.

Until organized religion is removed from the discussion it really has no other direction to turn.

It's a purely intellectual interest of course.

A study of social decline?

 

[itsbenjibrand]

In not denying it, and stating that "you have to be smart about [saying so]", you've tacitly accepted the claim that you believe that all theists are science-hating idiots devoid of rational thought.

Well done.

What's wrong with thinking that? We are all entitled to an opinion. Though we don't neccesarily state it.

 

[huskeR32]

My favorite part is that you didn't deny outright the claim I inferred about your aforementioned belief.

In not denying it, and stating that "you have to be smart about [saying so]", you've tacitly accepted the claim that you believe that all theists are science-hating idiots devoid of rational thought.

Well done.

Example number 8326382678493 of focusing on one person's disrespect instead of actually trying to have the real conversation.

If you really want to convince him he's wrong, provide some rational evidence. Easy. I'm not condoning any name calling or anything, but the rabid focus on proving and decrying disrespect smells an awful lot like dodging a question that you know you can't answer.

 

[Joel]

What in the world are you getting at ?

4 pages old, but I'm saying that most people's religion of choice is based on geography and what their parents believe. North Americans grow up Christian, and Afghanis grow up Muslim.

 

[High-Test]

Example number 8326382678493 of focusing on one person's disrespect instead of actually trying to have the real conversation.

If you really want to convince him he's wrong, provide some rational evidence. Easy. I'm not condoning any name calling or anything, but the rabid focus on proving and decrying disrespect smells an awful lot like dodging a question that you know you can't answer.

Since when have I tried to convince anyone that the doctrine of atheism is wrong? You're jumping to the conclusion that because I do in fact believe that there is a God I am trying to convert you to theism and argue that your non-belief is completely wrong.

If anything, I've argued quite handily that most of what is in religious texts is nonsense and cannot be taken as the immutable, unchanging word of God.

What's wrong with thinking that? We are all entitled to an opinion. Though we don't neccesarily state it.

The part where there are blatant and repeated insults to the intelligence of other users. Which you both seem to condone.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm really amazed at the low level this discussion has reached. Currently that interests me more than the problem of God's existence.

It's a purely intellectual interest of course.

EDIT - HuskeR32, I'd like to make it clear I don't include you in my general view of what's recently going on. And let me state this. I totally understand your point. BUT ...

Some atheists STATE "there is no God". And THAT ... is a belief.

Anyway, I did do my search on these concepts and indeed there are two "atheisms" if you like. I read about it here:

Very true. To me atheism is passive, not believing in a god that isn't backed up by evidence. I realize that others consider atheism to be active, saying for sure there isn't a god. I'm not in that camp, and my arguments aren't from that perspective. Since others seem to come from that camp, I understand that I'm probably being interpreted that way.

To me, the active part of that isn't atheism, rather an opinion that many atheists have. It's not necessary to actively say god doesn't exist in order to be an atheist. At least that's my view.

 

[Hun200kmh]

A study of social decline?

Based on empirical evidence. First hand

 

[itsbenjibrand]

The part where there are blatant and repeated insults to the intelligence of other users. Which you both seem to condone.

If it appears that I am insulting other users it is simply not the case.

 

[huskeR32]

Since when have I tried to convince anyone that the doctrine of atheism is wrong? You're jumping to the conclusion that because I do in fact believe that there is a God I am trying to convert you to theism and argue that your non-belief is completely wrong.

If anything, I've argued quite handily that most of what is in religious texts is nonsense and cannot be taken as the immutable, unchanging word of God.

By convince him he's wrong, I meant that he's wrong about you being an idiot, or stupid, or whatever, not that he's wrong about atheism.

 

[Tic Tach]

Since when have I tried to convince anyone that the doctrine of atheism is wrong?

With statements like this, you wonder why we non-theists get testy at times!

 

[Joey D]

Then be my guest. Show me an intelligent answer as to why god exists.

Spiritual proof?
Because it says so in the bible?
Because you feel he exists?

Any well thought out opinion on the existence or non-existence is intelligent. If you've explored what's out there and came up with your answer, then you've intelligently thought about it. I know I have put a great deal of thought into my answer and I suspect most people who have formed an opinion have done likewise.

It is hard to believe after even 3770 posts in this thread, Christians (and other 'God Believing' religious people) are still denying, denying, denying, and not giving logical answers because of their 'feelings'.

I find it hard to believe that some of the atheist (not all) in this thread get away with hateful remarks towards a group of people as a whole.

I have given an answer to why I believe in God and how I arrived at my conclusion. Just because the opinions differ doesn't mean it isn't logical to the opinion former. When it comes to the question of God v. No God, it's a call you have to make for yourself. There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you.

I also find it interesting that this god is called "Him"

Any proof or anything thats not taken out of the blue that suggests it's "him"

Because if we call it "him" it mustean that there are more of him or hers.

I refer to God as "it" since a power problem doesn't have a gender. The concept of humanizing God is a creation of man though so that believers may relate more to the concept.

The reason we are here discussing an irational subject is because we care about humanity going forward and about your brain being mind******.

A belief in God doesn't prevent society from moving forward. There have been many great thinkers that were believers in God and that made breakthroughs in the fields of science and medicine.

Just because one believes in God doesn't mean they give up on the pursuit of answers.

What's wrong with thinking that? We are all entitled to an opinion. Though we don't neccesarily state it.

It's a little closed minded and not very tactful. I could call all atheist a bunch of militant a-holes (they aren't), but that wouldn't be very tactful now would it? You are entitled to your opinion of course (well unless you believe in God in this thread apparently), you just need to address it properly so you don't seem like a raving lunatic...this goes for both sides in any discussion I believe.

It's also throwing all believers under the blanket of being idiots who have no interest in any scientific thought, which is incredibly wrong. Yes, there are going to be some people who deny science, but I think for the most part people accept science and believe in God.

 

[PeterJB]

Example number 8326382678493 of focusing on one person's disrespect instead of actually trying to have the real conversation.

If you really want to convince him he's wrong, provide some rational evidence. Easy. I'm not condoning any name calling or anything, but the rabid focus on proving and decrying disrespect smells an awful lot like dodging a question that you know you can't answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina

Here's evidence that I find particularly interesting.

Pio of Pietrelcina is famous for having stigmata that appeared to never become infected. He reported pain around them, and pain that felt like a crown of thorns around his head.

The stigmata can be clearly seen in this image.

While this is not proof of God's existence, it is interesting how a man could have open wounds for 50 years and for them to never get infected.

 

[TankAss95]

I have given an answer to why I believe in God and how I arrived at my conclusion. Just because the opinions differ doesn't mean it isn't logical to the opinion former. When it comes to the question of God v. No God, it's a call you have to make for yourself. There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you.

I refer to God as "it" since a power problem doesn't have a gender. The concept of humanizing God is a creation of man though so that believers may relate more to the concept.

A belief in God doesn't prevent society from moving forward. There have been many great thinkers that were believers in God and that made breakthroughs in the fields of science and medicine.

Just because one believes in God doesn't mean they give up on the pursuit of answers.

It's a little closed minded and not very tactful. I could call all atheist a bunch of militant a-holes (they aren't), but that wouldn't be very tactful now would it? You are entitled to your opinion of course (well unless you believe in God in this thread apparently), you just need to address it properly so you don't seem like a raving lunatic...this goes for both sides in any discussion I believe.

It's also throwing all believers under the blanket of being idiots who have no interest in any scientific thought, which is incredibly wrong. Yes, there are going to be some people who deny science, but I think for the most part people accept science and believe in God.

+1
A very important read worthy of being repeated on this thread.


"There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you." - Joey D


Sums it up.

 

[huskeR32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina

Here's evidence that I find particularly interesting.

Pio of Pietrelcina is famous for having stigmata that appeared to never become infected. He reported pain around them, and pain that felt like a crown of thorns around his head.

The stigmata can be clearly seen in this image.

While this is not proof of God's existence, it is interesting how a man could have open wounds for 50 years and for them to never get infected.

Truly a fascinating story, and one that I've never heard before. Thanks 👍

It hardly serves as proof, because as the article mentions, there's a number of ways he could have prevented the marks from healing. But again, thanks. That was a solid contribution to this discussion, and it made me think.

 

[huskeR32]

+1
A very important read worthy of being repeated on this thread.


"There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you." - Joey D


Sums it up.

Except for one thing: On one side of the scale is a collection of rational thought and compelling evidence, and on the other side is a story, that if you're completely honest with yourself, sounds very superstitious and mythical.

I don't intend any sort of insult or disrespect here. I don't think that Christians are stupid or dumb at all. But I do think that an honest person would acknowledge that one side sounds an awful lot more likely than the other, when emotion is thrown aside.

 

[hampus_dh]

Any well thought out opinion on the existence or non-existence is intelligent. If you've explored what's out there and came up with your answer, then you've intelligently thought about it. I know I have put a great deal of thought into my answer and I suspect most people who have formed an opinion have done likewise.

So far i have yet to come across one of those. NEXT!

I have given an answer to why I believe in God and how I arrived at my conclusion. Just because the opinions differ doesn't mean it isn't logical to the opinion former. When it comes to the question of God v. No God, it's a call you have to make for yourself. There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you.

Actually it does. By claiming something (like an opinion) is logical, the opinion has to actually be logical.
Just because it´s logical in your head doesn´t mean it´s logical one bit.

Example, I´m a psycho living with my mom. I can´t stand her nagging all the time so i blew her head off.
In my mind it was perfectly logical but obviously in the rest of the world´s mind it wasn´t very logical at all.

I refer to God as "it" since a power problem doesn't have a gender. The concept of humanizing God is a creation of man though so that believers may relate more to the concept.

Great stuff. Everyone believes in a God and everyone has their opinion on him. Or "it" sorry i get confused with all the different views on him. (it)

A belief in God doesn't prevent society from moving forward. There have been many great thinkers that were believers in God and that made breakthroughs in the fields of science and medicine.

Just because one believes in God doesn't mean they give up on the pursuit of answers.

These "many" thinkers. How many are they compared to every religious person that set foot on this planet? Not very "many" right.

 

[arora]

Maybe there are some in here who can set aside their cast in stone religious beliefs, and some who can look beyond disproving those beliefs. If so, I would think consciousness as good a place to start as any.

The major mystery of consciousness is just what the causal relationship between conscious and physical states is. There are six main possibilities: consciousness is an illusion (hard materialism), matter is an illusion (hard idealism), consciousness is dependent on matter (nonreductive physicalism), matter is dependent on consciousness (theism), the two exist independently (dualism), or they are different aspects of one underlying reality (monism). All have been tried, and none is wholly satisfactory. That is why consciousness is such a fascinating and important problem.

I have been reading some works by David Chalmers(Professor of philosophy at Australian National University), here is focus of study described by himself. He argues dualism btw 👍

This project focuses on the how and why of subjective experience itself. It's the project of explaining the connection between physical processes in the brain and subjective experience: how is it that these processes yield consciousness at all? What are the basic principles that explain why the connection holds, and that account for experiences' specific nature? This may be the most difficult question when it comes to consciousness, and you may say ‘Well, this is one which we want to put off a little bit. It's not something which everybody needs to be working on right now, and it may take us fifty, a hundred, a hundred-and-fifty years.’ Nevertheless, I think one can look at the problem now and at least make certain inferences about the kind of work that is going to be required to get at this problem. One thing that we know right now is that certain standard methods, in and of themselves, don't provide a solution. Standard reductive explanation, in terms of structure and function, will explain to you more structure and function, but at the end of the day we're going to be left with the question of how this functioning supports subjective experience. At the very least, one will at the very least have to either transfigure the problem of consciousness into a different problem, to make it addressable, or expand the explanatory methods. I will look at the option which involves expanding the explanatory methods. Some people suggest that to get subjective experience into the picture, one needs some extra physical ingredient: maybe more physics, quantum mechanics, chaos theory. I think all these methods, in the end suffer from some very similar problems. They're well suited toward explaining structure and function, but they still only get you to more complex structure and dynamics. So it seems that more physics and more processing isn't enough to bridge the gap.”

Make no mistake, he is an atheist and also a scientist, albeit not your run of the mill.



This has to be worth a watch if for no other reason he talks about zombies He will use the word god several times but don't be scared, I promise he is an atheist.

If no one wants to or is willing to explore this type of explanation or further search of who we are and what is going on, I'll gladly stop putting this stuff up as it takes time and thought to post it.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Except for one thing: On one side of the scale is a collection of rational thought and compelling evidence, and on the other side is a story, that if you're completely honest with yourself, sounds very superstitious and mythical.

I don't intend any sort of insult or disrespect here. I don't think that Christians are stupid or dumb at all. But I do think that an honest person would acknowledge that one side sounds an awful lot more likely than the other, when emotion is thrown aside.

Exactly. If I've sounded like a jerk, then I apologize. This is what I have been trying to convey.