Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,526 comments
  • 1,426,193 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 626 30.5%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 17.9%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,059 51.6%

  • Total voters
    2,052
fitftw
I would love to if NASA came to my door and asked me to take part in a space program.

Likewise.

Life is truly what you make of it. If people around you annoy you, learn to be patient and assertive. If you are going through a rough time, have a think about it and try to build a foundation upon which you can get to where you want to be.

Stop trying to make groups of people 'inferior'. Having an opinion is good, but mindlessly offending people isn't positive, both for yourself and the people involved.
 
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music." - Richard Dawkins

How can we get from science to ethics? If people are nothing but machines dancing to the sound of their DNA, how can we punish people for doing wrong (considering evil doesn't exist in atheism). How can the atheist consider Hitler or Stalin to be bad people if they were just machines following what their DNA is telling them?
And finally, if we are nothing but machines how can we trust ourselves?
 
Richard Dawkins is not "King of the Atheists"

He doesn't speak for all of us. He has some great ideas and is a very very intelligent man, but some of his thinking is flawed, you quoted one example.
 
superbike81
Richard Dawkins is not "King of the Atheists"

He doesn't speak for all of us. He has some great ideas and is a very very intelligent man, but some of his thinking is flawed, you quoted one example.

I agree on what you have said. I like some of the work of John Lennox for example, but I disagree with some details of his work.

If any atheist could answer the questions above satisfactory then I would be very impressed.
 
TankAss95
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music." - Richard Dawkins

How can we get from science to ethics? If people are nothing but machines dancing to the sound of their DNA, how can we punish people for doing wrong (considering evil doesn't exist in atheism). How can the atheist consider Hitler or Stalin to be bad people if they were just machines following what their DNA is telling them?
And finally, if we are nothing but machines how can we trust ourselves?

Even if Dawkins is right we can still punish other humans for being wankers... Even if Adolfo & Joseph were just dancing to their own DNA disco they still needed to be punished (A month in a room with my ex wife would have done it :lol: ) for killing millions, it matters not if good or evil exists because if you're a douchebag human you should get treated accordingly 👎
 
Heathenpride
Even if Dawkins is right we can still punish other humans for being wankers... Even if Adolfo & Joseph were just dancing to their own DNA disco they still needed to be punished (A month in a room with my ex wife would have done it :lol: ) for killing millions, it matters not if good or evil exists because if you're a douchebag human you should get treated accordingly 👎

That works if we can rebel against our DNA, but can we? And if someone is born with 'bad' DNA (DNA making them do bad things) then the person involved can't really take the blame for what they have done. And if there is no 'good' and 'evil', then how can we produce and enforce law? Even more, how can we trust ourselves?

That's why I can't see how an atheistic society could work. I accept that there could be a thing as an atheistic society, but I can't understand it. And as I have mentioned before, thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.
Christianity promises justice after death, with atheism death is simply the end. Although we try today, very rarely is proper justice executed in practice (if at all). If 'good' and 'evil' doesn't exist why should we punish others if we all have the same fate in the end? And even more, how can we tell the difference between the two?
 
Noob616
Evil doesn't exist in atheism? What are you on about...

As I have already quoted above...

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music." - Richard Dawkins

You are happy to agree or disagree if you like. If good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I can't see how you could get ethics from it, and I can't see how we could punish others if they were "just following their DNA".
 
As I have already quoted above...

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music." - Richard Dawkins

You are happy to agree or disagree if you like. If good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I can't see how you could get ethics from it, and I can't see how we could punish others if they were "just following their DNA".

Ignore what Dawkins said. People do bad things and sometimes certain people are genetically more likely to be bad people.

Atheists have morals because they are good people, not because they are threatened with unimaginable pain for eternity in the afterlife.
 
That works if we can rebel against our DNA, but can we? And if someone is born with 'bad' DNA (DNA making them do bad things) then the person involved can't really take the blame for what they have done. And if there is no 'good' and 'evil', then how can we produce and enforce law? Even more, how can we trust ourselves?

That's why I can't see how an atheistic society could work. I accept that there could be a thing as an atheistic society, but I can't understand it. And as I have mentioned before, thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.
Christianity promises justice after death, with atheism death is simply the end. Although we try today, very rarely is proper justice executed in practice (if at all). If 'good' and 'evil' doesn't exist why should we punish others if we all have the same fate in the end? And even more, how can we tell the difference between the two?

You can't understand it because you refuse to acknowledge that morality isn't tied to religion, nor are the concepts of Good and Evil.

I do not believe in an afterlife, nor much of any religious notions. I have no need for "justice" after death, and honestly, feeling that something like "justice" is needed in the beyond just sounds like someone wanting vengeance. Punishing someone in the beyond would not undo what they did, nor would it honestly make anyone feel better about it. But you'll argue "people want justice and they do feel better when it is delivered," but I find that rather selfish anyhow.

People choose what they want and what they feel they need. Most injustice arises from people thinking they need something they do not - it is all internal, suffering and ill will. Well, excusing those that have psychological issues that do not see the wrong in killing another but that is a different topic. You want a world in which balance is brought after death, but do you need this? No, but it makes you feel better, along with the idea that you'll be rewarded for "good" deeds in your life. Hardly altruistic, at the least. Really more of way to bribe people into behaving, kind like telling a kid they can have a cookie if they do their chores. Just more human ambition, which really is the cause of many people's own suffering.

Certainly, if there is a God, he doesn't much care anyhow. People mention the Holocaust in here as a point of what Evil is. It was a truly horrible event, on the largest scale. We do not need a religion to tell us this; it goes against most all of human nature - murdering millions of people. But why would God allow this if he was just, and how would punishing the men responsible some how "fix" the tragedy? But even more tragic is the idea that because those that died were Jewish, they won't be saved by the Christian God anyhow, as they did not believe in Christ. And this is why I don't see how Religion somehow makes things "Right" and "Wrong" when it can allow such absurdity.
 
TankAss95
That works if we can rebel against our DNA, but can we? And if someone is born with 'bad' DNA (DNA making them do bad things) then the person involved can't really take the blame for what they have done. And if there is no 'good' and 'evil', then how can we produce and enforce law? Even more, how can we trust ourselves?

If you're born with a predisposition to ethnically cleanse 6 million people then it matters not whether or not we should be dispensing justice, we do it anyway.

Same goes for child rapists & pries... I mean pedophiles; just kill them and argue morality later.

Even in our present society we take far too soft a stance on such issues & it's the devil dodgers & morality nazis behind it, conservative fools who don't have a clue & argue rights for people who shouldn't have any whilst prisons burst at the seams.

Fact is some people are just bad & need to die, it's harsh but true & even God knew that, OT god anyway, he'd be the one holding the axe ffs!!
 
But even more tragic is the idea that because those that died were Jewish, they won't be saved by the Christian God anyhow, as they did not believe in Christ. And this is why I don't see how Religion somehow makes things "Right" and "Wrong" when it can allow such absurdity.

Logic - 6,000,000 (as in # of Jews gassed/torched/drowned/murdered/tortured/buried alive...BURIED ALIVE.)
Religion - 0 (as in makes 0 sense)

Not that it matters but I was born 100% Jewish. Grandparents made it through concentration camps and came to Ellis Island.

The religious people will say it was Hitler's fault and he's not God. Well, couldn't God have stopped it, if he's almighty and all-powerful? Or will religious people say that perhaps those 6,000,000 people were meant to die, else the population today would be tripled and we wouldn't have room to breathe?

It's always the Jews who get crapped on for no reason at all.
 
Last edited:
Owen.C93
Ignore what Dawkins said. People do bad things and sometimes certain people are genetically more likely to be bad people.

Atheists have morals because they are good people, not because they are threatened with unimaginable pain for eternity in the afterlife.
I'm not going to ignore what Dawkins said, because it seems to me that it makes sense in the atheist viewpoint. If everything's just by 'chance', 'probability' or 'accident', then I cannot see how we could classify absolute 'wrong' and absolute 'right'.
And I know the majority of atheists are nice people. I'm not saying that you can't be good without believing in God. I know both good and bad atheists, and both good and bad Christians.
What I am saying however is that unless there is an absolute moral law, we can't say what's 'good' and 'bad' - it would just be a matter of opinion.
I believe that there is an absolute moral law, and it is given by an absolute law giver (namely God).
Azuremen
You can't understand it because you refuse to acknowledge that morality isn't tied to religion, nor are the concepts of Good and Evil.
I believe that morality is in an absolute moral law. I accept that the concept of good and evil are not tied to religion, but what I don't understand is how we could differentiate between the two without an absolute moral law.
I know that we all have a sense of morality, and as I have said above I know that wether you are a good person or not isn't linked to whatever faith or lack of belief you have.

Azuremen
I do not believe in an afterlife, nor much of any religious notions. I have no need for "justice" after death, and honestly, feeling that something like "justice" is needed in the beyond just sounds like someone wanting vengeance. Punishing someone in the beyond would not undo what they did, nor would it honestly make anyone feel better about it. But you'll argue "people want justice and they do feel better when it is delivered," but I find that rather selfish anyhow.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. There is a fine line between justice and vengeance. Justice, to my understanding is trying to get fairness. When we understand that that the Christian afterlife is not finite like the state in which we currently inhabit, we see that many of our original thoughts change.
And at the heart of the Christian faith you will find forgiveness. Pride and hate are evil in the Christian view.

And before we get any further I honestly don't have a proper stance of my views of the afterlife as of yet. Many atheists get angry when a Christian explains the concepts of the afterlife - particularly hell. I honestly don't know enough as of yet.
Azuremen
People choose what they want and what they feel they need. Most injustice arises from people thinking they need something they do not - it is all internal, suffering and ill will. Well, excusing those that have psychological issues that do not see the wrong in killing another but that is a different topic. You want a world in which balance is brought after death, but do you need this? No, but it makes you feel better, along with the idea that you'll be rewarded for "good" deeds in your life. Hardly altruistic, at the least. Really more of way to bribe people into behaving, kind like telling a kid they can have a cookie if they do their chores. Just more human ambition, which really is the cause of many people's own suffering.
I think you are looking at this as if people were brought into the Christian faith through fear. I find this totally false (at least in my case). The second thing is that I think you are looking at this as if Christians wouldn't be good people if they discontinued their belief (for the 'Christians' that are good anyway). I see that false (at least in my case). Before I became a Christian, I didn't go around vandalising and kicking cats and stuff. I had an instinct of right and wrong, and I did keep to it usually (obviously no one is perfect).
Even more, I think you are looking at this as if Christianity was some sort of false sense of comfort which drew people in. I find that also wrong (at least in my case). Being a early Christian (which I still am), I can tell you that it is very hard. It's a big change to your overall lifestyle. You even have to get rid of bad pieces of your personality.
Azuremen
Certainly, if there is a God, he doesn't much care anyhow. People mention the Holocaust in here as a point of what Evil is. It was a truly horrible event, on the largest scale. We do not need a religion to tell us this; it goes against most all of human nature - murdering millions of people. But why would God allow this if he was just, and how would punishing the men responsible some how "fix" the tragedy? But even more tragic is the idea that because those that died were Jewish, they won't be saved by the Christian God anyhow, as they did not believe in Christ. And this is why I don't see how Religion somehow makes things "Right" and "Wrong" when it can allow such absurdity.

I can't talk for other religions, I can only talk for my own.

There is a difference between God allowing something to happen and God approving of something.
God does not 'pull strings' as if we were puppets, he gives us free will. God is just. He didn't cause the holocaust, it was evil men who caused it.
 
I'm not going to ignore what Dawkins said, because it seems to me that it makes sense in the atheist viewpoint. If everything's just by 'chance', 'probability' or 'accident', then I cannot see how we could classify absolute 'wrong' and absolute 'right'.
And I know the majority of atheists are nice people. I'm not saying that you can't be good without believing in God. I know both good and bad atheists, and both good and bad Christians.
What I am saying however is that unless there is an absolute moral law, we can't say what's 'good' and 'bad' - it would just be a matter of opinion.
I believe that there is an absolute moral law, and it is given by an absolute law giver (namely God).

Good or bad is a matter of opinion. But since we are a community we can pull together to agree on some rules which will be most beneficial for the population.

The rules which God created were widely accepted rules well before the bible, it was nothing new and they would be the same without a God.
 
Morals are constantly changing, which is why I don't believe there is one set "moral law."

Not too long ago it was morally acceptable to participate in bloodletting practices to appease "the gods."

Not too long ago it was morally acceptable to own another person as a slave.

Not too long ago it was morally acceptable to "keep it in the family" in order to keep the bloodline pure.

Not too long ago it was morally acceptable to......well you get the picture, things change.
 
I'm not going to ignore what Dawkins said, because it seems to me that it makes sense in the atheist viewpoint. If everything's just by 'chance', 'probability' or 'accident', then I cannot see how we could classify absolute 'wrong' and absolute 'right'.
And I know the majority of atheists are nice people. I'm not saying that you can't be good without believing in God. I know both good and bad atheists, and both good and bad Christians.
What I am saying however is that unless there is an absolute moral law, we can't say what's 'good' and 'bad' - it would just be a matter of opinion.
I believe that there is an absolute moral law, and it is given by an absolute law giver (namely God).
I think your point is if atheism is the truth then everything is permissible. This would including the acts of Hitler, 911 hijackers and the Unibomber. The only thing that matters is survival. (of course these examples did a poor job at surviving ;) )
 
The problem is tackling this as if science and philosophy were the same thing, which they aren't. You can have a very moral philosophy based on what you know or you can develop a twisted ethical outlook based on a misinterpretation of science. (I've already delved into how Hitler was not a scientific man, but a very mystical and superstitious one, whereas Stalin's worldview was based on a flawed (and ultimately disproven) sociopolitical theory (and politics ain't science).

And, in the end... this is wholly ignoring the fact that atheism isn't a religion, and thus there is no doctrine central to all non-believers beyond the idea that God doesn't exist.

And where do we list agnostics who don't believe in a personal deity? (God the Alpha)


I'm not going to ignore what Dawkins said, because it seems to me that it makes sense in the atheist viewpoint. If everything's just by 'chance', 'probability' or 'accident', then I cannot see how we could classify absolute 'wrong' and absolute 'right'.

You still haven't answered the trolley problem. There's your absolute wrong and absolute right.

In many instances, the Universe will not give us a choice of absolute right or wrong. Just the choice of the lesser of two evils.

Think: Is it immoral to wantonly kill another human? Yes. Most would agree so.

Is it immoral to cause the death of another human through actions meant to further your own survival? In other words: There is one coconut left on the island. Which of us shall eat?

Many people need the concept immutable moral laws because they can't be bothered to think for themselves and come up with a solution to such a situation. But such laws can also be used to break impasses as above. Doesn't make them absolute or perfect.


I believe that morality is in an absolute moral law. I accept that the concept of good and evil are not tied to religion, but what I don't understand is how we could differentiate between the two without an absolute moral law.
I know that we all have a sense of morality, and as I have said above I know that wether you are a good person or not isn't linked to whatever faith or lack of belief you have.

Humanism. Again, refer to the Confucian way of thought, or Aristotle: "Do not do unto others that which you do not want others to do unto you."

Or, simply: Humanism. As we are humans, the one moral law that applies to us is to value human life. All other concepts are subsumed to that. Those who don't value the lives of humans or consider other humans as unworthy of that value (Hitler, et al) are evil.


I think you are looking at this as if people were brought into the Christian faith through fear. I find this totally false (at least in my case). The second thing is that I think you are looking at this as if Christians wouldn't be good people if they discontinued their belief (for the 'Christians' that are good anyway). I see that false (at least in my case). Before I became a Christian, I didn't go around vandalising and kicking cats and stuff. I had an instinct of right and wrong, and I did keep to it usually (obviously no one is perfect).

A total non-argument. This means that with or without religion, the just will be just and the unjust will be unjust.

Coming from a "converted" society... despite being born Catholic, I can tell you that despite the fact that conversion is technically voluntary, the threat of fire and brimstone and the fact that much of the converted world was converted by "Cross and Sword" doesn't hurt, either.

Islam and Christianity spread far and wide not simply because of the promise of eternal salvation or a whole busload of virgins in Heaven, but because they were two of the more militant and expansionist religions of the past centuries.

Which has little to do with the actual teachings of Christ... (and some of them are very good teachings)... but that's what happened.


There is a difference between God allowing something to happen and God approving of something.
God does not 'pull strings' as if we were puppets, he gives us free will. God is just. He didn't cause the holocaust, it was evil men who caused it.

And here we return to the question: Would an absolutely good God allow absolutely evil acts to be committed? Why does he impart divine retribution in some cases and not in others?
 
And here we return to the question: Would an absolutely good God allow absolutely evil acts to be committed? Why does he impart divine retribution in some cases and not in others?[/QUOTE]

Truth is, we catually cannot explain it. (Well I can't at least) and you may think this is really repetitive but God works in a mysterious way. It's hard to understand. It really is. We will find out one day.
 
niky
The problem is tackling this as if science and philosophy were the same thing, which they aren't. You can have a very moral philosophy based on what you know or you can develop a twisted ethical outlook based on a misinterpretation of science. (I've already delved into how Hitler was not a scientific man, but a very mystical and superstitious one, whereas Stalin's worldview was based on a flawed (and ultimately disproven) sociopolitical theory (and politics ain't science).
Okay.
niky
And, in the end... this is wholly ignoring the fact that atheism isn't a religion, and thus there is no doctrine central to all non-believers beyond the idea that God doesn't exist.
Perhaps I am mixing up atheists with naturalists or materialists?
niky
You still haven't answered the trolley problem. There's your absolute wrong and absolute right.

In many instances, the Universe will not give us a choice of absolute right or wrong. Just the choice of the lesser of two evils.
I've already mentioned why I think absolute evil doesn't exist. Absolute good however, can exist (in my mind).

Imagine you are taking a dog on a lead out for a walk. You approach a lamppost. He walks at one side and you walk on the other side. Because the dog walked on the wrong side he gets looped around the lamppost. Now the dog is restricted from going forward because he was not following you (the leader). You see that he can't continue going forward, so, at his own will, you pull him backwards so that he can go forward. He might resist etc, but you do it so that he may go forward.
We could see that the dog was lead astray from his leader. He may have been tempted by something that led him to go on the other side. We could consider this sin.
The master explains to the dog that he understands that the dog desires to go forward, but he explains that he himself wants to go forward with him. The master wants the dog to go forward. The master explains to the dog that if, by his will, he restrains and stops the master from letting himself forward on the right path, he (the master) cannot follow the wrong path which the dog, wants to go.
I see the master as God in this analogy, and that I am the dog. He corrects me on my path at my own will so that I may go forward with him. Sometimes I cannot understand what I have done wrong, but I trust my master at my own will and travel forward with him.
I hope I have explained this properly. I find this very hard.
Bad things are the consequences of free will. Things that we consider bad are not bad when we consider that it is temporarily less than good to go forward to good.
So I cannot answer that question.

niky
Think: Is it immoral to wantonly kill another human? Yes. Most would agree so.

Is it immoral to cause the death of another human through actions meant to further your own survival? In other words: There is one coconut left on the island. Which of us shall eat?
Share. Or if that is cheating, I would think it would be best if the coconut wasn't eaten by either of us on the island.
niky
Many people need the concept immutable moral laws because they can't be bothered to think for themselves and come up with a solution to such a situation. But such laws can also be used to break impasses as above. Doesn't make them absolute or perfect.
I disagree. I believe that there is such a thing as absolute moral good. We talk as if it were there and argue over who is closest to it when discussing points over morality.
niky
Humanism. Again, refer to the Confucian way of thought, or Aristotle: "Do not do unto others that which you do not want others to do unto you."

Or, simply: Humanism. As we are humans, the one moral law that applies to us is to value human life. All other concepts are subsumed to that. Those who don't value the lives of humans or consider other humans as unworthy of that value (Hitler, et al) are evil.
If there is no purpose of life, then there would logically be no purpose to continue it.
niky
A total non-argument. This means that with or without religion, the just will be just and the unjust will be unjust.
I's just subjective?
niky
Coming from a "converted" society... despite being born Catholic, I can tell you that despite the fact that conversion is technically voluntary, the threat of fire and brimstone and the fact that much of the converted world was converted by "Cross and Sword" doesn't hurt, either.

Islam and Christianity spread far and wide not simply because of the promise of eternal salvation or a whole busload of virgins in Heaven, but because they were two of the more militant and expansionist religions of the past centuries.
Sorry. I'm not really sure how to answer this.
If something was irrational then you wouldn't follow it, no matter how bad the so called "punishments" you would meet at your fate.
I don't agree that fear leads people to Christianity (as in fear about Hell).[/QUOTE]
I hope I have answered your questions/points. I find this stuff really hard to explain so sorry if it isn't fluent.
 
The answer is: you eat the coconut or you let him have it. One or the other must live, if you both die because neither of you ate, that is completely stupid.
 
I believe that there has to be a single being that created the existance of everything. Heres why. If you believe that all that exists came to be from a single "Big Bang",cool! I can except that such an event did occur. However,who made the matter that generated this "Big Bang"? Same goes for the Ancient Alien theory guys. I can believe that we were visited by advanced beings from another star system,maybe thousands or even millions of years ahead of us. And maybe they have abilities that can allow them to seem god-like. However,they did'nt create themselves.
So you see,no matter what scenario you can imagine,I don't believe that nature has the ability to create itself. Or just spawn into existance. Something or someone had to be responsable for it's creation. Even this more up to date String theory. I don't believe that our universe is a re-occuring thing that has always been and always will be. If this were true, there would be such a large number of stars in our sky that the night sky would be lit up like it was daytime. Our sky portrays the life and death of 14 billion years worth of stars. Could you imagine what it would look like if time was infinite? The night sky would look more like a giant glowing mass that would fill the sky from one end to another. All these things prove to me that there must be a creator. A single being (God) who set things in motion 14 billion years ago.
 
I don't believe that nature has the ability to create itself. Or just spawn into existance. Something or someone had to be responsable for it's creation.

Than who is responsible for the creation of the thing that is responsible for creating us?
 
Than who is responsible for the creation of the thing that is responsible for creating us?

This is exactly why this is a never ending argument.

In our current state, our human brain is so complex that it is unable to understand itself. Read that a couple times and really grasp what I am saying. Our brain is such an amazing organ that we cannot even fully understand how it functions. As we advance, we will understand more and more, but as a species advances, it becomes more evolved. So we will likely never be able to fully understand how our brain works.

With that being the case, if we can't even understand that little 3lb piece of gray matter between our ears, how can we even begin to fathom something like religion is trying to claim?

That is where faith comes in, you essentially believe in a fairy tale (that's exactly what it is with no hard evidence to prove otherwise) because you cannot accept a universe/world that you don't fully understand.

(Note: "You" in this context isn't aimed at anyone specific, just the reader.)
 
Back