Do you believe in God?

[CodeRedR51]

GTP_Jesus.

 

[Schwartz]

Can we not have this discussion without making fun or bashing another's beliefs?

Some of you have this "Holier than thou" attitude (no pun intended), and frankly it is hypocritical, considering Christians are often bashed for not accepting the beliefs of athiests.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

In my post about the purple unicorn, I wasn't bashing, I was just pointing out that what was being said wasn't credible. I'm assuming it's the same for the others. We're just trying to not be too serious about it (or at least I was). Sorry if it came off as bashing.

 

[Joel]

Can we not have this discussion without making fun or bashing another's beliefs?

Some of you have this "Holier than thou" attitude (no pun intended), and frankly it is hypocritical, considering Christians are often bashed for not accepting the beliefs of athiests.

Frankly, the Unicorn, GTP_Adam, and Twilight analogies are apt. They all have the same amount of scientific and rational proof as the concept of a God. It's a way of showing how the myths and stories behind religion are similar to a lot of things that are obviously false.

Honestly, I think both sides of this argument are ridiculous, and I'll tell you why.

Perception is reality. Therefore, If you think God exists, than he exists. And if you think he doesn't exist, than he doesn't. The simple fact of the matter is that at this time, there is no concrete evidence proving that a greater being doesn't exist. That being said, there is no concrete evidence to prove one does. However, some in this thread beg to differ, claiming God has had a real and significant impact in history, and using the world we live in as "evidence." This takes me back to my main point. If you believe he has done this, than in your universe, he has. Same goes the other way.

People have different truths. And until more evidence is uncovered that both sides can accept as real and truthful proof, nothing will change, and this thread is a perfect example of that.

I'd say there's a fairly "holier than thou" tone in this post as well. The way it's worded implies that you're above the argument. I also have an issue with the bit about having "different evidence". I'm sorry, but if I wholeheartedly believe that I know how to do open heart surgery, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to go and perform one no questions asked, even if that's my reality and is my evidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are created equal.

No, there's no proof that God doesn't exist, but it's not up to the atheist to disprove a claim, it's up to the religious to prove it. And right now, there is absolutely no scientifically valid claim (zip, zero, nada) or evidence that backs up the existence of a God. I understand that you're saying it isn't black and white, you're being "open minded", and saying that you don't fully agree with either side. I understand your angle, but in this case it isn't really appropriate. We aren't arguing whether hamburgers are better than hot dogs, we're talking about a subject that is in some way quantifiable.

The best way we have to look at the world is using objective and scientific methods to deduce the truth from the evidence around us. Thousands of years of human advancement and scientific discoveries have led to us mapping out the human genetic code, coming to great understandings about the world we live on and how it could have been shaped, and we are on the verge of being able to create life from non-life. Science is continually about advancement, and every single bit of new evidence we've found has led towards the scientifically held theories today. Every bit of new evidence leads us away from a theistic world view that has no piece of supporting evidence.

It's the difference between finding evidence and deducing a claim from that evidence, and making a claim and deducing "evidence" from that claim. One is a logically defensible way of looking at existence, and the other isn't.

 

[homeforsummer]

Can we not have this discussion without making fun or bashing another's beliefs?

Some of you have this "Holier than thou" attitude (no pun intended), and frankly it is hypocritical, considering Christians are often bashed for not accepting the beliefs of athiests.

At what point were you planning to start contributing to the discussion rather than moderating the way people are discussing it?

I'd also add that atheists don't have "beliefs". They are, by definition, those without belief. It's also worth pointing out, as people seem unable to make the distinction, that not every atheist is interested in science, and not every scientist is an atheist. The two are not interchangeable words.

 

[Azuremen]

I'd also add that atheists don't have "beliefs". They are, by definition, those without belief. It's also worth pointing out, as people seem unable to make the distinction, that not every atheist is interested in science, and not every scientist is an atheist. The two are not interchangeable words.

Atheists simply don't believe in a deity of sorts, which isn't to be confused with no belief. I am an atheist in that I don't believe in a higher power or beings, assuming you don't count the awesomeness of randomness generating results as a higher power, but I describe myself as a Secular Buddhist when asked what I believe.

More broadly speaking, you could be an atheist and believe in reincarnation - Buddhists are, strictly speaking, atheists.

 

[Joel]

At what point were you planning to start contributing to the discussion rather than moderating the way people are discussing it?

I'd also add that atheists don't have "beliefs". They are, by definition, those without belief. It's also worth pointing out, as people seem unable to make the distinction, that not every atheist is interested in science, and not every scientist is an atheist. The two are not interchangeable words.

This is true as well, I do talk about science a lot as a reason for my lack of belief, but there was also a philosophical aspect to my "conversion". It wasn't just walking into biology class one day, saying "oh, silly me, it was science all along!", and leaving an atheist. It was a long process where I went from devout Catholic altar boy (as a young child), to less religious, to devout again (after confirmation), to questioning my faith in high school, to progressively losing my faith.

A big part of it was struggling with the morals that were "taught" in my (Catholic) high school. My parents are Catholic, and I was raised Catholic, but there was very little in the form of religious moral education. I had grown up in a house where people being gay was OK, that it was moral, that evolution was the most valid explanation, I really didn't get much in the way of religious teachings at home, and it wasn't talked about much in elementary school.

Fast forward to high school, and I started developing a curiosity for "how we all got here". Around the same time, my religion teacher at school was denouncing gays, saying they were immoral, that they weren't real families, all with this smug sense of self satisfaction. I quickly became disenfranchised with the church's teachings, my friend's mom died and people said "the Lord works in mysterious ways", we were "taught" about how euthanasia was immoral, it was a quick fall from grace for the church in my eyes.

I just found myself completely at odds with the whole concept of religion. All of the principles amd arguments central to the faith weren't standing up to logical scrutiny. I've always had an analytical mind, and I started applying it to religion. I just kept finding things I disagreed with in the church, primarily on morality, and the whole concept of a creator just started to become bunk to me. Everything my religion teachers would say as an argument for God's existence would leave me scratching my head and refuting it to myself.

One by one things fell, I found scientific explanations for things I had previously attributed to God, I kept finding teachings and aspects of the church that left me with a sour taste in my mouth, and I began to find that I didn't need the church in my life. I absolutely 100 percent knew that I didn't need their morals (in fact, I found a lot of their moral teachings repulsive), and I was spending a lot of time researching the scientific case for atheism (or rather, the complete lack of evidence of a God).

I'd say for me it was a 65/35 split between my own soul searching and science that led me to atheism. I just found the whole idea of a benevolent God who allows people to live in disease riddled, war-torn countries silly. A God who is punishing all of us for sins comitted by someone "thousands" (lol) of years ago. The Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandals, it just all piled up and I could no longer keep the blinders on.

 

[Schwartz]

I'd say there's a fairly "holier than thou" tone in this post as well.

Touchè. I lost that one.

I'm sorry, but if I wholeheartedly believe that I know how to do open heart surgery, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to go and perform one no questions asked, even if that's my reality and is my evidence.

If you wholeheartedly believe you know how to do open heart surgery, than your reality is that you are a surgeon. Simple as that. But if you go up and ask a hospital if they'll let you perform open heart surgery, they'll say "no." Will that change the fact that you, delusional as you may be, believe you are able to perform open heart surgery? Probably not (Well that depends on how crazy you really are, but I digress). So, in your reality, you are a surgeon, while in everyone else's, you aren't.

Honestly though, this isn't a great example of the point I'm trying to make. You can prove with solid evidence that the said person does not have the qualifications to perform open heart surgery. And after being presented with this evidence, the "surgeon" should now understand that he is not an actual surgeon. However, if he still chooses to ignore this evidence, he is still a surgeon. But at that point he'd probably need a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is sane or not.

But, if one believes in God, there is no real evidence to prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God in their reality, exists, while in anothers, it may not. But now that I think of it, the whole "no evidence" thing is the entire intrigue of this thread. I guess what I am trying to say is that we will just continue to have these same arguments until something changes.

I'd also add that atheists don't have "beliefs". They are, by definition, those without belief.

No, they really aren't. Athiests believe that there is no greater being. That is just one belief they have among many.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I agree with Noob

I was raised religious but much like yourself I began to question things and with much help form this thread (back in the early days) my eyes have opened.

 

[Joel]

Honestly though, this isn't a great example of the point I'm trying to make. You can prove with solid evidence that the said person does not have the qualifications to perform open heart surgery. And after being presented with this evidence, the "surgeon" should now understand that he is not an actual surgeon. However, if he still chooses to ignore this evidence, he is still a surgeon. But at that point he'd probably need a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is sane or not.

But, if one believes in God, there is no real evidence to proove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God in their reality, exists, while in anothers, it may not. But now that I think of it, the whole "no evidence" thing is the entire intrigue of this thread. I guess what I am trying to say is that we will just continue to have these same arguments until something changes.

You're confusing a perception of reality with reality. A wholehearted belief in God, ghosts, the supernatural, etc. is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. There is a quantifiable way of looking at it, and while some people may perceive it as something else, it doesn't mean it is true.

I do agree about the circular nature of this thread though, there is a constant argument that never seems to be resolved. However, there are definitely more people changing their opinion when presented with evidence - I'm one of them.

I agree with Noob

I was raised religious but much like yourself I began to question things and with much help form this thread (back in the early days) my eyes have opened.

We've been saved!

Honestly this thread had a lot to do with it as well, it was a starting point that lead me to do more digging about the science behind the big bang, evolution, etc.

 

[niky]

No, they really aren't. Athiests believe that there is no greater being. That is just one belief they have among many.

Except those that know there is no proof and with-hold making judgments on the physical reality or non- of such greater beings.

 

[Schwartz]

For me, it was just natural curiosity, which led me to watch the Discovery, Science, and History channels more.

I was raised Jewish (I had a Bar-Mitzvah too, but only for the money ). I don't really know at what point I decided in my mind that there most likely wasn't a God, I think it may have just grown over time.

Except those that know there is no proof and with-hold making judgments on the physical reality or non- of such greater beings.

Isn't that agnosticism?

Agnosticism - (a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God) "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

 

[Famine]

No, they really aren't. Athiests believe that there is no greater being. That is just one belief they have among many.

Nope. Atheism requires no beliefs. That doesnt mean atheists don't believe anything, but that atheism itself simply doesn't require it.

Atheists do not believe in any deities.
Nontheists believe there is no deity.

"Theism" is the belief in at least one God (from the Greek "theos" ["god" or "divinity"]). This is modified by the Greek prefix "a" which means "the absence of". "Atheism" is thus "the absence of belief in at least one god".

"Gnosis" is Greek for "knowledge". A "gnostic" is someone who holds knowledge. "Gnosticism" is the practice of obtaining knowledge. Once again the Greek prefix "a" is applied to give us "the absence of the practice of obtaining knowledge".

There are those who would argue that we cannot know if God exists - we don't have the knowledge - and we are thus agnostic ("the absence of holding knowledge") about God unless we believe in God. The problem with that line of enquiry is that there is no objective way to know of the existence or non-existence of God - the knowledge is simply unobtainable because your God is non-falsifiable - and so it automatically becomes a belief matter and you either believe in your God (theist), believe that there is no God (nontheist) or lack any belief in gods (atheist).

 

[Schwartz]

Thanks for clarifying, Famine. I didn't know that.

 

[niky]

Isn't that agnosticism?

Guilty.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Because allah isn't real. I praise God because He is.

Ahem.

I feel the need to pull you up on this one. "Allah" is Arabic (and quite a few other languages) for "God". If you were an Arabic Christian and wanted to say "God", meaning the Christian god mentioned in the Christian Bible, you would say "Allah".

So you have actually just said that god doesn't exist there, rather ironically.

 

[TrdScionxB2]

You realize they are the same God as defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

No They are not the same

Incorrect , I really don't think you understand what the big bang theory actually states at all . If you did you wouldn't say ' a big bang ' didn't do it , ' god did ' etc ...

Read this and you will have your answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis . And incorrect . An imaginary man made being can do nothing of the sort .

Nobody is a perfect human . What you're saying here is just a by product of your particular religion .... It's almost like that's been drummed into you over many years from what i can see .

Well As you say it's been "drummed" into me. It's been put in me because its TRUE

God created life, and he existed before all life on earth

Amen So true

 

[TheCracker]

It's been put in me because its TRUE

[citation needed]

 

[Exorcet]

Well As you say it's been "drummed" into me. It's been put in me because its TRUE

Then prove it. All you're doing is repeating things that you've been told over and over and taken for truth without ever trying to confirm them. So basically, you know nothing about God, you can't speak for the validity of any holy text or your own religion.

You are not arguing, you are merely making statements, rather empty ones. This is not how discussions work. You need to support your ideas with facts and evidence. No one has any reason to believe in God because God explains nothing. Not the sun, moon, life, or anything else. There are theories that explain all that we know about those things. The Bible contains nothing but meaningless stories and misinformation. If you disagree, it might be helpful to explain why. That doesn't go just for the side that you're arguing with, but for yourself.

 

[TrdScionxB2]

So where's the concrete proof of your God, whichever one he may be?

We're not talking signs of the corporeal existence of Christ or the historical Temple of David.

We're not talking about the Pyramids either, nor the Hajj.

These are evidence of belief. Not evidence of non-corporeal Gods.

-

And if you fall back on "revelation" being through visions, then I invite you to read the Qu'Ran, the Talmud (which is the basis of both the Bible and the Qu'Ran), the writings of Siddhartha Gautama and the millions of lines of Hindu holy text, each of which counts as "revelatory" and each of which are believed by millions around the world.

Prove it.

No matter how many times I hear that, I am still no closer to being Jewish. So... nope... sorry.

I'm not Jewish. I'm adopted into the family of Jesus! The Bible says "Believe in The Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It takes faith to believe in God.

 

[Scaff]

No They are not the same

Yes they are. You seem to not be aware that all three are Abrahamic religions and such share the same core origin text, they only start to differ to any great degree once you get to the point of Christ and the New Testament.

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

I take it you are aware that Jesus is a Muslim prophet?

Well As you say it's been "drummed" into me. It's been put in me because its TRUE

In just the same way that children the world over are told that Santa is true (that one never has a happy ending).

Your belief in God is based on faith, a core factor of which is that it can't be proven. Which is fine as not a single shred of proof (to an acceptable standard) for the existence of God has even been provided.

 

[Exorcet]

It takes faith to believe in God.

Yes it does, which is why religion makes no sense.

 

[ScouserInExile]

My big issue with the staunch creationist fundamentalism is that it in no way, shape or form does anything to advance humanity.

Where the whole purpose of the scientific community is to constantly explore and question how and why things exist and why they work, whereas religion seemed to settle on "God did it" centuries ago and is sticking to that.

If the church still held the power it had a few hundred years ago, we'd all still be dying from appendicitis.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thanks for clarifying, Famine. I didn't know that.

This is why we learn things before telling someone they're wrong about it

Not believing in something isn't the same as believing there isn't something, though admittedly there's an overlap for many people.

Atheists simply don't believe in a deity of sorts, which isn't to be confused with no belief

Sorry, I should have clarified, though I was using it in the context of the thread. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, rather than lack of any belief in anything.

 

[TrdScionxB2]

Then prove it. All you're doing is repeating things that you've been told over and over and taken for truth without ever trying to confirm them. So basically, you know nothing about God, you can't speak for the validity of any holy text or your own religion.

You are not arguing, you are merely making statements, rather empty ones. This is not how discussions work. You need to support your ideas with facts and evidence. No one has any reason to believe in God because God explains nothing. Not the sun, moon, life, or anything else. There are theories that explain all that we know about those things. The Bible contains nothing but meaningless stories and misinformation. If you disagree, it might be helpful to explain why. That doesn't go just for the side that you're arguing with, but for yourself.

Well Think about this. We can't see the wind, but we see the effects of the wind. We can't see air, but we know its there because we're breathing it. & then there is gravity, we can't see it, but we have faith it's going to keep us on the ground. In the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is being sure of what I hope for & certain of what I don't not see." Bottom line is I pray to God and he answers me. You should study the prophecies in the Bible. See how many of them have come to pass. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well Think about this. We can't see the wind, but we see the effects of the wind. We can't see air, but we know its there because we're breathing it.

That's because the wind still has a physical presence. Even the very small, and invisible to the naked eye - molecules of air - have mass.

& then there is gravity, we can't see it, but we have faith it's going to keep us on the ground.

I don't need to have any "faith" in gravity. Having "faith" in gravity suggests that if you lose faith in it, you'll suddenly float off into space. That's not how gravity works. It doesn't need to be believed in for it to exist.

 

[Exorcet]

Well Think about this. We can't see the wind, but we see the effects of the wind. We can't see air, but we know its there because we're breathing it. & then there is gravity, we can't see it, but we have faith it's going to keep us on the ground.

There is no faith in air or gravity. There are theories however. We can make predictions when it comes to both air and gravity. This allows us to verify what we know about them and gives us the ability to check for error by proving our theories wrong. You can't do that with God.

And as hfs has said, we can also measure air and gravity. Not God.

In the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is being sure of what I hope for & certain of what I don't not see." Bottom line is I pray to God and he answers me. You should study the prophecies in the Bible. See how many of them have come to pass. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth.

I was a Christian for over a decade until I stopped believing and considered what it meant to be Christian. The answer was, being an illogical person. The Bible has made no successful predictions and contains no information that is useful in helping us understand the world around us. What it does contains is myths and contradictions. Study the Bible more, and then compare it to reality.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Well Think about this. We can't see the wind, but we see the effects of the wind. We can't see air, but we know its there because we're breathing it. & then there is gravity, we can't see it, but we have faith it's going to keep us on the ground. In the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is being sure of what I hope for & certain of what I don't not see." Bottom line is I pray to God and he answers me. You should study the prophecies in the Bible. See how many of them have come to pass. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth.

Okay being able to see the wind is debatable, we can see the effect of the wind but that's pretty much it.

You are, however wrong about not being able to see air. If you look through an electron microscope, you could see the nitrogen, oxygen eyes all that makes up air

Can you point to one of the prophecies that has come true, by the way?

.

 

[TrdScionxB2]

Okay being able to see the wind is debatable, we can see the effect of the wind but that's pretty much it.

You are, however wrong about not being able to see air. If you look through an electron microscope, you could see the nitrogen, oxygen eyes all that makes up air

Can you point to one of the prophecies that has come true, by the way?

.

Well. These people scoffing at the Bible are fulfilling prophecies. 2 Peter 3:4 says "In the last day scoffers will come." Also Israel becoming a nation in one day is in Isaiah 66:8.

 

[Scaff]

Well Think about this. We can't see the wind, but we see the effects of the wind. We can't see air, but we know its there because we're breathing it. & then there is gravity, we can't see it, but we have faith it's going to keep us on the ground.

All of those can and have been demonstrated to a scientific standard of evidence and most importantly can be falsified.

Not a single bit of it requires faith at all, if you are going to try and use example such as this please ensure that you are using them accurately.

In the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is being sure of what I hope for & certain of what I don't not see." Bottom line is I pray to God and he answers me. You should study the prophecies in the Bible. See how many of them have come to pass.

Write anything in vague enough terms and wait long enough and they 'will come to pass'. Astrology is based on exactly that, as are the ramblings of Nostradamus.

I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth.

While the thought is kind please don't, I have zero need for it at all.