Do you believe in God?

[der Astronom]

I'm quite skeptical about what the church does with its money. Stained glass windows don't come for free, and I highly doubt Michellangelo and any other Renaissance painter painted the ceilings or made those religious statues in the churches for free--otherwise, how else do they earn their livings? Furthermore, they've been taking tithes from peasants for their own land.

It is not His responibility. Think of the Old Testament as Humanity's school years. During this time, God guided us and gave us moral and ethical codes by which to live by. Returning to the Father metaphor, this was the 'My house, My rules' era. He was shaping a people to be the carriers of His truth. Thus, he played a highly active role in our lives during this time so we would not stray as easily from the path. Then, we reach the New Testament, aka graduation. God gives his parting words through Christ and his parting gift of Salvation. It then became our responsibility, not His, to make our own choices, be they good or bad, and to suffer the consequences thereof. God still sends the occasional 'care package' and we still call him up from time to time (perhaps not as often as I should *cough*), but for the most part, we are our own responsibility. It is by our hand that we wage war, so we must put an end to it.

There is no "metaphor", no matter how farfetched or long stretched that excuses the violence inherent in the Old Testament. I cannot see how people simply wave it away.

Not doctrine. C'mon, I already made this point. We have a history of being idiots, but that doesn't reflect what our Father taught us. The church has a really tough time of setting a good example for some reason...

Perhaps because they're relying on a book that's not only scientifically inaccurate (which alludes to fiction, and people don't necessarily take fiction seriously, unless it gets to them, and I can't see how violence or intolerance does that) but full of contradictions and interpretations that people can't agree on? People say that only a few people read the bible literally, but you can't blame the people who didn't understand astronomy, and had no concept of what was directly above or below them--if a book told them the Earth was flat or that heaven was above them and hell below them, they'd believe it. If the same book said to kill non-believers, they'd believe it too. There is no judgment (or it cannot be assumed) in their mind that tells them it might be wrong.

This is true. The majority of us will always say "me first!" Sadly, many of these people hold positions of authority in the church. That is why those of us with talent and and ethical backbone, such as you Hera, are so important to the world! Hera, you are an incredible writer and debater! You also have a strong sense of right and wrong. Please don't give up on the world. The world needs people like you to inspire them to put the needs of others before their own. Even if you never darken the door of a church, you really could be an ethical asset to humanity. All it takes is a love for your fellow human, as much as he/she stinks, and a will to help Humanity help themselves.

The only way I can help humanity (yes, I know this is directed at Hera, but if you could say this to anyone else, this would be my response) is to help see things in a more rational light. Because people are too easily moved by their emotions, and you can't think straight if your mind is ruled by emotions, and emotions don't always lead you to doing the right thing. It does bother me that people would sooner believe something that could quite possibly be a lie rather than to investigate whether or not something is true--it's almost like they don't want to know. It bothers me that I have to be a part of this humanity with such fears.

And now for those saying I should try prayer--it has done nothing for me. I have too little emotion for it to have any effect, nor does meditation work on me. And I am happier without prayer because I know that my strength is my own, and do not need to rely on others, real or false to be strong. I would think that this fact alone is much better motivation, and a much stronger feeling than it is to believe that someone else is giving you strength than to know the truth--that you give yourself strength because you know that you need it, and that you know where your strength comes from.

And I know exactly where my strength comes from--the power of my mind to perceive the world both rationally and logically.

There is one other thing that makes this state of mind particularly powerful--that I can verify this to be the truth because I need not verify the existence of someone watching me because I do not believe that to be the case--only verify that I exist. And the truth brings more power than any other kind of denial might.

Of course, you may continue praying if you believe it works, but I'm telling you this is why I do not need it.

 

[Eight]

I just don't belief is God, I don't have much of a belief really. If there is a better force out there, then I don't see the point in putting ourselves out much to find out. What are we gonna do once we find out? Nothing really, either way, we'll go back to our original every day lives. A faith will do nothing but get in the way of my life, so I can't be bothered to put myself out for it unless it really makes a positive effect on my life, a positive effect that I can actually realise.

The reason I am Athiest is 50% details and 50% Personal Experience.

I belief that religion is one of the main sources of pain and war, the churches are corrupt, some religions encourage discrimnation, such as racism and homophonia, and the bible somewhats, contradicts itself, (ie, Adam and Eve felt the Lust to eat the fruit from the tree that supposedly released the sins into the world, but lust is a sin, so what was it doing hanging about before the sins were 'released?')

Despite my views, even when I did somewhat belief in God, I had God shoved down my throat by my school, constantly making us sing hymns, tottally disrespecting other people's point of views, being forced to take RE for a GCSE, and the point that some of the worst people I know are religious.

(Please no one patronise me saying "I feel sorry for you," it didn't work when my RE teacher did it, won't work when anyone else does it. Also no one say you won't be saved, because seriously, just think, who are you to predict the supposed 'end of the world via the hands of God.')

 

[der Astronom]

That's the problem with religion. This kind of denial prevents the realization of the truth, and may, in some cases, be particularly damaging, both psychologically and consequentially. If your denial is strong enough, then exposing the truth will only make you want to hear what you want to hear, and if your beliefs were unverified, and you were wrong, then faith did not do much because if you know it's not true anymore, it no longer works.

No one can say they learn anything from denial of the truth. It is dangerous to the mind in my opinion.

 

[TranceGenesis]

That's the problem with religion. This kind of denial prevents the realization of the truth, and may, in some cases, be particularly damaging, both psychologically and consequentially. If your denial is strong enough, then exposing the truth will only make you want to hear what you want to hear, and if your beliefs were unverified, and you were wrong, then faith did not do much because if you know it's not true anymore, it no longer works.

No one can say they learn anything from denial of the truth. It is dangerous to the mind in my opinion.

It can also help people. Helps people overcome obstacles that they wouldn't normally do. I don't believe in a higher power but i do believe that if it helps someone to have faith and hope then i am all for religion. Even if some people think its a lie.

I would lie a thousand times over if i knew it would help not harm someone.

 

[der Astronom]

I already know that. But your post does not address the problem with faith. As I have said, faith only works if you can deny the truth, but if it is not true, and you know it, then you have ignorance. You can learn nothing from ignorance. That was my point.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Just a few follow up points here;

Sb you said that my assertion of religion being used to msilead and manipulate people was wrong, then you proceeded to say "oh those people who start wars just *say* its because of religion"

Well yeah, and all the idiots who follow that religion and believe what they are saying march off to war as well... thus proving my point.

You completely misinterpreted what i said as well. Religion by its very nature (offering easy answers and a way out) will attract weak people. That doesn't mean every religion person is weak, just that it's ATTRACTIVE to weak-willed individuals, and people will *always* use religion to manipulate and abuse those individuals.

As for saying any organisation could do what religion could, and the fact i choose religion shows i am "biased"

Religion has the most members of any "organisation" in the world.

You say christianity helps people, how, by going to africa and giving them water, then saying if you use a condom you're going to hell. Yeah, well done, you save one life, and condemn everyone who hears your message to a slow painful death from AIDS.

The church helps people because it's in the church's best interest to help people. The catholic church is the single richest entity on the planet, if they wanted to wipe out poverty, they could. But they don't. They offer just enough hope to get people to follow whatever they *WANT* them to believe.

Organised religion, religious tomes... They're all just ways for people to manipulate other people.

If you want a religion, close your eyes, think hard, pray, whatever. If you're right and there is a god, he'll tell you what he wants. You don't need OTHER PEOPLE to tell you what YOUR god wants do you? If you do, you obviously don't have the kind of relationship with him you should. Yet all these christians turn to the bible for answers, instead of just asking their omnipotent god, who should easily have the power to answer them.

And if you give the answer, which i have heard before, of "oh god already gave us the answers in the bible, why should he do it again" Well, that just shows the nature of your god. He writes a book in which he tells people to murder babies for not believing in him, then he can't find the time to answer the follow up questions his faithful have.

For the record, i *have* read the bible, and the problem i have with religion is that it's just a vehicle used by people to manipulate people. If you want a faith, close your eyes and find one, don't do what *another person* told you you're supposed to.

Religious people are the first to call someone closed minded, yet their beliefs all come from the words of other people. Down to what day they should go to their gods house. It's very sad.

 

[professor13]

There is no "metaphor", no matter how farfetched or long stretched that excuses the violence inherent in the Old Testament. I cannot see how people simply wave it away.

Please do not take my words out of context. I, at no point in my post, ever condoned needless violence in any form. Violence is not inherent in the Old Testament. There was war, to be sure, but God was establishing his people and making known his authority. As painful as war is, there is not always an alternative. I may be an optimist, but I don't deny reality.

Perhaps because they're relying on a book that's not only scientifically inaccurate (which alludes to fiction, and people don't necessarily take fiction seriously, unless it gets to them, and I can't see how violence or intolerance does that) but full of contradictions and interpretations that people can't agree on?

As far as the scientific inaccuracies go, please give examples in your argument. Please note that when the Bible mentions the 'four corners' of the Earth and the like, that the authors were humans in a time where astronomical ignorance was the norm. If the Bible said "... And the angels sped to the magnetic north and south poles and to two places equidistant to each other on opposite ends of the Earth," the people of the time would have been rather confused.

As for the difference of interpretations, that's not just religion. Scientists are constantly debating theories and the like. Having different interpretations isn't wrong (quite the opposite), it is all in how you deal with them.

I belief that religion is one of the main sources of pain and war, the churches are corrupt, some religions encourage discrimnation, such as racism and homophonia,

Not the religion, the church. There is a difference.

and the bible somewhats, contradicts itself, (ie, Adam and Eve felt the Lust to eat the fruit from the tree that supposedly released the sins into the world, but lust is a sin, so what was it doing hanging about before the sins were 'released?')

Thank you for providing an example. However, what Adam and Eve felt was not lust, it was temptation. Temptation is not a sin. The sin is in following through with temptation. Secondly, sin was not released through the eating of the apple. The apple provided knowledge of what was good and what was evil. Sin has always existed, as evidenced by Lucifer's rebellion against God.

That's the problem with religion. This kind of denial prevents the realization of the truth, and may, in some cases, be particularly damaging, both psychologically and consequentially. If your denial is strong enough, then exposing the truth will only make you want to hear what you want to hear, and if your beliefs were unverified, and you were wrong, then faith did not do much because if you know it's not true anymore, it no longer works.

No one can say they learn anything from denial of the truth. It is dangerous to the mind in my opinion.

This argument is built upon the false assumption that religion is a denial of reality. This is a logical falacy. I will not deny that many christians opt for denial, but that is not in the doctrine, and I as well believe it to be totally wrong.

I already know that. But your post does not address the problem with faith. As I have said, faith only works if you can deny the truth, but if it is not true, and you know it, then you have ignorance. You can learn nothing from ignorance. That was my point.

Totally incorrect definition of Faith. Please do not supply your own definitions. Faith is the confidence that your belief cannot and will not be contradicted. If Jesus's physical body were ever found, I would immediately renounce my Christianity, but I believe that that will never happen.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Christ, you people like to argue.

I daresay I've said all I can say in some of the earlier pages of this and, though my wording might change, I'm still exactly where I was in terms of my standpoint. I just needed to comment on one thing that seems to crop up all the time but is never addressed:

And he does answer prayers, but not so much unnecessary, luxurious ones like "Let me win that lottery lord.", but more so things you really need.

"Ask, and you shall receive."

I apologise in advance for using you as an example - you were just the closest person at hand.

This statement is quite the common one and it annoys me to no end. To me, this is the individual religious person breaking their own beliefs for the sake of avoiding the realisation that God --if he exists at all-- maybe cannot carry out everything it's suggested he can do.

"Ask and you shall receive" < there are no sub-points or anything there, it just blatantly says that you'll get whatever you ask for - and therein lies the rub. I just see this as a way of making excuses for a flawed belief system for, as I said, the sake of avoiding the possible truth. Who's to say that one request is necessary and another is not? The way it pans out is that if you ask for something, and don't get it, you force yourself to believe that it's unnecessary, whereas, if you do get it, you consider it evidence, to yourself, that there is someone up there, listening to you.

It's kind of like me going outside and screaming I WANT RAIN - I could either do it until it finally happens (making it look like I've contributed to it), or I could go back inside and realise that no one heard me. It's a bit of an odd example but it conveys it clearly enough for me.

 

[der Astronom]

Please do not take my words out of context. I, at no point in my post, ever condoned needless violence in any form. Violence is not inherent in the Old Testament. There was war, to be sure, but God was establishing his people and making known his authority. As painful as war is, there is not always an alternative. I may be an optimist, but I don't deny reality.

And if God were omnipotent, then war can be avoidable--afterall, he hardened the heart of the pharaoh. War happens because of the way humanity is--it's not because of God, and if you were to suggest that all these wars were lead on because of God, I wonder what kind of a horrible being he is, when he could easily have prevented it. Of course, the violence isn't the only thing in the bible that makes it so disgusting.

As far as the scientific inaccuracies go, please give examples in your argument. Please note that when the Bible mentions the 'four corners' of the Earth and the like, that the authors were humans in a time where astronomical ignorance was the norm. If the Bible said "... And the angels sped to the magnetic north and south poles and to two places equidistant to each other on opposite ends of the Earth," the people of the time would have been rather confused.

That does not excuse the fact that they are still scientifically inaccurate. It does not make their credibility much better, regardless of the times in which they lived.

As for the difference of interpretations, that's not just religion. Scientists are constantly debating theories and the like. Having different interpretations isn't wrong (quite the opposite), it is all in how you deal with them.

No actually, there is a difference between a scientific interpretation and a literary interpretation you might make off of a religious text. A scientific interpretation is based off of evidence and empircal fact that is both observable and measurable--they are not metaphors, and the fact that such observations lead to trends that indicate the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and spherical all agree, also constitutes a probability--namely, that this is likely a "fact" that is highly probable.

The interpretation of a religious text is nothing more than picking on a bunch of metaphors, which mean whatever you want them to mean. It tells you nothing useful--only what you want to hear because you have no other means of interpreting it except what your mind makes of it.

This argument is built upon the false assumption that religion is a denial of reality. This is a logical falacy. I will not deny that many christians opt for denial, but that is not in the doctrine, and I as well believe it to be totally wrong.

If what the bible says is a part of religion, then it is a denial of reality that the Earth is flat or 6000 years old, and a contradiction is also a denial of reality because a contradiction can never be true. If you cannot confirm that God exists as you cannot prove it, then you cannot conclude that he exists, and to suggest that he does when you do not know is a denial of reality--that is, reality as far as you are concerned is that you do not know if God exists or not--until you can prove it or know that God exists, to suggest that God exists is a denial of reality (ie, the reality that you do not actually know this). It also says in the bible to not put the lord to the test or not to question him--in other words, it shuns skepticism. If being skeptical is necessary for the search for truth, then the bible encourages the denial of what could possibly be true.
If you believe something on nothing more than the basis of faith, then it is entirely possible for you to be in denial of reality--until you verify this (which is actually a violation of the act of faith), you must admit a denial of reality.

Totally incorrect definition of Faith. Please do not supply your own definitions. Faith is the confidence that your belief cannot and will not be contradicted. If Jesus's physical body were ever found, I would immediately renounce my Christianity, but I believe that that will never happen.

But it is ignorance to believe in something for which you cannot confirm. You may suggest something that is unconfirmed, but it is not necessary for you to believe in it until you have found a way to prove it or find evidence to support it. Confidence is nothing in light of reality.

 

[TranceGenesis]

I already know that. But your post does not address the problem with faith. As I have said, faith only works if you can deny the truth, but if it is not true, and you know it, then you have ignorance. You can learn nothing from ignorance. That was my point.

I apologise if i have confused you. My last post may have been misleading. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound? No proof to suggest otherwise doesn't mean it didn't. Same with faith. If you can't find proof that he doesn't exist does that mean that he (it) doesn't?

I simply put it out there that if it makes someone happy or a better person then it matters not about proof but more about the faith.

 

[der Astronom]

No, but if you didn't see the tree falling, you can make no conclusion from it. That is, you cannot say whether or not it fell. I did not say that if you do not have faith, that you must choose not to believe at all, only that you can not conclude anything from it, and perhaps admit that you do not know. I don't know why, but people have a problem with that. It's the truth that you do not know, and yet, they don't want to see that.

In my opinion though, I don't think ignorance makes a person better because it would make them incapable of learning or growing.

As I said, ignorance is dangerous for the mind.

 

[professor13]

And if God were omnipotent, then war can be avoidable--afterall, he hardened the heart of the pharaoh. War happens because of the way humanity is--it's not because of God, and if you were to suggest that all these wars were lead on because of God, I wonder what kind of a horrible being he is, when he could easily have prevented it. Of course, the violence isn't the only thing in the bible that makes it so disgusting.

The first part is true. War can be avoidable, but, as stated earlier and restated by you in the above post, it is the responsibility of humans. I did not say that God is the reason for war, but that he helped the Israelites to victory so that His people could have a foundation from which to proclaim His truth. As for the last sentence in the above quote, it is highly inappropriate to call yourself a light of rationality and objectivity, then maliciously insult a religious text with nothing more than an opinion, and call it fact.

That does not excuse the fact that they are still scientifically inaccurate. It does not make their credibility much better, regardless of the times in which they lived.

God was not writing a physics textbook when he inspired the penning of the Bible. The point of the Bible was to provide the people with a set of codes and moral standards by which they should live. As such, it contains many metaphors to help express theological truths. The Bible would have been useless to the people if it were not written in a manner they could understand.

No actually, there is a difference between a scientific interpretation and a literary interpretation you might make off of a religious text. A scientific interpretation is based off of evidence and empircal fact that is both observable and measurable--they are not metaphors, and the fact that such observations lead to trends that indicate the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and spherical all agree, also constitutes a probability--namely, that this is likely a "fact" that is highly probable.

The interpretation of a religious text is nothing more than picking on a bunch of metaphors, which mean whatever you want them to mean. It tells you nothing useful--only what you want to hear because you have no other means of interpreting it except what your mind makes of it.

I never said there wasn't a difference, only that a difference in interpretation doesn't count as evidence disproving the Bible.

If what the bible says is a part of religion, then it is a denial of reality that the Earth is flat or 6000 years old, and a contradiction is also a denial of reality because a contradiction can never be true. If you cannot confirm that God exists as you cannot prove it, then you cannot conclude that he exists, and to suggest that he does when you do not know is a denial of reality--that is, reality as far as you are concerned is that you do not know if God exists or not--until you can prove it or know that God exists, to suggest that God exists is a denial of reality (ie, the reality that you do not actually know this). It also says in the bible to not put the lord to the test or not to question him--in other words, it shuns skepticism. If being skeptical is necessary for the search for truth, then the bible encourages the denial of what could possibly be true.
If you believe something on nothing more than the basis of faith, then it is entirely possible for you to be in denial of reality--until you verify this (which is actually a violation of the act of faith), you must admit a denial of reality.

This is getting redundant. I never said it is impossible for the Christian God not to exist, I have been simply countering arguments that He cannot exist. I, too, believe it is wrong to believe in something just because you can't disprove it. Unfalsifiable facts are not the sole basis of Christianity. It is also experiential. Through my experiences, I have confirmed His words. It is as C.S. Lewis once said, "I believe in Christianity like I believe in the sunrise, not because I see it, but by it, I see everything else." My experiences can prove the existance of God to nobody but myself, but that doesn't mean it can't be true.

But it is ignorance to believe in something for which you cannot confirm. You may suggest something that is unconfirmed, but it is not necessary for you to believe in it until you have found a way to prove it or find evidence to support it. Confidence is nothing in light of reality.

As stated above, my experiences are my confirmation. That can't be used as objective proof of God's existance, but it gives foundation to my confidence. Perspective is the light of a person's reality, provided no contadiction to objective fact.

 

[der Astronom]

The first part is true. War can be avoidable, but, as stated earlier and restated by you in the above post, it is the responsibility of humans. I did not say that God is the reason for war, but that he helped the Israelites to victory so that His people could have a foundation from which to proclaim His truth. As for the last sentence in the above quote, it is highly inappropriate to call yourself a light of rationality and objectivity, then maliciously insult a religious text with nothing more than an opinion, and call it fact.

And God, with his omnipotence, couldn't prevent that war? The fact that bothers me most about this is how God actually agrees with letting them have their stupid war, which may as well imply that he condones violence.
I did not say that I "was" a light of rationality; I simply suggested that confidence does nothing to change what is real. What I do mean to say, however, is that with a metaphorical text like the bible, you can make no scientific conclusions off of it, and they may as well be equivalent to being false because it tells you nothing useful. In other words, you can't tell if it's true or not; it's not objective.

God was not writing a physics textbook when he inspired the penning of the Bible. The point of the Bible was to provide the people with a set of codes and moral standards by which they should live. As such, it contains many metaphors to help express theological truths. The Bible would have been useless to the people if it were not written in a manner they could understand.

But metaphors are unclear, and ambiguous--they mean whatever you want them or see them to be. So it is useless.

I never said there wasn't a difference, only that a difference in interpretation doesn't count as evidence disproving the Bible.

No, but it makes it useless, since it won't tell you anything you'd like to know about the real world. It only tells you how to live--and only if you don't already have a preconceived notion of how you should live, and it's not the only way in which people can live. But since the bible preaches intolerance, I guess that's not an option, is it? Unless, of course, you choose to ignore it.

This is getting redundant. I never said it is impossible for the Christian God not to exist, I have been simply countering arguments that He cannot exist. I, too, believe it is wrong to believe in something just because you can't disprove it. Unfalsifiable facts are not the sole basis of Christianity. It is also experiential. Through my experiences, I have confirmed His words. It is as C.S. Lewis once said, "I believe in Christianity like I believe in the sunrise, not because I see it, but by it, I see everything else." My experiences can prove the existance of God to nobody but myself, but that doesn't mean it can't be true.

I don't think it adequate enough to trust experience alone because it is only mere perception. If you see a magic trick, does that mean it actually happened? No, there is an actual explanation behind it, and you're only being fooled. Or if you're under the influence of drugs, you may see things you shouldn't see--your experience says you're experiencing it, but you're not really.
However, it is entirely possible that God doesn't exist. It is just as possible as you believe he exists. It is not reality unless you have evidence for something, which requires more than a mere experience.

As stated above, my experiences are my confirmation. That can't be used as objective proof of God's existance, but it gives foundation to my confidence. Perspective is the light of a person's reality, provided no contadiction to objective fact.

Once again, confidence is useless to reality. and perspective is only subjective, and not necessarily real. You may have confidence in something, and it can be entirely false. You may have confidence in something, and it can be true as well. Your confidence says nothing about the validity of the fact you have confidence in--they are independent of each other.

 

[professor13]

Okay, I see where our redundancy is coming from. I apologize, it was my fault for not being clear. I am not attempting to prove God in this forum. I don't believe that a golden thread of logic exists that will prove God beyond doubt. It was my goal to show that a belief in God is not a contradiction of reality, but I'm afraid I gave the impression that I was trying to prove His existence to everyone through my experiences. That, as you said, is illogical. As for the perspective/reality line of thought, until it is proven that there were two women the entire time, for those in the audience, that woman was truly sawed in half. As such, until Christianity can be disproved, I have no reason to stop believing in it.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm not disputing if you want to believe in Christianity, but I personally have no reason to believe in it. At least we know the basis of what the truth is, and choose something that works for us.

What I argue for is the principle of truth and rationality--the root of it all. Your choice beyond that is nothing I can change or desire to change.

And I have explained the basis of my choice-that confidence is independent from reality, and I do not believe in the confidence of an unconfirmed belief.

 

[Crazee Dayzee]

Romans were in charge around the time most of the bible was written, which means they couldn't write exactly what they meant. A lot of it is allegorical. Revelations for example, is imo almost exclusively allegorical. A microscopic amount of people believe the bible to be a literal text, but there are so few of them, that to use them as stereotype for religious people is extremely moronic.

I didn't intend to generalize. But it's just that some religious people really do believe in the Bible in a literal sense-- I've seen at least a handful of people who do so, and I've seen many other religious people who don't. Just clearing things up.

 

[Animosity]

Personally, I do not believe in God. I've only started to feel this way over the last few years. I was raised a Christian but I never really believed it much.

I simply cannot believe in something that has no proof. All things can be explained. I think we are just not technologically advanced enough to have all the answers just yet. A big contributor to what I believe was from watching a show on History Channel called "The Universe". It explains the universe and everything that we know about it so far. I just find it hard to believe that a God created all things in the Universe and made them the way they are. According to astronomers the Universe is about 14 Billion years and the Earth is about 4 Billion years old. So my questions are : Why did God wait so long to create Earth and Humans? It's all so contradictory with what's in the Bible.

I don't think we are some special race that was meant to live on this Earth the way we do now. Honestly I think we were lucky that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago or we probably would not be here. I think this earth was created by the elements in the Universe and all livings things evolved.


I do not believe in God but I do still have unanswered questions.

What happened before the big bang? Was there just nothing?
If God did create everything, who created God? Who decided that a God must create and rule over anything and everything? And why does this "God" feel the need to put us humans on a "test" as it were to prove to him that we believe in him and can live good lives. Why not just have everyone in heaven from the get go?

I also believe that there are most likely other planets in the Universe that other living things inhabit. Whether they have human like qualities, I do not know. But I believe it's only a matter of time before they are found.

I think at some point in the future that science will be able to reveal the answers we are looking for and the belief of a God will be a thing of the past.

 

[Red_Mage]

Wow, I knew there were more atheists to meet on the internet, but never did I expect such a majority.

I don't believe in god. No real reason for me to believe in it, so I can't be bothered. If I end up burning, well that's tough.

 

[Contra Fates]

Wow, I knew there were more atheists to meet on the internet, but never did I expect such a majority.

I don't believe in god. No real reason for me to believe in it, so I can't be bothered. If I end up burning, well that's tough.

Please put more effort into your posts within The Sleeping Forest.

As for me, I believe in God when it's convenient for me. I do believe that perhaps I'll have more faith later on in life, but currently, as jaded youth...I'm a deist. I believe that God passed on and away from Earth, and that currently, we are alone. Though, I will admit, that I still pray and hope there is a God on occasion, usually when I'm praying for something that's self-serving or beneficial to someone I love. To me, God is more of a convenience than anything else. =/

 

[Red_Mage]

I guess I'm not very long winded, huh? Alright, I'll try to make that a bit more... Wordy.

I don't believe in god because I think it's irrational, like any other atheist I've met. I don't really see any reason why I should believe in a god, heaven or hell. Sure I could end up in hell, but what are the odds, really?

There's chance no religion is true.
Any other religion could be true.
Hell, there's a chance nothing is true.

So why of all thing say I'm a christian? A bhuddist? A hindu? Anything? With so many alternatives how should I know what to choose? Well, I just can't be bothered.