Do you believe in God?

[Aselia]

Wow, that is the saddest thing I've ever heard, so this is what people believe?

Yeah, That's what we believe. you know what I think is sad? That you believe a huge man in the sky exists and created everything you see around you.

You think some cosmetic dust or some scientific crap like that formed and created what is known as Earth?

Cosmetic? as in makeup? like eyeshadow glitter created everything? no wonder you think we are nuts, if you think that we believe makeup created the universe

Not meaning disrespect, you are free to believe what you will, but I don't believe it's all everything-science.

Well you kinda disrespected all nonbelievers when you said what we believe is sad.

I understand that at times, when one tries to convince others of something, when it come to religion, it can get pretty ugly, and I don't want any trouble, so if you people won't be at all open minded to other possibilities other than just what you believe, so be it, it seems no one will be changing their minds, I just hate to think of what awaits...

You mean when we go to your fake hell and you go to your fake heaven? Okay then. Have fun.

 

[Minus Inferior]

I believe in god for my own reasons because there are lots of things I don't agree with in the bible and whatever the Pope has to say. But I have to believe in an afterlife due to the fact that three of my grandparents are dead and I couldn't stand knowing that they're just gone! It makes sense to me if there's an afterlife

 

[Grand Lethal]

I have to get this out of my system:

A few pages back I read the words "Eragon", "well written", "inspiring" and "logical" in the same paragraph. HA! Oh, that tickled me.

--------------
On Topic:
I do not believe in God. I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God (I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility of a Higher Power), but I simply cannot believe in God.

Mostly because of all the hypocrisy in the Bible; discrimination, murder, hate, blah blah blah. I also hate religion because of Fred Phelps
Also, I cannot believe in God because of personal things that have happened in my life.

This whole "Heaven and Hell" business is utter tripe in my opinion. It's nice to think that there's a nice place to go to once I die, but realistically, we just don't know. It's a bit typical to antagonize the Devil and make the whole "YOU SHALL BE DAMNED IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY" thing out of proportion. I have a whole paragraph I could write about how the Devil's story is a load of nonsense.

Hell, if I'm wrong, I don't really give a damn. By religious standards I know I'm going to Hell, but I don't care. Heathen and Proud.


I'm not the stereotypical Atheist who will refuse others opinions and will dismiss others beliefs. I'm open minded and like a good discussion.

 

[der Astronom]

What, pray tell, does this have to do with this thread?

But there's a difference between wanting something to happen and something making sense. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it makes sense; the two are independent events.

I suspect people confuse wanting something to happen and something making sense easily because it makes them happy.

 

[Grand Lethal]

Was that aimed at me? =\ If so, I guess I did go a little off-topic.

I just cannot believe in God. It's down to my own choice really. It defies my logic and reasoning to depend on and give my life to a Supernatural cause that may well not exist. Just comes down to my lack of faith.

 

[Laro]

For many generations, people of Earth believed in a stronger force. Miracles happen everyday. As we pray for something to happen, if we have enaugh faith it happens. Where do we go after death is a different thing.
But I have a question. What is beyond our universe? God?

I strongly believe in God but not in religious way like being Catholic or Buddhist. In my own way I worship God.
Everything you see around you is a creation. No matter how small, it couldn't have evolved by itself. There must be something that decides time on our universe. When we die, when we're born. When we find our true selves.
It's not one God, it's not two and it's not a billion. God is everything. Those who say that God doesn't exist, are saying that our world doesn't exist.
What if there is more life in this eternity than we think? What if the smallest bacteria holds another universe, with more galaxies and other planets? Our mission as humans is still unknown but we try to discover day by day. Some poeple think that life is all but a dream, while others may see it as the never ending journey.

Look at animals. Do they seem to care about God? No, they just live their lives as they are supposed to.

I'm not saying we should be obsessed with God, I'm saying we should live our lives peacefully like we are meant to.
Those who don't believe in God are just ignorant. They always need proof about God's existence. One person should simply feel He's near.

 

[Casanova]

For many generations, people of Earth believed in a stronger force. Miracles happen everyday. As we pray for something to happen, if we have enaugh faith it happens. Where do we go after death is a different thing.
But I have a question. What is beyond our universe? God?

Where you see miracles I see freak occurrences. It really depends on what you would class as a miracle. If you're talking about a quadriplegic getting up and running around then yeah, I can see how some people would see that as an act of God, but to me things like that are just lucky. I'm not saying it's entirely possible for a quadriplegic to get up and start running around, of course...

I strongly believe in God but not in religious way like being Catholic or Buddhist. In my own way I worship God.
Everything you see around you is a creation. No matter how small, it couldn't have evolved by itself. There must be something that decides time on our universe. When we die, when we're born. When we find our true selves.

Things evolve by themselves all the time. Whenever you've seen a seed grow into a giant sunflower, or watched a virus spread under a microscope. In their own ways these could be classed as evolution. Stages of independant growth.

It's not one God, it's not two and it's not a billion. God is everything. Those who say that God doesn't exist, are saying that our world doesn't exist.
What if there is more life in this eternity than we think? What if the smallest bacteria holds another universe, with more galaxies and other planets? Our mission as humans is still unknown but we try to discover day by day. Some poeple think that life is all but a dream, while others may see it as the never ending journey.

If there was life on other planets inside bacteria then would it not be writen in the bible that God created more than one race? Why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the bible? Because the devil put those bones in the ground to test your faith? Please...

Look at animals. Do they seem to care about God? No, they just live their lives as they are supposed to.

Of course, because animals lack the mental capacity to dream such dreams of creation and invisible men in the sky. In a manner of speaking: They don't care why the food is there. They don't care who put it there. They simply eat.

I'm not saying we should be obsessed with God, I'm saying we should live our lives peacefully like we are meant to.
Those who don't believe in God are just ignorant. They always need proof about God's existence. One person should simply feel He's near.

I nearly laughed my face off. If your idea of ignorance is someone who wants proof then you are the ignorant one. Not believing in something does not make you ignorant. Wanting to believe in something so badly that you refuse to hear other beliefs is true ignorance.

Remember that just because you believe in something does not make it real, and passing judgement upon someone for not sharing your beliefs is ignorance indeed.

 

[der Astronom]

Was that aimed at me? =\ If so, I guess I did go a little off-topic.

I just cannot believe in God. It's down to my own choice really. It defies my logic and reasoning to depend on and give my life to a Supernatural cause that may well not exist. Just comes down to my lack of faith.

I missed your edit, so sorry about that, but I was asking specifically about the Eragon quote you put in there. But now that's not really necessary, but I still would like to know what you meant when you posted it.

Laro♪[/B]]
For many generations, people of Earth believed in a stronger force. Miracles happen everyday. As we pray for something to happen, if we have enaugh faith it happens. Where do we go after death is a different thing.
But I have a question. What is beyond our universe? God?

In reality, natural occurrences do not depend on how many people have faith in something. Many people, particularly in the Western world believed the Earth was flat, but this did not affect the fact that it wasn't. I, and probably the other scientists don't necessarily profess to know what is beyond the universe--but at least we won't say it's God without any kind of evidence. It could be anything.

I strongly believe in God but not in religious way like being Catholic or Buddhist. In my own way I worship God.
Everything you see around you is a creation. No matter how small, it couldn't have evolved by itself. There must be something that decides time on our universe. When we die, when we're born. When we find our true selves.
It's not one God, it's not two and it's not a billion. God is everything. Those who say that God doesn't exist, are saying that our world doesn't exist.
What if there is more life in this eternity than we think? What if the smallest bacteria holds another universe, with more galaxies and other planets? Our mission as humans is still unknown but we try to discover day by day. Some poeple think that life is all but a dream, while others may see it as the never ending journey.

That just sounds like a metaphor for a set that consists of everything and labelling it God, which is redundant in my opinion, but if it makes you happy to believe that this God exists, you're welcome to do so. And bacteria can metaphorically be considered their own universes. They just don't consist of planets and stars like the "real" galaxy, but other substances like molecules and other chemicals.

But I prefer life as it is with no need to sugar coat it with any kind of metaphor. It just confuses the truth in my opinion.

Look at animals. Do they seem to care about God? No, they just live their lives as they are supposed to.

I'm not saying we should be obsessed with God, I'm saying we should live our lives peacefully like we are meant to.
Those who don't believe in God are just ignorant. They always need proof about God's existence. One person should simply feel He's near.

So animals are ignorant too. Why is it we have to care about God, and they don't have to? We need proof or evidence that God exists, otherwise the claim that God exists fails. And you can't prove a negative. We made no such claim that God exists, and have no need to prove it.

I also do not like being told what I should feel. I do not "feel" this God because my five senses do not indicate that such a being exists, nor do I feel it in my mind. If I did, I would be lying to myself because it's not rational to believe in things for which there is no evidence, and I only feel it because I want to.

 

[Laro]

Maybe I am ignorant, I would believe in God even if he didn't exist. Believing in something can build up confidence in yourself. I believe in God, He's in my heart and no one can disagree with that. You can keep proving things if you wish. It all depends on what side you're on. If you say that God isn't real than I'll have to say no. He's everywhere and I simply feel it.

 

[der Astronom]

That's fine if you have your own personal beliefs. But if others have different beliefs (or lack thereof) from yours, you can agree to disagree.

I personally don't operate on the confidence that comes from believing in things that might not exist. My confidence comes from the fact that I give myself strength--no god, no unforseen force or other being can give that to me--it is my own.

 

[Fair_Game]

I also do not like being told what I should feel. I do not "feel" this God because my five senses do not indicate that such a being exists, nor do I feel it in my mind. If I did, I would be lying to myself because it's not rational to believe in things for which there is no evidence, and I only feel it because I want to.

Had to respond to this part, and I may have said this before but. Are you saying that you don't believe in God because your 'five senses' haven't offered you proof of it? If this is the case then I have to ask, have your senses ever failed you? Ever thought you heard something but didn't? Saw something and didn't? Touched something cold and thought you were burning (reference : Back to the Future)? Our senses aren't entirely unreliable but the fact that they can be fooled makes me think that trusting them whole-heartedly is foolish. Wouldn't failing senses prompt you to wonder if you missed the cues? Maybe God's jumping up and down in front of you and you've got sand in your eyes.

My main concern with your complete disinterest in the idea of God is that you reference science. The Scientific Method that takes theories and turns them into proofs takes into account a margin of error. It also bases its findings on Majority. Even the Scientific Facts are questionable. If you jump up 100 times and gravity pulls you back to the ground 100 times this must mean that Gravity will always pull you down. Well sure that sounds possible, but in the event that one time it DOESN'T pull you back down, then that makes it no longer a fact now doesn't it?

The issue is that your replacing a Christian God (because I've only really seen the Christian God under attack in these topics) with Science. Similar leaps of faith.

I only ever want to ask atheists and agnostics one question. What happened in your life that made you think God is wrong? I always feel like Atheist must feel that God cheated them out of something. A lost loved one, a criminal act, a vile injustice and so God is blamed. Then do the scorned join together in hatred?

I was raised to believe in a Christian God and so I continue believing. I've questioned whether he exists or not but I simply have no reason to believe otherwise. That simple. I see a benefit in believing in God and no benefit by not believing in God.

You've claimed that a belief in God clouds the truth but I want to know HOW.

Now I'll agree with you that a belief in the baptist or catholic God is an affront to rational minds but there is a wide percentage of denominations that aren't so sidetracked that they can't assume that God USES the principles of science to his advantage.

So a scientific Christian can exist without hindering anything.

So in closing, a belief in our senses is the equivalent of the same leap of faith Christians have for God, a belief in science is the equivalent of a leap of faith, there is no disadvantage to believing in God and really Atheists...what crawled up there?.

 

[Casanova]

I would believe in God even if he didn't exist.

Believing in something you know doesn't exist sounds foolish. Why put your faith in something that you know is not there? Why pray to something when you know it's not listening?

If for whatever reason you should some day come to the definite conclusion that God does not exist, I would hope that you put your faith in something more worthwhile.

I believe in God, He's in my heart and no one can disagree with that.

Correct, you're well within your rights to believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not trying to deter your faith, only to question your beliefs for the purpose of debate.

 

[Laro]

Believing in something you know doesn't exist sounds foolish. Why put your faith in something that you know is not there? Why pray to something when you know it's not listening

I have prayed for God since I was little and my prayers were answered. I'm not going to stop now. Can one scientifically prove that God exists?

 

[Casanova]

I have prayed for God since I was little and my prayers were answered. I'm not going to stop now.

I think you've missed my point... or more precisely your own.

You've taken what I said completely out of context and formed a reply to benefit yourself and not the flow of this debate. If you're here simply to flaunt your own beliefs and not debate then I suggest making another self-gratifying thread somewhere else.

You said that you would still believe in God even if he did not exist. This means that even if you knew beyond doubt that there was never ever such a thing as a "creator", the man that "put his son on the Earth by immaculate conception", the man who "handed Moses the 10 commandments atop a mountain", EVEN IF YOU KNEW HE NEVER EXISTED that you would STILL believe in him.

How is it that I can understand what you're saying but you cannot?

Can one scientifically prove that God exists?

You know just as well as I do that modern technology hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of it's own capabilities. We're so very far away from technological equipment that is able to prove the existance of deities without questionable doubt.

What kind of question is that?

 

[der Astronom]

Had to respond to this part, and I may have said this before but. Are you saying that you don't believe in God because your 'five senses' haven't offered you proof of it? If this is the case then I have to ask, have your senses ever failed you? Ever thought you heard something but didn't? Saw something and didn't? Touched something cold and thought you were burning (reference : Back to the Future)? Our senses aren't entirely unreliable but the fact that they can be fooled makes me think that trusting them whole-heartedly is foolish. Wouldn't failing senses prompt you to wonder if you missed the cues? Maybe God's jumping up and down in front of you and you've got sand in your eyes.

Having never been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I can say that my senses work fine. However, the reason people see things that aren't there is because their emotions cloud their judgment. But I cannot jump to the conclusion that what I didn't see (or did see) is actually there (or not there) because that would be arbitrary--until there is other evidence that shows such a thing exists (or doesn't), by Occam's Razor, we just stick with what we see as being real. Similarly, the universe operates fine without divine intervention, and is the "simplest" explanation--so we don't believe in God.

My main concern with your complete disinterest in the idea of God is that you reference science. The Scientific Method that takes theories and turns them into proofs takes into account a margin of error. It also bases its findings on Majority. Even the Scientific Facts are questionable. If you jump up 100 times and gravity pulls you back to the ground 100 times this must mean that Gravity will always pull you down. Well sure that sounds possible, but in the event that one time it DOESN'T pull you back down, then that makes it no longer a fact now doesn't it?

You have the wrong idea of what science is. Sure, scientific findings may not actually be 100% accurate, but you can at least calculate how accurate they are. The benefits of science are not in the fact that they are "always" correct, but that as a body of knowledge, it is changing and improving with every experiment and venture. At the very least, it's a kind of knowledge that relies on evidence, and it's one I'd much sooner accept than to accept something written in a book with no credentials or any kind of evidence that supports any of its statements.

The issue is that your replacing a Christian God (because I've only really seen the Christian God under attack in these topics) with Science. Similar leaps of faith.

It is not a leap of faith to replace the Christian God, who has no authority over any being unless they choose for him to with a field of study that more accurately describes the physical world as objectively as possible.

I only ever want to ask atheists and agnostics one question. What happened in your life that made you think God is wrong? I always feel like Atheist must feel that God cheated them out of something. A lost loved one, a criminal act, a vile injustice and so God is blamed. Then do the scorned join together in hatred?

Do not assume that all atheists or agnostics are the way they are because something terrible happened to them; it's entirely possible that they read the bible, thought about what it said, and felt that God was a horrible person in their own interpretation, and made their own investigations of whether or not God exists. I guess that also means you should not assume that people must believe in a higher being as well; if you suggest this as having something to do with this argument then it is an ad hominem, as the way in which someone becomes an atheist or agnostic is irrelevant to the validity of anything they might suggest.

I was raised to believe in a Christian God and so I continue believing. I've questioned whether he exists or not but I simply have no reason to believe otherwise. That simple. I see a benefit in believing in God and no benefit by not believing in God.

That's fine for you, but just because you believe that to be the case does not mean it's true for others--in my opinion, I don't see any benefits in believing in God, if only because it doesn't suit my own purposes, but I'm not going to tell you that you should stop believing in God. I would like to expect the same from others.

You've claimed that a belief in God clouds the truth but I want to know HOW.

Because you are assuming something for which you have no proof for and cannot verify. You cannot have the truth if you assume something because it could be false.

Now I'll agree with you that a belief in the baptist or catholic God is an affront to rational minds but there is a wide percentage of denominations that aren't so sidetracked that they can't assume that God USES the principles of science to his advantage.

I have yet to see that. And you are making the same assumptions as above--you cannot prove that God is using science. And by Occam's Razor, it is simpler to default to the negative.

And the concept of the Christian God runs counter to science anyways. The bible shuns skepticism, but there is at least a bit of skepticism required in science.

So a scientific Christian can exist without hindering anything.

So in closing, a belief in our senses is the equivalent of the same leap of faith Christians have for God, a belief in science is the equivalent of a leap of faith, there is no disadvantage to believing in God and really Atheists...what crawled up there?.

There is no leap of faith in science; we simply accept that the probability of any result is not 100%. But when an experiment is conducted several times over, all over the world, by many people, whether they are scientists, professors, students or other people (unknowingly), and with the same result, the probability increases. We assume nothing; if an experiment disproves what we know, then we have learned something and move on. That being said, this does not mean that discovering Quantum physics makes Newtonian physics useless; it is still meaningful and works, but not on a larger scale. The discovery of Quantum physics has simply made our scientific knowledge more accurate. There is no faith involved in any of this; if anything, faith only biases the results.

The disadvantage of faith is that it is blind. When you assume something through faith, you may be wrong, and the worst part is that you may not realize it, and some people deny it.

Nothing "crawled up there". I am a happy person who enjoys doing math and drawing and seeing other people being happy, whether they are religious or not. I am not as miserable as you make me out to be; I just enjoy rationality.

 

[Fair_Game]

Having never been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I can say that my senses work fine. However, the reason people see things that aren't there is because their emotions cloud their judgment. But I cannot jump to the conclusion that what I didn't see (or did see) is actually there (or not there) because that would be arbitrary--until there is other evidence that shows such a thing exists (or doesn't), by Occam's Razor, we just stick with what we see as being real. Similarly, the universe operates fine without divine intervention, and is the "simplest" explanation--so we don't believe in God.

I find it hard to believe that you've never thought you heard/saw/felt/tasted/smelled something that was not there. Its such a common experience that its become trite in literature, movies, t.v. The number of experiences where the senses fail is so severe that its accepted as commonplace. Your seem to be claiming you don't get spooked.

As for the divine intervention, now this is speculative and I know you probably hate that : Isn't it possible that the world works fine without help because its already been helped? Isn't it conceivable that invisible helpings go on all the time. Take for instance the extraordinary factor of people. They are highly unpredictable...isn't it possible that a Higher Power affects the lives of those unpredictable people and puts things in motion? A man holds a gun to his head and before he pulls the trigger something stops him from doing it. Say that man was important enough to affect the world, and he goes on to do great things. Say that something that stopped him was God, is it now just possible that God instigated something that set the world on a whole new course just by that simple unseen action?

I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm asking you to validate the possibility. I'm asking you to take responsibility for the things you say and realize that your calling people ignorant in so many words. Its not stupid to believe in God.

You have the wrong idea of what science is. Sure, scientific findings may not actually be 100% accurate, but you can at least calculate how accurate they are. The benefits of science are not in the fact that they are "always" correct, but that as a body of knowledge, it is changing and improving with every experiment and venture. At the very least, it's a kind of knowledge that relies on evidence, and it's one I'd much sooner accept than to accept something written in a book with no credentials or any kind of evidence that supports any of its statements.

From your words I gather that Science is a continually growing body of knowledge that isn't 100% accurate and it relies on proof. So through proof (acquired by testing) one can come up with an inaccurate but alarmingly close representation of the world. We can also calculate just how close that representation is!

By the way I think thats exactly my understanding of science, not 100% accurate ideas that could be proven wrong in the blink of an eye.

But now I want to know just how much we have left to calculate before we understand everything? I just want an accurate calculation of how much more we need to know before we can rid the world of ideas as silly as 'God'.

It is not a leap of faith to replace the Christian God, who has no authority over any being unless they choose for him to with a field of study that more accurately describes the physical world as objectively as possible.

Sure it is, because your openly relying on something that could be wrong. To my own consciousness God isn't false. To other peoples consciousness God could be wrong. So when you average it out God could be wrong however the main difference between our two leaps of faith is that I don't have any doubt of mine.

Do not assume that all atheists or agnostics are the way they are because something terrible happened to them; it's entirely possible that they read the bible, thought about what it said, and felt that God was a horrible person in their own interpretation, and made their own investigations of whether or not God exists. I guess that also means you should not assume that people must believe in a higher being as well; if you suggest this as having something to do with this argument then it is an ad hominem, as the way in which someone becomes an atheist or agnostic is irrelevant to the validity of anything they might suggest.

While it is entirely possible that they read the bible and thought that, I don't believe it. Are you saying that you read the bible and interpreted better than the countless millions that came before you? Are you assuming that the Bible should read like a Ann Rand novel, completely up to date and capable of spilling its secrets at your feet?

Someone sees God or a burning bush then they turn around and write it down, another person sees or hears something else pertaining to 'God' they equally write it down. Soon the mass phenomenon of 'seeing God' turns into a book, a compiled scientific journal depicting experiences with God and experiments to understand that phenomenon. How is that different from the scientific process?

And yeah, I agree ad hominem. I asked the question because I want to take a poll of atheists and figure out what made them believe that God isn't real, it was a statement not an argument. I theorize that the anti-god movement is the way they are because God didn't do something magical for them.

That's fine for you, but just because you believe that to be the case does not mean it's true for others--in my opinion, I don't see any benefits in believing in God, if only because it doesn't suit my own purposes, but I'm not going to tell you that you should stop believing in God. I would like to expect the same from others.

So I gather your concern is that you don't want people telling you to believe in God. And I'm saying its all how you word it. Your saying 'I don't believe in God and I'm tired of people telling me TO believe in God' at the same time as 'I believe in something logical with credentials whereas God-believers believe in something based on a book with no credentials'. Well lets not mince words here, your calling Believers stupid and saying you don't want to be attacked for doing so.

Because you are assuming something for which you have no proof for and cannot verify. You cannot have the truth if you assume something because it could be false.

Your words. I don't assume something that could be false, thats you. Remember 'Science isn't 100% accurate' that translates roughly to 'science could be wrong'.

And the concept of the Christian God runs counter to science anyways. The bible shuns skepticism, but there is at least a bit of skepticism required in science.

I'm sorry where was that verse again? The one where God says don't question me? I'm pretty sure your thinking of the Church...the church and the God are two separate entities.

There is no leap of faith in science; we simply accept that the probability of any result is not 100%. But when an experiment is conducted several times over, all over the world, by many people, whether they are scientists, professors, students or other people (unknowingly), and with the same result, the probability increases. We assume nothing; if an experiment disproves what we know, then we have learned something and move on. That being said, this does not mean that discovering Quantum physics makes Newtonian physics useless; it is still meaningful and works, but not on a larger scale. The discovery of Quantum physics has simply made our scientific knowledge more accurate. There is no faith involved in any of this; if anything, faith only biases the results.

The fact that probability isn't 100% and NEVER will be makes it a leap of faith. Meanwhile, a higher power has existed the world over with many of our old religions springing up without any influence from anyone else. We didn't call each other and go 'hey try this test out just like I did it and tell me if its the same for you' we got answers and when we got together to compare notes they were all the same.

You will NEVER see me defend the Church, it did corrupt things that discredit christianity into the dark ages, a hole we'll never recover from because its easy to blame God for things Man did. The same way that .0001% doesn't seem like a leap of faith to you is the same as a Christian believing in God. We don't even consider the slim chance.

Nothing "crawled up there". I am a happy person who enjoys doing math and drawing and seeing other people being happy, whether they are religious or not. I am not as miserable as you make me out to be; I just enjoy rationality.

If your interested in other peoples happiness why call them stupid? Why say they need to 'sugar-coat' life? Or that they 'aren't strong enough to believe in themselves'? That comes off as a punch in the gut and believe me its much worse than someone saying 'acknowledge the possibility'. The worst part is that your smart enough to know what your saying has negative implications. So you know your doing it.

 

[AddleBoy]

Had to respond to this part, and I may have said this before but. Are you saying that you don't believe in God because your 'five senses' haven't offered you proof of it? If this is the case then I have to ask, have your senses ever failed you? Ever thought you heard something but didn't? Saw something and didn't? Touched something cold and thought you were burning (reference : Back to the Future)? Our senses aren't entirely unreliable but the fact that they can be fooled makes me think that trusting them whole-heartedly is foolish. Wouldn't failing senses prompt you to wonder if you missed the cues? Maybe God's jumping up and down in front of you and you've got sand in your eyes.

Isn't trusting whole-heartedly in God just as foolish? One day, I may be in my room an think that I hear someone calling my name, or I may have been mistaken. Then again, Joan of Arc may have actually heard God talking to her, or she may have been mistaken. God may be jumping in front of me, but I haven't yet made the mistake in seeing him.

I only ever want to ask atheists and agnostics one question. What happened in your life that made you think God is wrong? I always feel like Atheist must feel that God cheated them out of something. A lost loved one, a criminal act, a vile injustice and so God is blamed. Then do the scorned join together in hatred?

I was raised to believe in a Christian God and so I continue believing. I've questioned whether he exists or not but I simply have no reason to believe otherwise. That simple. I see a benefit in believing in God and no benefit by not believing in God.

I feel that there are really only a couple of reasons why people believe in God. A vast majority of people, like you, were raised to believe in God. Other people chose to believe later in life for some reason of their own.

I'd say that I've lived a happy life with out believing in God. I do not believe in God simpily for the reason that I was not raised to believe in God and I was not given a reason to do so. And similarly, I believe in science because that is was I was taught is right in school. The only thing that I really have for myself are my five senses, no matter how imperfect they are. And with these five senses, I have not experienced anything that I would consider an 'act of God', but I have experienced many 'acts of science'.

Now I'll agree with you that a belief in the baptist or catholic God is an affront to rational minds but there is a wide percentage of denominations that aren't so sidetracked that they can't assume that God USES the principles of science to his advantage.

So a scientific Christian can exist without hindering anything.

I'd have to agree with Angelus here about Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation or answer is usually the most accurate one.

So in closing, a belief in our senses is the equivalent of the same leap of faith Christians have for God, a belief in science is the equivalent of a leap of faith, there is no disadvantage to believing in God and really Atheists...what crawled up there?.

For you, there are no disadvantages to believing in God, but for me there are no disadvantages in NOT believing in God.

 

[der Astronom]

I find it hard to believe that you've never thought you heard/saw/felt/tasted/smelled something that was not there. Its such a common experience that its become trite in literature, movies, t.v. The number of experiences where the senses fail is so severe that its accepted as commonplace. Your seem to be claiming you don't get spooked.

It's true, I don't often get spooked. I won't ask that you believe this, as people sometimes choose to deny the truth--even if they think that what they see isn't real. In other words, you claim that what people see isn't always true, but it's also true that people deny what they see as being true, even though it could be true.

As for the divine intervention, now this is speculative and I know you probably hate that : Isn't it possible that the world works fine without help because its already been helped? Isn't it conceivable that invisible helpings go on all the time. Take for instance the extraordinary factor of people. They are highly unpredictable...isn't it possible that a Higher Power affects the lives of those unpredictable people and puts things in motion? A man holds a gun to his head and before he pulls the trigger something stops him from doing it. Say that man was important enough to affect the world, and he goes on to do great things. Say that something that stopped him was God, is it now just possible that God instigated something that set the world on a whole new course just by that simple unseen action?

Why pander at possibilities for which no one can say are neither true or false? You can only admit that this possibility is inconclusive, and therefore, useless for my own purposes at least.

I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm asking you to validate the possibility. I'm asking you to take responsibility for the things you say and realize that your calling people ignorant in so many words. Its not stupid to believe in God.

Such a possibility has not been proven, and therefore, is considered inconclusive. It tells me nothing new or worthy of revelation. If it means something to you, then fine, maybe it makes you happy, but it's got nothing to do with me.

From your words I gather that Science is a continually growing body of knowledge that isn't 100% accurate and it relies on proof. So through proof (acquired by testing) one can come up with an inaccurate but alarmingly close representation of the world. We can also calculate just how close that representation is!

At least it's certainly better than a static, authoritative knowledge that refuses to correct itself. However, you still haven't got it quite right. Mathematical theorems involve proofs, but sciences in general do not. You cannot prove anything using the methods of sciences, but you may use evidences to support claims and disprove. But just because science can't tell you anything with 100% accuracy does not mean it is useless. Otherwise, you may as well not rely on anything today that science has offered us--the cars, computers, medicine, living standards, and other technology is all due to science. If you think that science not having 100% accuracy means it's useless, then perhaps none of these technologies, which are applications of science would work. But they work adequately enough that many people rely on them. So tell me; are you content to complain about science being "inaccurate" just because it's not 100% accurate and rely on it at the same time?

By the way I think thats exactly my understanding of science, not 100% accurate ideas that could be proven wrong in the blink of an eye.

Please refer to the example of Newtonian physics and Quantum physics I explained above.

But now I want to know just how much we have left to calculate before we understand everything? I just want an accurate calculation of how much more we need to know before we can rid the world of ideas as silly as 'God'.

Well, some people may go as far as to conclude that God doesn't exist as they interpret it from scientific information, but to be fair, the chance that a Christian God exists, when the Earth isn't flat or 6000 years old, and took millions of year to form, there was no global flood, evolution is the most well accepted theory to explain life on Earth, and the fact that certain claims in the bible about God are inaccurate in relation to science is rather low.

However, it is not the aims of science to understand "everything" as there could be infinitely many things to discover in science, and scientific knowledge is continuous. But to understand everything with science is such a ridiculous notion.

The idea of God won't go away because people refuse to stop believing in him. It has nothing to do with whether or not God actually exists.

Sure it is, because your openly relying on something that could be wrong. To my own consciousness God isn't false. To other peoples consciousness God could be wrong. So when you average it out God could be wrong however the main difference between our two leaps of faith is that I don't have any doubt of mine.

I do not rely on science to the extent where I believe anything it says to be 100% accurate. If a scientific fact has a probability of being 90% true, then I only accept it as being 90% accurate. At least if I were to accept a scientific fact, I am aware that it could be wrong, but it's much better than believing in something that isn't even verified, could be totally wrong, and if it were wrong and I knew it, that I'd deny it were wrong.

And what of the things you believe? You can't even verify how accurate they are, much less verify that they are even true. Pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid. The fact that you have no doubts in what you believe does not change the truth. Reality and confidence are not dependent of each other.

While it is entirely possible that they read the bible and thought that, I don't believe it. Are you saying that you read the bible and interpreted better than the countless millions that came before you? Are you assuming that the Bible should read like a Ann Rand novel, completely up to date and capable of spilling its secrets at your feet?

No, I did not say that, so don't put the words in my mouth. I simply interpreted the bible the way I did, and didn't like what it said; if others interpreted the bible differently, then it's not my problem, but for something as apparently metaphorical as the bible, you cannot say that any person's interpretation is necessarily "better" than the other. Of course, the bible is an obsolete book, so why I'd have to waste my time trying to find these hidden secrets when I could be discovering the more interesting solutions to math problems is completely beyond me.

Someone sees God or a burning bush then they turn around and write it down, another person sees or hears something else pertaining to 'God' they equally write it down. Soon the mass phenomenon of 'seeing God' turns into a book, a compiled scientific journal depicting experiences with God and experiments to understand that phenomenon. How is that different from the scientific process?

A scientific process is not written in a metaphorical manner. In fact, scientific reports are objective; the bible clearly is not. To compare science with the bible is ridiculous, as neither are related in any way. There is no experiment that shows God makes rain, or that the Earth does indeed have four pillars--you must admit that these things are metaphorical, and therefore, not comparable with science.

And why you'd even want to compare a scientific process, which you deem to be not 100% accurate, and therefore useless with the bible is beyond me.

And yeah, I agree ad hominem. I asked the question because I want to take a poll of atheists and figure out what made them believe that God isn't real, it was a statement not an argument. I theorize that the anti-god movement is the way they are because God didn't do something magical for them.

There's not really much of a point in doing so. Logically speaking, it's not necessary for God to do something magical for them; it could also be that they don't interpret a "miracle" as having been performed by God. They could simply interpret it as a coincidence, or later realize that it was nothing more than something akin to a magic trick. Either they didn't have any miracles in their lives because they've been perceived as coincidences, or they never happened, and their own reasonings lead them to believing God didn't exist, or they did have miracles, but never assumed that they were caused by God.

And you'd have to admit that a miracle caused by God is quite far-fetched. A "miracle" could be caused by many things, and it might not even be a miracle at all. Simply put, if a miracle happens, you can't assume God did it.

So I gather your concern is that you don't want people telling you to believe in God. And I'm saying its all how you word it. Your saying 'I don't believe in God and I'm tired of people telling me TO believe in God' at the same time as 'I believe in something logical with credentials whereas God-believers believe in something based on a book with no credentials'. Well lets not mince words here, your calling Believers stupid and saying you don't want to be attacked for doing so.

Well actually, I don't want people telling others what they should or shouldn't believe. If others are happy with their own religion, then there's no reason for others to tell them their religion is wrong, or that they must believe in a different religion. But it's true; the bible has no merits or credentials to its claims; you can't use it to back up the fact that a global flood happened; it never happened, as far as evidences are concerned. Or anything about the properties of the Earth--it's useless. However, saying that believers believe in a book with no credentials and concluding that they are stupid are two separate statements that can be said independently of each other--I may have claimed the former, but I did not claim the latter. Please try not to hit the strawmen.

Your words. I don't assume something that could be false, thats you. Remember 'Science isn't 100% accurate' that translates roughly to 'science could be wrong'.

There's actually not much of a reason to assume that science is "wrong". You just don't understand it. When a scientific fact is proven wrong, there's nothing particularly strange about that; we never did say it was 100% accurate to begin with, and it is usually the case that what we had discovered beforehand is still useful to some degree. But to assume something you cannot verify or place a probability on when it could just as well be completely false and believe in it 100% is preposterous in my opinion.

I'm sorry where was that verse again? The one where God says don't question me? I'm pretty sure your thinking of the Church...the church and the God are two separate entities.

So, you're saying we should ignore arbitrary verses in the bible because they make God look bad?

The fact that probability isn't 100% and NEVER will be makes it a leap of faith. Meanwhile, a higher power has existed the world over with many of our old religions springing up without any influence from anyone else. We didn't call each other and go 'hey try this test out just like I did it and tell me if its the same for you' we got answers and when we got together to compare notes they were all the same.

It would be a leap of faith to believe in something 100% when the probability isn't 100%, but I never made such a claim. Meanwhile, you're making claims which cannot be verified, nor can any probability be attached, and furthermore, your claims could just as well be false--now who's making a leap of faith? The fact that you claim something that cannot be verified does not mean that it cannot be false--it can, and I think it is much worse to believe in something for which you do not know it's probability than to believe (even 100%) something for which the probability is high.

You will NEVER see me defend the Church, it did corrupt things that discredit christianity into the dark ages, a hole we'll never recover from because its easy to blame God for things Man did. The same way that .0001% doesn't seem like a leap of faith to you is the same as a Christian believing in God. We don't even consider the slim chance.

You are making claims that don't even exist. I have not seen any such verification that there is a small chance God doesn't exist--no one has shown me any of these things. The only answer I have gotten from why Christians are Christians is that it is arbitrary, and that they "feel" it, but it is evidence of nothing. In other words, they have no experiment to show me that God exists, or any kind of evidence otherwise that shows he exists. If he were that readily apparent, and the "probability" is as high as you claim it to be, then such evidence shouldn't be hard to find. But scientific evidences suggest otherwise.

If your interested in other peoples happiness why call them stupid? Why say they need to 'sugar-coat' life? Or that they 'aren't strong enough to believe in themselves'? That comes off as a punch in the gut and believe me its much worse than someone saying 'acknowledge the possibility'. The worst part is that your smart enough to know what your saying has negative implications. So you know your doing it.

I did not say they were "stupid"; I only expressed the reasons why I did not need any "false" hopes in God or any other being. If you think I was saying they weren't strong enough to believe in themselves, that is you making an interpretation off of something I did not say. I only know that I am expressing what motivates me--it is your problem if you choose to interpret it that way.

 

[Totoro]

I don't know if this has already been covered or not -

I think that thousands of years ago, going back to the Inca's, Egyptians etc. They believed in Sun gods, Rain gods, war gods and gods of the river. We now know what cause the rain, what the sun is etc so these beliefs look primitive and false.

Who can say that we one day wont be able to say the same thing about God, Allah. We might finally discover how we were created/came to be. But i think that religion/belief originally came about because when man became conscious, the thought being entirely in control was too daunting. I sometimes feel that is still the case. People believe in god because it is too scary to believe that we were made from nothing, for no reason, and one day it'll all dissappear into nothing. It is incredibly bleak to think like that but it's hard to be presented with an alternative, for me.

I wasn't brought up into a religous environment, never went to church, wasn't even christened. And I don't think now I would want to believe in God to hedge my bets as it were, without some kind of proof, to myself. Like an awakening.

So currently I do not believe in God, but cannot fathom the alternative.

 

[Coco]

I have prayed for God since I was little and my prayers were answered. I'm not going to stop now. Can one scientifically prove that God exists?

I, myself, wish that I could. Wouldn't it be great to make a college thesis proving God's existence through facts of science? But, no, unfortunately, no pure evidence has been given. Just mere speculation.


I can see a lot of interesting points here.

But, why be close-minded about His existence?

I don't think we have tackled that particular question yet.

Why shun and/or fight every opinion that may suggest otherwise?