Do you believe in God?

[Drachnon]

No I don't believe in a or any god or gods. I do need to mention I don't like the phrasing of that question. When writing god with a capital G it's pretty much exclusively for the deity shared by the mythologies of the 3 abrahamic faiths.
Also believe implies that there is an opinion involved. I would have phrased it more like this: "Do you believe in supernatural entitie(s) that transcend our reality yet still influence it?"
With the addon questions "which specific entity?" and "which interpretation of its teachings?" With over 30 thousand versions of christianity I always have a hard time with people saying that they're christians and expecting me to instantly know all their morals and values as if all christians have the same.

Now back to the question at hand. I don't believe in a god or gods because I have yet so see any religion that makes a compelling argument for any for of supernatural entity that might be labeled god. Therefore I remain in the default position of atheism (not excepting any claim until it has met its burden of proof).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Here's a really interesting conception about a 'creator'.
Einstein believed in Spinova's god, in which the universe is god. Of course, the term 'god' is more of a metaphor contrary to how the term is generally coined. But, the entire philosophy was fixated on a concept of a static universe (infinite and having no beginning or end). The reason being is because a 'maker' must be infinite, not having been made from anything prior to it.
We now know that the universe is not static, which leaves a lot of inquiry on how the universe began.
It has been accepted that the universe was created, but of it's own accord? Even the smartest people in the world, such as Stephen Hawking, has no base theoretical concept that competently explains how reality began.
So, if Spinova's god doesn't work, then that leaves a lot of room for gnostic intrigue

Personally, I believe without doubt that there is a maker of the universe, and perhaps the only 'faith' involved is that of a personal god, such as the Abrahamic God in which Muslims, Jews, Christians, and the Bahai' Faith surround.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I am an agnostic and not an athiest. An athiest denys the exsistance of god while and augnostice is a person who believes that the exsistance of god can not be proven yet does not deny that there may possibly be one. I am the later of the two. I have a lot of confidence that there is a higher power running things and that we are just tiny specks of nothing in universe. I have a very open mind. However I do not pray or follow any particular religion and I am not sure if any of the religions we have on this planet are even close to correct. yet for some reason I cant explain, whenever I have situations of extreme desperation or fear for the life of my own or my family I will try to ask or speak to god as almost a last resort....to me this is an odd phenomenon. Maybe its instinct. Just because humans can not prove something does not mean it does not exsist. It does not mean it does exsist either, so its best to keep an open mind in my opinion.

 

[coffeecup]

No. I live my life under the assumption that there is no God. That this is the only life we have. That an individual should relish his current life and live the most of it instead of focusing on some after-life that "might" (and probably doesn't) exist. That the best love isn't for God but for yourself and mankind. That we should create meaning from within instead of looking for someone (or something) to give us an answer. That self-knowledge begins with the self instead of some floating deity above the clouds. Life is much too precious to waste with devotion to such tenuous religious beliefs. And things like "meaning" and "purpose" are readily ascertainable for those who actually take the time to search within themselves for the answer. You don't need science, philosophy, or God to tell you the meaning of your life. Some things you need to figure out on your own.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I am an agnostic and not an athiest. An athiest denys the exsistance of god while and augnostice is a person who believes that the exsistance of god can not be proven yet does not deny that there may possibly be one. I am the later of the two. I have a lot of confidence that there is a higher power running things and that we are just tiny specks of nothing in universe. I have a very open mind. However I do not pray or follow any particular religion and I am not sure if any of the religions we have on this planet are even close to correct. yet for some reason I cant explain, whenever I have situations of extreme desperation or fear for the life of my own or my family I will try to ask or speak to god as almost a last resort....to me this is an odd phenomenon. Maybe its instinct. Just because humans can not prove something does not mean it does not exsist. It does not mean it does exsist either, so its best to keep an open mind in my opinion.

As for the first part of your reply, if you do not actively believe in the existence of a higher power, you are an atheist. You can kick and scream to the contrary that you're an agnostic, but the reality is, you'd be both. Atheism/Theism is to do with belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism is to do with knowledge. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists, but think that apologists for the existence of God have not met their burden of proof, therefore I am an atheist and also an agnostic.

Also, if you 'have a lot of confidence there is a higher power' wouldn't that make you a deist? You don't pay homage to any particular sect of religion but you believe in a higher power, making you a deist. I think.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

As for the first part of your reply, if you do not actively believe in the existence of a higher power, you are an atheist. You can kick and scream to the contrary that you're an agnostic, but the reality is, you'd be both. Atheism/Theism is to do with belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism is to do with knowledge. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists, but think that apologists for the existence of God have not met their burden of proof, therefore I am an atheist and also an agnostic.

Also, if you 'have a lot of confidence there is a higher power' wouldn't that make you a deist? You don't pay homage to any particular sect of religion but you believe in a higher power, making you a deist. I think.

No sir, just because I may believe there is a superior being or control out there it does not mean I follow it. The lack of ability we have to proof god exsists is my insentive to not waste my time trying to follow religion or any particular god, You may be right with your terms but either way its not really a pissing match about terms, its a question if you are religious. Aynone who reads the post can take the reference of what I am saying pretty simply. "I am not religious in any way, but I am open minded enough to accept the possibility".

 

[der Astronom]

Actually, being an atheist does not mean you're not entitled to believe there's a possibility that god exists. In fact, very few atheists believe there's absolutely no possibility of a god or gods existing. It just means that you act as if a god or gods don't exist because you don't have any reason for doing so. There might be a criteria under which atheists might be convinced that a god or gods could exist, but they just haven't been presented with a convincing argument that there is a god or several.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Atheists commonly try to dismiss religion on account of science and the lack of proof. So really, when you call yourself an atheist, be ready for criticism. It's really no different then someone saying they believe in God and someone else assuming it is the Abrahamic God they believe in.

There is weak and strong atheism. Weak atheists are the description that is being shown. Strong atheism would be that of Richard Dawkins.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Atheists commonly try to dismiss religion on account of science and the lack of proof. So really, when you call yourself an atheist, be ready for criticism. It's really no different then someone saying they believe in God and someone else assuming it is the Abrahamic God they believe in.

There is weak and strong atheism. Weak atheists are the description that is being shown. Strong atheism would be that of Richard Dawkins.

I'd say Dawkins is a bad example of strong atheism, perhaps Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins has always stated that he is an atheist-agnostic in so far as he cannot prove that God does not exist.

I am not claiming anything by saying I am an atheist, I am replying to a claim, a claim that in my opinion, has not met its burden of proof.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I'd say Dawkins is a bad example of strong atheism, perhaps Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins has always stated that he is an atheist-agnostic in so far as he cannot prove that God does not exist.

I am not claiming anything by saying I am an atheist, I am replying to a claim, a claim that in my opinion, has not met its burden of proof.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins simply because he mocks religion, saying things such as he was glad Jesus came along to teach people to be humane or that evolution must hurt religion because, well, I don't even know. Just to piss people off I guess.
A smiling troublemaker, in other words.

Whether he states he is agnostic or not, it doesn't matter, because we are all agnostic at heart. He will be considered a strong atheist in my opinion.

Anyways, there is a huge irony in science. Take the beginning of reality for example- there really is only one competent way of prescribing an explanation for it, and yet is dismissed on account of it not being rational.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm not a fan of Dawkins simply because he mocks religion, saying things such as he was glad Jesus came along to teach people to be humane or that evolution must hurt religion because, well, I don't even know. Just to piss people off I guess.
A smiling troublemaker, in other words.

I think you've completely missed the point of what Dawkins was trying to say. He's not a troublemaker; he has valid points against religion, and while he does believe the bible can be taught in a literature class, and that Jesus might have done some moral things, he doesn't believe the bible is any particularly good book for morality (and he basically agrees with most atheists and secular humanists on why that is), and he thinks religion should stop sabotaging science whenever a scientist or a group of them want to study something because it's considered "too sacred" (ie, dumb excuse) for them. In fact, if you've ever read any of his books or read or heard any of his interviews, he explicitly says his intended audience isn't people that won't be convinced by anything (eg, fundamentalists); his intended audience is people sitting on the fence. People who are open-minded enough to consider what he has to say about science and religion.

Whether he states he is agnostic or not, it doesn't matter, because we are all agnostic at heart. He will be considered a strong atheist in my opinion.

Under the conventional definition of strong atheist, which was defined ages ago in a separate thread, he is not a strong atheist. If you would like to state your definition of strong atheism, please do. But last I heard, Dawkin's position on religion is that he admits the possibility of god existing (as with any other falsifiable hypothesis), but no evidence exists that points to god, so he doesn't believe in god. And that's conventionally the position a weak atheist holds, not a strong atheist.

Anyways, there is a huge irony in science. Take the beginning of reality for example- there really is only one competent way of prescribing an explanation for it, and yet is dismissed on account of it not being rational.

No, you've just assumed that the explanation you hold to be true is competent. Well how do you know if it's competent, and why do we have to believe it's competent if it's not rational?

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Only a handful of people on this forum understand how the whole agnosticism and theism/atheism thing works, so I'm just gonna leave this here.
Follow the flowchart! It even has pictures!

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I'm not sure if that a/gnostic idea was pointed at me or not, but I will say that a handful of people do not understand the definition of 'open-mindedness'.
I am open-minded, and only one explanation comes to mind about how reality began. Wait for science to answer it- next year, in a century, a millenium, a trillion years?
It won't happen.

The only thing illogical is thinking that something can come from nothing. 'Nothing' doesn't exist in physics, and for very good reason.
There are only a few criteria for a maker:
One, it must be infinite, having no beginning as it could not have been created from anything else.
Two, it must have will, because cause and effect do not happen without and initial action, like dominoes tumbling.
Three, it must be more complex then the reality we live in.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm not sure if that a/gnostic idea was pointed at me or not, but I will say that a handful of people do not understand the definition of 'open-mindedness'.

Right, and you're not even going to explain what you think open-mindedness is? How can we even continue having a discussion about it when you won't even explain what you think it is?

I am open-minded, and only one explanation comes to mind about how reality began. Wait for science to answer it- next year, in a century, a millenium, a trillion years?
It won't happen.

I hope you realize that being open minded means you're willing to consider any explanation, and that if you don't think it's valid, you probably have a very good reason for it. Which we have yet to hear.

The only thing illogical is thinking that something can come from nothing. 'Nothing' doesn't exist in physics, and for very good reason.
There are only a few criteria for a maker:

But there's no reason why we have to assume we know anything about how the universe exists, or even that it was a sentient being that created it all.

One, it must be infinite, having no beginning as it could not have been created from anything else.
Two, it must have will, because cause and effect do not happen without and initial action, like dominoes tumbling.
Three, it must be more complex then the reality we live in.

I don't see why the last one is a necessary condition.

And if these even were remotely plausible, you still have not even provided any evidence that such a being exists under these conditions. You can't assume that just because the universe had a beginning means that however we exist had to be through an infinite being. There are many different ways in which we could exist, and narrowing it down to one without providing any evidence is just wishful thinking.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Right, and you're not even going to explain what you think open-mindedness is? How can we even continue having a discussion about it when you won't even explain what you think it is?

Why would I need to explain open-mindedness?

I hope you realize that being open minded means you're willing to consider any explanation, and that if you don't think it's valid, you probably have a very good reason for it. Which we have yet to hear.

I already explained it. There is no other explanation the way I see it.

And if these even were remotely plausible, you still have not even provided any evidence that such a being exists under these conditions. You can't assume that just because the universe had a beginning means that however we exist had to be through an infinite being. There are many different ways in which we could exist, and narrowing it down to one without providing any evidence is just wishful thinking.

You cannot provide visible evidence for something that cannot be seen. There simply is no other way, which should be evident enough for anyone who is open-minded.

I've seen how these things go. People talk about the burden of proof all day long but cannot offer any contrary period. Not even the supreme scientific minds even have a guess. Even theoretical physicists remain fixed on a quantum, force, etc. to drive reality into what it is.

Maybe some people should work backwards and see how evidence doesn't always have to be like fingerprints on a loaded gun.

There can't be anything plausible for how reality began, and I think that is the big pitfall for others fixed on needing such an explanation. There used to be a plausible logic, that reality was infinite with no beginning, but is known now to be otherwise.
This was Spinova's God, the metaphorical god which is reality. It had no need to have will, be infinite, and be more complex because it just always was.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not a fan of Dawkins simply because he mocks religion, saying things such as he was glad Jesus came along to teach people to be humane or that evolution must hurt religion because, well, I don't even know. Just to piss people off I guess.
A smiling troublemaker, in other words.

Whether he states he is agnostic or not, it doesn't matter, because we are all agnostic at heart. He will be considered a strong atheist in my opinion.

Anyways, there is a huge irony in science. Take the beginning of reality for example- there really is only one competent way of prescribing an explanation for it, and yet is dismissed on account of it not being rational.

Again, if you were talking about Christopher Hitchens you'd have an argument, but Dawkins is so nicey nicey about it.
Creation is dismissed due to lack of evidence, I don't see that as an irony, there is evidence for something like the big bang, such as red shift and the idea that the universe is expanding.

As for the open mindedness, I'd say I'm very open minded; I'm willing to consider new ideas, if real quantifiable evidence came about that said God existed, I'd consider the God claim a hell of a lot more likely than I do now, but as it is, all we have are archaic text and superstitious ramblings.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

It won't happen.

You're not open-minded if you're saying something like that. Unless you can see the future...?

The only thing illogical is thinking that something can come from nothing. 'Nothing' doesn't exist in physics, and for very good reason.

NOPE. The majority of the universe is "nothingness". 70% of the energy in the universe resides in empty space. Our universe is a tiny amount of pollution within this. And it is entirely possible that it arose from "nothing". It is an incredibly rare occurrence, but in the span of infinity that means it is guaranteed. And it is also guaranteed we'd exist at this time to be able to observe it (the universe is accelerating, so we wouldn't be able to determine this earlier or later than now-ish). It's inevitable.

I recommend you watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
It's rather long so you probably won't, but it's quite enlightening.

Two, it must have will, because cause and effect do not happen without and initial action, like dominoes tumbling.

That's unimaginative. It could be a force with no will. Perhaps an infinite ebb and flow of some sort that creates and destroys the universe. Like a heartbeat.

I don't believe this, of course, but I think it's more creative than the regurgitated ideas of god we keep getting. Then again, I guess god requires a will, otherwise it's not 'living' which makes people feel silly to worship it.

Three, it must be more complex then the reality we live in.

That's foolish. Less complex things can lead to more complex things. Just look at the evolution of various animals.


Regarding the flowchart I posted: I am a non-agnostic atheist. But I am also open-minded. I will change my opinion when presented with evidence and I admit that I could be wrong, even though I don't believe I am. You don't have to be a wishy-washy agnostic, confused atheist to be open-minded.

 

[blakstang98]

We're now straying off-topic. Lets put the religious debate to rest in this thread and get back on-topic, which is "do you believe in God?" Thank you.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You're not open-minded if you're saying something like that. Unless you can see the future...?

NOPE. The majority of the universe is "nothingness". 70% of the energy in the universe resides in empty space. Our universe is a tiny amount of pollution within this. And it is entirely possible that it arose from "nothing". It is an incredibly rare occurrence, but in the span of infinity that means it is guaranteed. And it is also guaranteed we'd exist at this time to be able to observe it (the universe is accelerating, so we wouldn't be able to determine this earlier or later than now-ish). It's inevitable.

I recommend you watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
It's rather long so you probably won't, but it's quite enlightening.

That's unimaginative. It could be a force with no will. Perhaps an infinite ebb and flow of some sort that creates and destroys the universe. Like a heartbeat.

I don't believe this, of course, but I think it's more creative than the regurgitated ideas of god we keep getting. Then again, I guess god requires a will, otherwise it's not 'living' which makes people feel silly to worship it.

That's foolish. Less complex things can lead to more complex things. Just look at the evolution of various animals.


Regarding the flowchart I posted: I am a non-agnostic atheist. But I am also open-minded. I will change my opinion when presented with evidence and I admit that I could be wrong, even though I don't believe I am. You don't have to be a wishy-washy agnostic, confused atheist to be open-minded.

It's close-minded to stay clung to a non-god created universe. Not the other way around. You should open your mind instead of suggesting an alternative idea and then saying you don't believe the alternative.
LoL

Anyways, I made a new thread for this. You'll know it when you see it.

I believe in the Abrahamic God. Agnosticism has gripped me much of my life but I have been beckoned to Christianity more then once, this being the third and hopefully last time.

 

[CassinoChips]

It's close-minded to stay clung to a non-god created universe. Not the other way around. You should open your mind instead of suggesting an alternative idea and then saying you don't believe the alternative.

So you have to believe one particular idea in order to be open-minded? That makes no sense whatsoever. And just because one is open to an idea doesn't mean one has to necessarily believe that idea to be true. I'm open to the idea that Mountain Dew is the best tasting soda, but that doesn't mean I agree or believe that to be true.

I believe in the Abrahamic God. Agnosticism has gripped me much of my life but I have been beckoned to Christianity more then once, this being the third and hopefully last time.

Is that you, Fox Mulder? "I want to believe." It sounds like you're having to convince yourself that Christianity is correct, and thus, that God exists.