Do you believe in God? (Or some other religious diety?) [Archive]

DrJones

04-13-2007, 11:01 AM

I kind of feel the same. Though I'm not 100% sure of an actual diety of some sort, I do think that most religions just aren't quite 'true' enough.

I have various reasons for thinking so (I'll probably list many of them in this thread).

For instance, there are a lot of 'good weather' Christians in the US. That doesn't make sense to me. If I was convinced of the existence of God (The one that was the father to Jesus) and believed in the Christian faith, I would see no reason not to dedicate 100% of your life to it. I'm talking go to church at every opportunity, do everything by the standards whatever they may be, and just in general, do everything that was required. Not pick and choose things in the Bible to bring into my daily life, but to memorize the book forward to back and never ignore any of it.

I don't understand people who believe in god/religion, but then don't give it their full (seems like A LOT fall into this category). There are many people who are 'good people' more or less, but aren't doing everything they can/should be according to their religion.

Nick_S

04-13-2007, 11:09 AM

I hate religion it is total BS!!! I believe there might be a higher power but i am not sure? Until there is some actual proof. Im fucking sick of people telling me you just have to have faith, fucking bull shit if you ask me. I mean if there wasn't stupid religion there wouldn't be this fucking gay ass holy war going on. I think in the end religion will ruin this world.

saabracr

04-13-2007, 11:37 AM

No. There are far too many people in far too much undeserved pain in this world.

Varao

04-13-2007, 11:53 AM

Mario

04-13-2007, 12:00 PM

I believe in myself, one thing that I have learned in my life is that you are trully alone. There is no one or thing out there watching you or helping you through life. IMO people need the belief of religion or the higher power to get them through the trying factors of life. But in the end there is only you.

Interesting view point, I like it. Especially this part:

people need the belief of religion or the higher power to get them through the trying factors of life.

Because it is oh so very true.

Weston-work

04-13-2007, 12:01 PM

I believe in a higher power... I've had enough experiences to know that there is a lot more going on than just what we can see, and some of it is good and some of it is bad. It all depends on which side you accept into your life. Have faith in the good side, both in your thoughts and in your actions, and everything will work out for the better in the long run. There is no proof for everyone to see because that's the way that it needs to be. The whole point is to have free will and choose to have faith or not. If there were universal proof of God's existance, it would destroy that. He wants people to choose him, not to be forced to follow him. I don't believe that we're supposed to fear him, or that the Bible is a book of draconian rules. It's full of great advice, and if you take the time to understand the concepts that it covers, it really makes a lot of sense.

As for religion, it's like most groups... a relatively small number of people misuse it and it gives the whole group a bad image as a result. Part of that comes from the fact that any group that has power always has an element of corruption, no matter if it's the church, the government, your HOA, or your local PTA meeting. It doesn't really change anything though... people who have faith will continue to have faith, while those who do not will just use the problems in the church as an excuse to turn their backs on religion and faith.

Dave_L

04-13-2007, 12:03 PM

I believe in God. I don't go to church on a regular basis or anything but I don't feel that I need to. Church only presents the idea with their own twist on it. I take bits and pieces and apply it to my life.

Mark_H

04-13-2007, 12:06 PM

I was raised Catholic and quite frankly the older I got, the less I believed a single word of it. I haven't stepped foot in a church since I turned 18 and wasn't forced to go:)
Mark

kevino002

04-13-2007, 12:22 PM

I believe in chaos, there is no order to things, and there isn't a supreme being up in the sky controlling our everyday life. We are all derived from a single ancestral gene pool. The concept of religion is great in a world that is fair and just, but as you can see its not. Since the beginning of time the world has been at war over religion, and it will continue to do so. when I say religion I mean "organised religion", or as I see it a form of governing bodies using "more to life tactics" to manipulate society. I could get really scientific here, but I don't have the time.... :)

DrJones

04-13-2007, 12:39 PM

There is no proof for everyone to see because that's the way that it needs to be. The whole point is to have free will and choose to have faith or not. If there were universal proof of God's existance, it would destroy that. He wants people to choose him, not to be forced to follow him.

This is another thing I don't quite fully understand.

I think you make a good point, that God wants us to choose him.

He would obviously prefer that we choose him, rather than not doing so. If he didn't care, or didn't want that, than why would he make himself known through various ways (ie the Bible and Jesus).

I think we both agree up to that point. Now, my question is basically, he is all powerful and knows everything, correct? He can't do wrong, he is perfect.

If he does something, like perform a miracle, he knows which people will believe it and which won't. He knows who will be convinced. Right? Thus, I think you can also draw the point, that he also then knows what it would take to convince various people.

He has convinced you. He has done what he needed to, to convince you. Yes, it was still your choice, but he still knew how much it would take to convince you (because he knows everything), and then he convinced you (because he can do anything). So in a way, he chose for you.

That kind of goes along, with my next point, which is, if he does want us to convince us, than shouldn't it be pretty obvious? It' is the truth after all. It seems to me, like if that was his plan, and he was capable of what people say/assume, than it wouldn't really be a question of if he exists.

If I had to give the main reason of why I am not convinced, it's because I've not yet seen a good enough argument from someone to convince me. If it is the truth, than why do people result to such soft logic and leave it up to 'faith' or 'God works in mysterious ways.'

One example, is the now (infamous) Athiest Banana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo). Ray Comfort uses the banana as a perfect example showing that atheists are wrong, because the banana we know and love was "designed" by God in an "intelligent" way. Yet, his entire premise is basically wrong, because the banana we all know and love, is not what you find in the wild. That banana (seedless) was "evolved" by men who selectively bred it over hundreds of years to fit our needs.

To me, if it was the truth, than Ray Comfort would of been able to use a solid example, in which there would of been no question of his reasoning. Instead, he presents an argument with lots of holes that can be picked apart.

Many people start with a belief in a system (usually the one that matches their parents). However, I think the default is to have no beliefs, and to be convinced of something. I just don't understand, that if Christianity and God are what they are presented as, why the arguments aren't more convincing. Especially when the person with unlimited control and knowledge who writes all the rules, is the one with the most at stake in having us believe.

He created us. He gave us Logic. He knew when he did so, that people like Richard Dawkins would use that logic to help show others that he really doesn't exist. Why would he do that? Why would he leave the evidence and thought processes that people like Richard Dawkins use to explain why he likely doesn't exist?

Is it because he doesn't want everyone to believe in him? If that's the case, then what critera does he pick and choose? He obviously gave Dawkins the ability to use logic. He left the evidence around that Dawkins would use, and then let Dawkins be exposed to that evidence. He knows everything, so he knew that would make Dawkins not believe. So why did he choose to let Dawkins be the one? He also must know that Richard Dawkins would of gone on to write books and give talks like he has been. He also must then know the people that will be convinced by that work. So by allowing Dawkins to do all that, he is also basically choosing for many other people.

Weston-work

04-13-2007, 12:42 PM

I was raised Catholic and quite frankly the older I got, the less I believed a single word of it. I haven't stepped foot in a church since I turned 18 and wasn't forced to go:)
Mark

Yeah, that's how I felt for a long time... I bought into the atheist thinking that it was all made up to make people behave, or at the very least there isn't really a hell, and so on. I didn't want to be enslaved by all of the strict rules in the Bible, and I hadn't been given a reason to really believe in it, other than being threatened with going to hell. :rolleyes: Several of my friends went from being pretty big "sinners" to having a sudden religious awakening, which I really couldn't understand. They tried to convert me and so on, but they really couldn't convince me. As the years went by, I started to have my own experiences and figure things out for myself. I still didn't really want to believe, because I still saw it all as a bunch of restrictions that deprived me of living an enjoyable life. However, some more things happened an I eventually became curious enough to take a deeper look at what the Bible said and open my mind enough to consider it... I found that it really is full of wisdom, and it's not just a bunch of rules to deprive me of fun, but rather a bunch of advice to lead me to a better life.

LeonZ

04-13-2007, 12:42 PM

No.

DrJones

04-13-2007, 01:03 PM

However, some more things happened an I eventually became curious enough to take a deeper look at what the Bible said and open my mind enough to consider it... I found that it really is full of wisdom, and it's not just a bunch of rules to deprive me of fun, but rather a bunch of advice to lead me to a better life.

I know that the Bible does teach a lot of good lessons, but there is also a TON of debate on the details.

Do you believe that Noah's ark really existed? That we all came from Adam and Eve?

What about the parts of the bible that say:

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

a "bondmen" is "a male slave"

So is it OK to keep slaves if they are from other nations around you?

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Should we put all NFL players to death?

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Do you get hair cuts?

Is that 'advice' that leads you to a better life?

Like I said earlier, if you do believe in God and Christianity, than how can you not dedicate yourself 100% to what the Bible says?

Hellified SH

04-13-2007, 01:07 PM

I beleive in a mightier being than human's.

But lets face it the bible was written and re-written by man, I feel it is more or less a novel that is created by man. I dont beleive in heaven or hell due to the scientific aspects of it.

yapann

04-13-2007, 02:20 PM

Yes. I believe in higher power. It’s called LOVE.

crxrocks

04-14-2007, 09:34 AM

If he does something, like perform a miracle, he knows which people will believe it and which won't. He knows who will be convinced. Right? Thus, I think you can also draw the point, that he also then knows what it would take to convince various people.

He has convinced you. He has done what he needed to, to convince you. Yes, it was still your choice, but he still knew how much it would take to convince you (because he knows everything), and then he convinced you (because he can do anything). So in a way, he chose for you.

So it is his job to convince everyone that he exists? What if he created an entire planet filled with complex creatures and processes, would all believe then? What if he performed miracles such as raising people from the dead or healing the sick, would all believe then?

Outside of that I think you are asking the wrong question. He is the creator, Lord of all. He has already done what it takes to show the world that he exists, it is ingrained in all of us. This is something which is purely Human.

That kind of goes along, with my next point, which is, if he does want us to convince us, than shouldn't it be pretty obvious? It' is the truth after all. It seems to me, like if that was his plan, and he was capable of what people say/assume, than it wouldn't really be a question of if he exists.

God sent his Son to the earth as a Human and he was rejected. What more can you ask?

If I had to give the main reason of why I am not convinced, it's because I've not yet seen a good enough argument from someone to convince me. If it is the truth, than why do people result to such soft logic and leave it up to 'faith' or 'God works in mysterious ways.'

I think what you have identified is a large fallacy in the Christian church, that God in some way is playing puppet master of all things - manipulating us and everything around us. Following this logic would mean that God controls a man to rape a woman or a pervert child molester to attack a boy. This behavior is against the very nature of God.

One example, is the now (infamous) Athiest Banana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo). Ray Comfort uses the banana as a perfect example showing that atheists are wrong, because the banana we know and love was "designed" by God in an "intelligent" way. Yet, his entire premise is basically wrong, because the banana we all know and love, is not what you find in the wild. That banana (seedless) was "evolved" by men who selectively bred it over hundreds of years to fit our needs.

To me, if it was the truth, than Ray Comfort would of been able to use a solid example, in which there would of been no question of his reasoning. Instead, he presents an argument with lots of holes that can be picked apart.

I haven't checked the facts in the video nor do I know the history of the banana but if the facts in the video are true then they made a poor choice for an example. To me it seems that the example is pretty questionable on its own.

Ray Comfort is a teacher not a master of the history of the banana. Could he and his organization done a bit more research? Probably so.

EDIT: A quick search on the internet and I was unable to find the history of the banana mentioned in the video. I was able to find this

http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/bananahistory.htm

The yellow sweet banana is a mutant strain of the cooking banana, discovered in 1836 by Jamaican Jean Francois Poujot, who found one of the banana trees on his plantation was bearing yellow fruit rather than green or red. Upon tasting the new discovery, he found it to be sweet in its raw state, without the need for cooking. He quickly began cultivating this sweet variety.

He created us. He gave us Logic. He knew when he did so, that people like Richard Dawkins would use that logic to help show others that he really doesn't exist. Why would he do that? Why would he leave the evidence and thought processes that people like Richard Dawkins use to explain why he likely doesn't exist?

Free will gives any human the ability to believe or to choose not to. Belief and Love aren't much different in this respect, you cannot be MADE to believe just as you cannot be MADE to love.

Is it because he doesn't want everyone to believe in him? If that's the case, then what critera does he pick and choose? He obviously gave Dawkins the ability to use logic. He left the evidence around that Dawkins would use, and then let Dawkins be exposed to that evidence. He knows everything, so he knew that would make Dawkins not believe. So why did he choose to let Dawkins be the one? He also must know that Richard Dawkins would of gone on to write books and give talks like he has been. He also must then know the people that will be convinced by that work. So by allowing Dawkins to do all that, he is also basically choosing for many other people.

He wants everyone to believe and have faith but he will not force you or anyone to love Him. It is all about free will - you can choose to not believe but will will have to live eternally without God.

crxrocks

04-14-2007, 09:34 AM

Yes. I believe in higher power. It’s called LOVE.

Uggh....

john

04-14-2007, 09:41 AM

Yes - I believe in God. Religion FTL, but God FTMFW!

DrJones

04-14-2007, 10:36 AM

Free will gives any human the ability to believe or to choose not to. Belief and Love aren't much different in this respect, you cannot be MADE to believe just as you cannot be MADE to love.

He wants everyone to believe and have faith but he will not force you or anyone to love Him. It is all about free will - you can choose to not believe but will will have to live eternally without God.

Thanks for responding to my questions, getting another view point is always helpful.

I don't think God is directly making anyone believe in him. I feel that he is doing it indirectly.

God knows everything, so he knows how we are going to react to things, right? So, before God does something, he knows if that is going to make people believe in him or not. We still have the choice, but he still knows the outcome. If he decides to do something else, he also knows the outcome. Thus, in a way, when he makes a decision to do something, he already knows how it's going to affect us. Thus, in a way, when he makes a decision, he is controlling our decisions. His motivation for making the decision the way he does might not be getting us to believe or not believe in him, but by doing so, he is exerting control.

How much hand does God have in things? Does the world just kind of go on it's own with him intervening here and there to make minor changes in the path of things? Or, is every birth, every death, every weather storm and every outcome of a sporting event the direct result of his actions?

When there is an untimely death of a love one, people sometimes question God and why he would choose to take that life, thus it makes me think he always has a hand in that. People also pray for their team a lot in sports, how does God decide? If a player hits a home run in the bottom of the 9th, is it God's will pushing the ball, or purely the player?

One last point, since God knows everything, at the very moment he created the universe, didn't he have the knowledge of everything that would then happen? Including who would and wouldn't end up believing in him?

Edit:

Saw this on another forum, I think it explains what I'm trying to say better than I am saying it.

1. Blind faith in God's existence is required for salvation.
2. God wants you to be saved.
3. Many people reason that God does not exist.
4. God is omniscient
5. Therefore, nothing God does could have unexpected side-effects
6. God is omnipotent as well omniscient
7. Therefore, nothing God does could have unintentional side-effects
8. God gave us reason.
9. Therefore, God both expected and intended that many people would reason that he does not exist
11. Therefore, God does not want many to be saved.
12. Therefore, either (1) is false; (2) is false; or (4), (6) and (8) are false

yapann

04-14-2007, 02:04 PM

I’ve walked-through up and down doubting&hoping, and one day just quitted asking God for anything stupid anymore. Nevertheless, is’s not because God don’t care. He neither cares not doesn’t care :_) If anyone has tried to see the movie ‘Breaking the Waves” will better get the point what I mean. People mistake existing of any higher power (and/or religion) with their wishes for their lives (lots of us turn into it after bad experiences and/or in fear of it).
It’s human thing to try to put God it into functions and abilities, to define ‘Truth’, ‘Everything’ and ‘Always’. But it all simply doesn’t matter and there is just no such question, if God do/doesn’t, can/cannot, nor so on. We cannot build any formula for God and we probably are not supposed to do so. (Fortunately, we could screw things up :]). We even probably are just in essence unable to ever have any poor idea of material of how and why we are there.

More yet – we rather just don’t need any assumptions made to meet our mission! It have to be built-in us, because whatever the power of creation is indeed - we just have to be part of It some way. That would be why hardly anyone will probably deny having feeling how uncomplete all we are ourselves! (except some ones I will not name :p). If we just got apart from Completeness somehow for some reason, maybe we are only supposed to get fulfilled.. ? (it is NOT supposed to equal ‘well fed and drunk’ :p’) - rather kind of Earth–time destination, as part of not Earth’s meaning destination, (it applies whenever it exists or not :p). What else / better we can do instead? Only everyday might be another chance to look into oneself for answers for proper way to realize self-completing (including getting and giving as well, I’m sorry for those who don’t feel it), which might mean to meet ‘destination’/God, somehow. It doesn’t seem to require any counting, prooving, nor even Earth’s-understanding.
This all overcomed lots of fears and doubts I had before.

I think in the end religion will ruin this world. < FIXED > people will ruin themselves < /FIXED > - doesn’t matter with what kind of weapon – religion, food, or experiments.

about religion.. -
I rather avoid using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terms (either it doesn’t exist, or we are not able to understand it), but by in meaning of it:
religion is not neither good nor bad - it is both as good and as bad) as people concerned. “Don't because God is seeing you/will judge you/and so” is example of degeneration on religious basis, but it's not religion's fault by no means, only our fault.

not to be forced to follow him. I don't believe that we're supposed to fear him werd.
and I hadn't been given a reason to really believe in it, other than being threatened with going to hell. :rolleyes: lol
you will not (I talked to God)

ps: at the end – if God existed – you would understand my English!
ps2: I hate talking about faith/God/religin. :p

crxrocks

04-14-2007, 03:04 PM

Thanks for responding to my questions, getting another view point is always helpful.

No problem. You ask honest questions and it seems that you struggle with this yourself and don't just want to start and discussion for the sake of the discussion.

God knows everything, so he knows how we are going to react to things, right? So, before God does something, he knows if that is going to make people believe in him or not. We still have the choice, but he still knows the outcome. If he decides to do something else, he also knows the outcome. Thus, in a way, when he makes a decision to do something, he already knows how it's going to affect us. Thus, in a way, when he makes a decision, he is controlling our decisions. His motivation for making the decision the way he does might not be getting us to believe or not believe in him, but by doing so, he is exerting control.

This is something which is even debated among Christians. There are some (Calvinists) who believe that God has preordained and has absolute foreknowledge of everything and there are some who believe that God, although knowing everything, does not necessarily lock the future and that people can change and change the outcome.

How much hand does God have in things? Does the world just kind of go on it's own with him intervening here and there to make minor changes in the path of things? Or, is every birth, every death, every weather storm and every outcome of a sporting event the direct result of his actions?

I believe that God has intervened at times but for the most part does not actively manage us like puppets. Agreeing to the idea that God has a hand in everything would mean that God would have been responsible for all the evil in the world - a woman being raped, a man being murdered and a child being molested.

People used to believe that lightning was a form of judgment from God. You house got hit by lightning? You must not have been living a life that God approved of. But then man invented the lightning rod. Does this invention mean that God is no longer capable of distributing judgment? Of course not!

When there is an untimely death of a love one, people sometimes question God and why he would choose to take that life, thus it makes me think he always has a hand in that. People also pray for their team a lot in sports, how does God decide? If a player hits a home run in the bottom of the 9th, is it God's will pushing the ball, or purely the player?

See above. Personally, I think that God has better things to do than to interfere with some sporting event which has no consequential outcome on anything.

One last point, since God knows everything, at the very moment he created the universe, didn't he have the knowledge of everything that would then happen? Including who would and wouldn't end up believing in him?

See my statement above. I think that most Christians are flawed for believing we are merely puppets in Gods universe.

Edit:

Saw this on another forum, I think it explains what I'm trying to say better than I am saying it.

1. Blind faith in God's existence is required for salvation.

I would argue that blind faith isn't required - just faith.

2. God wants you to be saved.
3. Many people reason that God does not exist.
4. God is omniscient
5. Therefore, nothing God does could have unexpected side-effects
6. God is omnipotent as well omniscient
7. Therefore, nothing God does could have unintentional side-effects
8. God gave us reason.
9. Therefore, God both expected and intended that many people would reason that he does not exist
11. Therefore, God does not want many to be saved.
12. Therefore, either (1) is false; (2) is false; or (4), (6) and (8) are false

God would rather have true love, risking the possibility of some rejecting him than having false robot love. Can a man MAKE his wife love him? If he did force it on her, it wouldn't really be love, right?

Chris

crxrocks

04-14-2007, 03:08 PM

myshtern

04-14-2007, 03:23 PM

Good Interview which can sway you either way:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913

yapann

04-14-2007, 03:28 PM

has given us [...] He also providedindeed we don’t know. We believe it

we have conscience regardless of knowledge of having it, regardless of knowledge of God, thus experinece of God maybe don’t need to come from knowledge. We don’t know.

Will anyone of you decide to upbring your children without religion (yes, I mean just religion – church, lessons of Bible, and so on) before they are ready to decide themselves?

DrJones

04-16-2007, 09:03 AM

This might be a long shot, but are there any believes here who have read books like The God Delusion?

04-16-2007, 09:29 AM

Yes, I believe in god. However, I don't believe in religion. I believe that a higher power put everything here for a reason, and takes it away for a reason, etc. But, I do view religion as a way for people to make money by pushing view on others, just my 2 cents. Good question for this section.

Same here, well said.

However, I'll say this....... I feel religion has no place on a message board. Got Drama?

DrJones

04-16-2007, 09:36 AM

Same here, well said.

However, I'll say this....... I feel religion has no place on a message board. Got Drama?

If we banned all topics that could start drama then there wouldn't be anything left to talk about here.

04-16-2007, 09:44 AM

:rofl: You make a very valid point.

However, religion deals with people's entire lives, their worlds, all of what they believe is responsible for our existance today as we know it. Not really a small thing.... ya know?

I mean, carry on.. don't by any means let me stop this thread. Just saying, I've never really seen a religion thread end pretty.

DrJones

04-16-2007, 09:48 AM

However, religion deals with people's entire lives, their worlds, all of what they believe is responsible for our existance today as we know it. Not really a small thing.... ya know?

I think that's the main reason too talk about it.

If it is something so important, shouldn't people discuss it? By discussing it, it may open their eyes to a new way of thinking, or reinforce their own beliefs in a stronger way.

Too me, something that important is something that you want to spend a lot of time thinking about and discussing. Little would please me more than talking in a thread like this and reading something from someone else that makes me think "Man, that is a really really good point, I never thought of it that way, and should give this new idea lots of thought."

04-16-2007, 09:54 AM

Good point... very good point, actually.

K20CRX

04-16-2007, 09:18 PM

9-GSR-6

04-16-2007, 09:21 PM

yes i do very strongly

DrJones

04-17-2007, 08:26 AM

this is a rele touchy subject idk how long ago this was posted but i just found it and found it intresting ....... i am arab and i am one of the few arab christans ..... once a man saw a little boy dig a small hole the man goes up to him and asks what are you doin and the boy replies filling the ocean in this hole the man says to the boy why ur nvr gonna do it the boy asks how do u no we are all doubt full that the boy is gonna fill the ocean in this whole but the boy tells him why do u keep asking questions all you well ever get back is pain this is only relevant in religous terms because this little boy turns out to be an angle and percive this anyway u want it but it rele opend my eyes when i was wondering but the whole time i relized i was jus doing what this man was doing and thats why we go to church its so that we understand to not question our faith..... all questions ive asked in the past forget and take this one seriously and lets start this thread up again a lil

So, would it be better the boy spend his life digging the hole in error, instead of going out to search for something more meaningful?

Why did God give us logic and reasoning (knowing it would be used by people to not believe in him) if he didn't want us to use it?

If people tell you not to ask questions, than they don't want you to because they know you are going to find out something isn't true. If they allow you to ask questions, than they are confident enough in their thoughts to really believe in them and defend them.

Asking questions either takes you off the false path, or strengthens your belief in your own path. I don't see how you can lose either way.

Kind of like this tread, discussing these things and asking questions is good regardless of the outcome. There is nothing to risk, only something to gain.

-=[Juztin]=-

04-17-2007, 09:07 AM

I believe in God, religion locks me down with rules, but a belief allows me to expand and grow.

yapann

04-17-2007, 09:18 AM

There is nothing to risk, only something to gain.agree.

cybergreencivic

04-17-2007, 09:50 AM

I 2nd everything crxrocks has said so far.

stu

04-17-2007, 10:19 AM

I can believe in a creator, just as easily as I could believe in ghosts, but not in the way religions explain the creator.

Brian

04-17-2007, 12:14 PM

No I don't and I could go on for hours with my reasons why I do not :)

DrJones

04-17-2007, 12:41 PM

No I don't and I could go on for hours with my reasons why I do not :)

So give us a few of the more interesting reasons :)

Street_Kings

04-18-2007, 04:52 PM

I do believe in a god or a higher power, whatever that may be, or whatever name men chose to give it.

I believe the world, the universe, everything coming to the point it has is too intricately complex to be completely random.

What I DON'T believe in is the religious texts. No man, no matter how holy or religious, is above the influence of power and corruption. Expecially since religion was the ruling factor in the world, it's pretty fair to say that they (the religious texts and rules) were modified to suit the ruling parties at the time.

Interesting side note, though, Death is something that I fear, and a strong motivational factor to seek the truth, and makes me really want to believe that there is a higher being, an afterlife per se. To think that everything I have ever done and will ever do, every memory i've created and experienced, and even my very conciousness will just simply one day cease to exist is a frightening thought. If this is true, what is the point of trying to accomplish anything?

stu

04-18-2007, 04:53 PM

To think that everything I have ever done and will ever do, every memory i've created and experienced, and even my very conciousness will just simply one day cease to exist is a frightening thought. If this is true, what is the point of trying to accomplish anything?

How else will you pass the time?

97CivicNick

04-18-2007, 11:59 PM

"To think that everything I have ever done and will ever do, every memory i've created and experienced, and even my very conciousness will just simply one day cease to exist is a frightening thought. If this is true, what is the point of trying to accomplish anything?"

I think that Religion, God and Any kind of Afterlife is created by man for one reason, Hope. Exactly as Street Kings put it, To think that one day, everything you have lived for and done will be nothing, and that there is nothing after death is a Very depressing thought. Afterlife is an Idea created by man to keep people going, to keep man Sane. It gives us purpose, and I think thats all that matters in the end.

I dont beleive in any "God" or anything, I beleive what I can see, and what can be proved. Darwinism, and Evolution can be proved. A God that Created the world in 7 days, well.. Cannot. I think religion has become polluted, and people are mislead. In the end, it is not about going to church every sunday, and paying for Father's Lexus, But being a good person, and doing well for mankind.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 06:15 AM

Afterlife is an Idea created by man to keep people going, to keep man Sane. It gives us purpose, and I think thats all that matters in the end.

Without a higher being and some absolute standard of right and wrong it is impossible to tell this VT idiot that what he did was wrong. After all, it seemed just fine and the right thing to do to him.

Darwinism, and Evolution can be proved.

Oh really?

DrJones

04-19-2007, 08:33 AM

Without a higher being and some absolute standard of right and wrong it is impossible to tell this VT idiot that what he did was wrong. After all, it seemed just fine and the right thing to do to him.

The "atheists have no morals" argument has been proven very false. Without a God or religion you can still define right and wrong. Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He dedicates a good amount of time to explaining how atheists can be moral people.

In fact, I would even go as far as to argue that atheists are more 'moral' than a lot of religious people. Mostly those on the extremest side. ie most atheists are more moral than suicide bombers, and most atheists are more moral than the westborough baptist church people.

It's pretty easy to define where morals come from without a God.

Also, since I know this other common argument will come up, I'll mention Dawkins counter to it as well.

"With atheists, life and the universe have no meaning."

Dawkins defense of that, is that the universe doesn't really owe us any meaning. If there is meaning, and we discover it, great! If there is no meaning, and we never discover it, great! In both cases, we can still lead a happy, productive, entertaining life. The universe doesn't owe us much. It really doesn't even 'owe' us 'right and wrong'. Yes, we'd like to think that what this VA Tech guy did was wrong, but all that really matters is that everyone thinks he was wrong. Why can't humans define what the meaning of the universe is according to what fits with them? Why can't humans agree upon what is right and wrong according to what fits with them? Why do we need a higher source to do that for us?

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 10:39 AM

The "atheists have no morals" argument has been proven very false. Without a God or religion you can still define right and wrong. Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He dedicates a good amount of time to explaining how atheists can be moral people.

In fact, I would even go as far as to argue that atheists are more 'moral' than a lot of religious people. Mostly those on the extremest side. ie most atheists are more moral than suicide bombers, and most atheists are more moral than the westborough baptist church people.

You chose ONE isolated church as a representation of all Christians.

Yes, we'd like to think that what this VA Tech guy did was wrong, but all that really matters is that everyone thinks he was wrong. Why can't humans define what the meaning of the universe is according to what fits with them? Why can't humans agree upon what is right and wrong according to what fits with them? Why do we need a higher source to do that for us?

We need an absolute truth to tell us what is right or wrong w/o intervention from humans. We cannot use the idea of the majority to decide what is right or wrong. Let's assume that 80% of the population agrees that it is right to rape and murder your mother. Does this all of a sudden make it right? No, it is ALWAYS wrong to rape and murder a woman, regardless of popular thought.

DrJones

04-19-2007, 10:55 AM

You chose ONE isolated church as a representation of all Christians.

No, I specifically point out that these are extremist groups. I make no reference implying or otherwise saying that atheists are moral than most Christians. I'm simply pointing out that not all christians are moral, and not all atheists aren't.

We need an absolute truth to tell us what is right or wrong w/o intervention from humans. We cannot use the idea of the majority to decide what is right or wrong. Let's assume that 80% of the population agrees that it is right to rape and murder your mother. Does this all of a sudden make it right? No, it is ALWAYS wrong to rape and murder a woman, regardless of popular thought.

We don't need an absolute truth at all. It's easy to define morals if you apply it to a factor such as the sustainability of humanity.

80% of the population doesn't agree that it's right to rape and murder my mother. Very very little of the population would agree that. Even the portion of the population that is Atheist would likely disagree with that.

Want proof that you don't need a higher being to have morals? Look around, it's all around you. There are tons of different religions that disagree on all kinds of things, there are lots of people who don't believe in any of those things, yet overall, most people agree on a lot of moral issues (such as rape and murder are wrong).

Christians think rape and murder are wrong because God states that it is so.

Well what about the ~2/3rds of the world that isn't Christian? Why do they also agree that rape and murder are wrong?

You don't have to have belief in a higher being to have morals, there are plenty of people in the world without belief in a higher being that are plenty moral.

Need more proof? Look online. The number of atheists in prison is far below the number of atheists in society. Thus, atheists are less likely to end up in prison. They also have lower divorce rates than Christians.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say if you make generalizations about the groups, atheists are more moral than Christians in terms of things that society as a whole agrees upon as being immoral. (ie it's not moral to hate a group of people because of their race/sex/sexuality/etc but there are plenty of Christians who find it more than OK to do so, and use their religion as the reasoning behind it.

If killing people one of the most immoral acts, than why are there so many religious groups that advocate it?

Nazis, KKK, Extremist Muslims, all the Israel/Palestine stuff, all the Iraq stuff, not only are all those examples of groups highly involved in immoral acts, but they are all focused around religion.

stu

04-19-2007, 12:07 PM

Religion is clearly man made, but that doesn't mean that it should be destroyed or done away with.

Religion is a wonderful tool that very powerful, and very easy to manipulate. That isn't religion's fault though. Just as the universe doesn't owe us anything (great point), religion doesn't owe anyone an explanation for people's behaviors.

People who use religion as a guideline for their behavior and beliefs, after they've become an adult, need religion to guide them because they are too weak to do it themselves. If you have to use religion in a debate, you've lost before you even started.

Again, I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying that religion is a bad thing. I personally feel that the world today could not exist without it. It can easily be abused, but that's not religion's fault. It just happens to be a natural market failure.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 12:15 PM

No, I specifically point out that these are extremist groups. I make no reference implying or otherwise saying that atheists are moral than most Christians. I'm simply pointing out that not all christians are moral, and not all atheists aren't.

You are right, you didn't say that here, but you said that in your next post.

We don't need an absolute truth at all. It's easy to define morals if you apply it to a factor such as the sustainability of humanity.

I simply disagree. So you define all of what is right and wrong based off of this standard? So then whatever doesn't affect the sustainability of humanity is essentially right? There are behaviors which don't affect the sustainability of humanity and are still morally wrong.

80% of the population doesn't agree that it's right to rape and murder my mother. Very very little of the population would agree that. Even the portion of the population that is Atheist would likely disagree with that.

But your logic fails when you consider such cases. Just because the majority of the people think that something is right, doesn't make it so.

It would seem that a majority of the people feels it is perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn human being and there are Athiets and Christians alike who believe that this is murder.

Let's not forget that the Nazi party was voted into office by the population of Germany.

Want proof that you don't need a higher being to have morals? Look around, it's all around you. There are tons of different religions that disagree on all kinds of things, there are lots of people who don't believe in any of those things, yet overall, most people agree on a lot of moral issues (such as rape and murder are wrong).

Christians think rape and murder are wrong because God states that it is so.

I never said that you have to be Christian in order to be moral - just that we need a yardstick to which to hold ourselves accountable. Humans will naturally take advantage of one another if given the opportunity and this holds true for large groups of people as well. The majority will always take advantage of the minority in just about any situation BUT the majority should uphold their behavior to a belief system which finds them accountable to a higher being and not just what is believed to be true by the majority. The point is that the definition of what is right and wrong should be objective and not open to subjective thought.

Need more proof? Look online. The number of atheists in prison is far below the number of atheists in society. Thus, atheists are less likely to end up in prison. They also have lower divorce rates than Christians.

Even if this is true, the VAST majority of those who call themselves Christian are probably no more Christian that what you are.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say if you make generalizations about the groups, atheists are more moral than Christians in terms of things that society as a whole agrees upon as being immoral. (ie it's not moral to hate a group of people because of their race/sex/sexuality/etc but there are plenty of Christians who find it more than OK to do so, and use their religion as the reasoning behind it.

I think that you will find that most Christians do not hate these people but find their behavior repulsive and ultimately destructive. How can an Atheist say that adultery is wrong, since it is a decision between two adults? How about NAMBLA? They are advocating activity between two willing participants. If you have no moral compass to which to hold yourself, how can you tell them that their behavior is wrong?

If killing people one of the most immoral acts, than why are there so many religious groups that advocate it?

Nazis, KKK, Extremist Muslims, all the Israel/Palestine stuff, all the Iraq stuff, not only are all those examples of groups highly involved in immoral acts, but they are all focused around religion.

Murder is evil, but killing as a part of war/self defense is not necessarily so. But again, you point out a MINORITY of the different religions and hold them as examples. I think you will find that most Muslims will agree that the behavior of the extremists is wrong, most Christians agree that the KKK is evil and from what I remember from my previous research the Nazis were an athiestic socialist group, but I would need to look that up again before I make that statement.

In any event just because someone or group are calling themselves religious does not mean they are acting in a fashion that their religion supports.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 12:22 PM

People who use religion as a guideline for their behavior and beliefs, after they've become an adult, need religion to guide them because they are too weak to do it themselves. If you have to use religion in a debate, you've lost before you even started.

No, when you hurl insults without basis is when you have lost an argument. I am sorry that you feel that you can't be intellectual and believe in religion.

stu

04-19-2007, 12:25 PM

I think that you will find that most Christians do not hate these people but find their behavior repulsive and ultimately destructive. How can an Atheist say that adultery is wrong, since it is a decision between two adults? How about NAMBLA? They are advocating activity between two willing participants. If you have no moral compass to which to hold yourself, how can you tell them that their behavior is wrong?

The fact that you have such a dim outlook on humanity, that you actually believe that people need a fairytale to explain morals and values to them. Religion is a great way to teach children morals before they are old enough to understand the consequences of their actions and their responsibilities to the society that they live in. But an adult should be mental apt enough to understand those things all on their own.

stu

04-19-2007, 12:27 PM

No, when you hurl insults without basis is when you have lost an argument. I am sorry that you feel that you can't be intellectual and believe in religion.

I knew that I didn't choose my words carefully enough with this statement, but I can't think of a better way to express it. I never said you can't be intellectual and religious at the same time, we all know that's not true.

The problem (in my opinion) arises when the only justification of your behavior is "because someone else said so."

DrJones

04-19-2007, 12:39 PM

You are right, you didn't say that here, but you said that in your next post.

I simply disagree. So you define all of what is right and wrong based off of this standard? So then whatever doesn't affect the sustainability of humanity is essentially right? There are behaviors which don't affect the sustainability of humanity and are still morally wrong.

But your logic fails when you consider such cases. Just because the majority of the people think that something is right, doesn't make it so.

It would seem that a majority of the people feels it is perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn human being and there are Athiets and Christians alike who believe that this is murder.

Let's not forget that the Nazi party was voted into office by the population of Germany.

I never said that you have to be Christian in order to be moral - just that we need a yardstick to which to hold ourselves accountable. Humans will naturally take advantage of one another if given the opportunity and this holds true for large groups of people as well. The majority will always take advantage of the minority in just about any situation BUT the majority should uphold their behavior to a belief system which finds them accountable to a higher being and not just what is believed to be true by the majority. The point is that the definition of what is right and wrong should be objective and not open to subjective thought.

Even if this is true, the VAST majority of those who call themselves Christian are probably no more Christian that what you are.

I think that you will find that most Christians do not hate these people but find their behavior repulsive and ultimately destructive. How can an Atheist say that adultery is wrong, since it is a decision between two adults? How about NAMBLA? They are advocating activity between two willing participants. If you have no moral compass to which to hold yourself, how can you tell them that their behavior is wrong?

Murder is evil, but killing as a part of war/self defense is not necessarily so. But again, you point out a MINORITY of the different religions and hold them as examples. I think you will find that most Muslims will agree that the behavior of the extremists is wrong, most Christians agree that the KKK is evil and from what I remember from my previous research the Nazis were an athiestic socialist group, but I would need to look that up again before I make that statement.

In any event just because someone or group are calling themselves religious does not mean they are acting in a fashion that their religion supports.

You argue that without a higher being, there is no moral compass.

I am saying, that atheists don't believe in a higher being.

We can both agree that there are some people who consider themselves atheists who are more moral than some people who consider themselves Christian (or Muslim or whatever).

Do you see the flaw there? Many atheists do have a moral compass. I can't explain it any easier way than that. The proof is right there. There are atheists who are moral, thus a higher being is not needed to define morality.

If you disagree, than how do you explain that fact?

Most atheists would say NAMBLA is highly immoral. There are likely many different reasons people will use as justification for thinking so, none of which have anything to do with a higher being saying that it is so. I don't understand how a higher being is necessary for morals, when there is living proof all around us that it is not the case.

Just because it may be difficult to define, doesn't mean that God had to be the one to define it.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 01:11 PM

You argue that without a higher being, there is no moral compass.

I am saying, that atheists don't believe in a higher being.

Without a magnetic north pole, how do you know where you are? The same is true w/ an absolute being and truth. Without the absolute truth you cannot find where you are.

We can both agree that there are some people who consider themselves atheists who are more moral than some people who consider themselves Christian (or Muslim or whatever).

I am certainly not arguing that there aren't moral athiests who exist BUT if these same people where brought up in a different part of the world, one where it acceptable for a man to beat a boy, they would accept that as moral because it is thought so as true by the community which surrounds him. An example would be a boy who is raised in Nazi Germany during the time of the hollocost. He might grow up seeing the treatment of the Jews and accept that as right because of his environment in which he was raised. But when held to a higher standard of right and wrong it is obvious where that behavior would stand. Your argument stands on the "good of humanity" and the statement if Christianity is that humans are inherently sinful and need redemption.

Most atheists would say NAMBLA is highly immoral. There are likely many different reasons people will use as justification for thinking so, none of which have anything to do with a higher being saying that it is so.

But on what grounds? It really is just an agreement between two individuals. Why is it immoral?

Just because it may be difficult to define, doesn't mean that God had to be the one to define it.

It also doesn't mean that just because God doesn't show Him to you directly that he doesn't exist.

stu

04-19-2007, 01:17 PM

It doesn't matter where atheists were brought up though, which is the point. Many atheists were brought up with religious back grounds. They just used their own will and reasoning to reach the moral position to which they have arrived.

You could make the very same argument and say what if someone who believed in a higher power was brought up to believe that it was okay for a man to beat a boy, because the higher power said it was okay? It's the same thing. Religion is simply a tool for a few people with moral standards to implement their will on the masses to get them to behave in an acceptable way.

Religion and a belief in a higher power and two completely different things.

DrJones

04-19-2007, 01:19 PM

But on what grounds? It really is just an agreement between two individuals. Why is it immoral?

On the grounds that it's an adult taking advantage of an innocent child for his sick sexual pleasure. You can't agree to what you don't fully understand.

So your moral compass comes from the Bible? Does that mean you agree 100% with everything the Bible states? What about the old testament? Are there things not mentioned in the Bible that are still immoral? If so, how do you decide on those?

yapann

04-19-2007, 01:48 PM

Darwinism, and Evolution can be proved
I can even prove an Involution - some of my friends are themselves a prove of it :p

OK. existing of Darwinism doesn’t negate any higher power theory. Rules of nature are (must be) included.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 07:50 PM

It doesn't matter where atheists were brought up though, which is the point. Many atheists were brought up with religious back grounds. They just used their own will and reasoning to reach the moral position to which they have arrived.

It completely depends on how they were brought up. If they are brought up to believe a certain behavior is normal than it will be "moral" to them. This is true with anyone, atheist or not. What the Bible provides is a set of rules, outside of our own realm of being to which we can aspire to live - a set of morals based not on what your surroundings have taught you but based on an objective truth.

crxrocks

04-19-2007, 07:52 PM

On the grounds that it's an adult taking advantage of an innocent child for his sick sexual pleasure. You can't agree to what you don't fully understand.

A 12 or 14 year old boy can completely understand. Does this somehow make the activity right? If not - why not?

So your moral compass comes from the Bible? Does that mean you agree 100% with everything the Bible states? What about the old testament? Are there things not mentioned in the Bible that are still immoral? If so, how do you decide on those?

The Bible is the inerrant word of God and most any legitimate Christian will make the same statement. I know where you are going with this and I am not sure it will be productive to this discussion to get into a great theological debate.

DrJones

04-19-2007, 09:45 PM

A 12 or 14 year old boy can completely understand. Does this somehow make the activity right? If not - why not?

No, a 12 or 14 year old boy can not completely understand. Nor can a 15 or 16 yr old. Do you think 16 yr old girls who want to get pregnant fully understand?

The Bible is the inerrant word of God and most any legitimate Christian will make the same statement. I know where you are going with this and I am not sure it will be productive to this discussion to get into a great theological debate.

Is slavery immoral?

crxrocks

04-20-2007, 07:39 PM

No, a 12 or 14 year old boy can not completely understand. Nor can a 15 or 16 yr old. Do you think 16 yr old girls who want to get pregnant fully understand?

I think that 16 year old girls are aware that the actions can produce pregnancy although they may not completely understand all of changes that having a children throws into your life. I as a 25 year old adult did not completely understand the changes which would occur in my life after my daughter was born.

Is slavery immoral?

In general slavery in the Bible was basically indentured servants or willing slaves. Not the type of slavery which we had in the early US history.

In any event I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of the Biblical text.

stu

04-20-2007, 07:47 PM

If there is a God, the type that the Bible and all other religions portrays, he needs to come back to earth soon and release version 2.0 to set a moral compass on preservation of the earth and natural resources. Surprised that wasn't covered in the first one with the all-knowingness and all.

Weston

04-22-2007, 05:50 PM

For the people who actually care to gain understanding, check out http://bible.cc It shows verses from several different translations of the Bible. In some verses, the words are much the same, but they can differ greatly in other verses, however the point it makes is still much the same (if you look at the concepts and context, rather than over-analyzing the words themselves).

That's all that I really have to add. I have chosen to stay mostly out of this thread, as it has proven to be little more than yet another attempt for close-minded people to attack the beliefs of the faithful. It is not my place to justify or prove anything to anyone... It is up to people to find their own answers when they are truely willing to open their minds. You aren't going to find God by arguing about him, or being determined to find holes in every explaination that's available to you.

9-GSR-6

04-22-2007, 06:04 PM

nicly said

Brian

04-22-2007, 06:18 PM

I typically find that the "faithful" are generally more close minded. There is so much to discover out there through science. I just can't see myself relying on a document written so long ago in order to find my answers in life. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors, yet it is seen as the "word of god". Many documents they left out contradict the ones they decided to include.

I can understand WHY it was created. In that time the world was pretty much lawless and we weren't advanced enough to answer the general questions people had at the time. By creating the bible and Christianity it comforted the masses and made population control a reality. I like to think we have advanced beyond that. I don't need a fairytale to allow me to sleep at night or live life as a "good" person.

9-GSR-6

04-22-2007, 06:21 PM

Brian

04-22-2007, 06:30 PM

That's good. Organized religion is pretty corrupt these days.

9-GSR-6

04-22-2007, 06:33 PM

its sad to say but it really is. its gotten way outta hand

crxrocks

04-22-2007, 07:02 PM

see this is the way i do see it. i don't go to church. yet i am a strong believer in god. you don't have to go to be a good christian. i believe i can keep faith without someone telling me how i need to do it.

This is the problem. People consider themselves Christians although they don't practice or believe most of the concepts of Christianity.

crxrocks

04-22-2007, 07:04 PM

I typically find that the "faithful" are generally more close minded. There is so much to discover out there through science.

Why do you feel that science has to be diametric opposed to Christianity and/or the thought of a creator? It has only been fairly recently that science has become a religion of which God cannot be a part.

Chris

myshtern

04-22-2007, 07:54 PM

The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors, yet it is seen as the "word of god". Many documents they left out contradict the ones they decided to include.

One of the many reasons Christians' bibles can be gently placed in the garbage.

crxrocks

04-22-2007, 08:03 PM

Have you thought about how many manuscripts there are and how closely these thousands of manuscripts align? Sounds like it just a reason for you to discredit the Bible.

See a perfectly good thread about the belief in God or a deity has turned into an attack on Christianity.

David_School

04-22-2007, 08:21 PM

yeah, I mean whats so wrong about The Bible? It's just a bunch of stories on how to live a moral and healthy life.

But Judaism on the other hand - those guys are a bunch of assholes.

Brian

04-22-2007, 08:22 PM

How does me not believing in god equate to an attack on Christianity? Don't be so sensitive, the first page asked if you believe in god and if so or if not provide reasons. My statements above are barely even scratching the surface, but i'm not going to get into the debate. I don't believe in god and i'm ok with that :).

myshtern

04-22-2007, 08:29 PM

Have you thought about how many manuscripts there are and how closely these thousands of manuscripts align? Sounds like it just a reason for you to discredit the Bible.
Do you know how many thousands of manuscripts that don't align with the new testament?

Sounds like a reason to just credit your bible.

crxrocks

04-22-2007, 08:29 PM

Brian

04-22-2007, 08:37 PM

Not you really, just the overall feel of the direction of the thread. BTW> I wouldn't piss you off - I would wind up banned. ;-)

That got me thinking. I can't even remember ever banning anyone here. I mean besides obvious trolls. ;)

I didn't read the majority of the thread, just wanted to throw in my .02 real quick then head out :). Whatever a person believes is their own business. I can respect just about any belief as long as the person doesn't try to push me into believing the same thing.

yapann

04-23-2007, 10:31 AM

No, a 12 or 14 year old boy can not completely understand. Nor can a 15 or 16 yr oldnor 21 nor 100^n

Do you think 16 yr old girls who want to get pregnant fully understand?fully understanding is an oxymoron :p

ps :
well I personally know one girl, really reasonable in addition, who when exactly 16 told us lots of time she wanted a child, and not only me believed she felt like to be a mother, not bad one I could say. In contradiction to plenty of adults, who missed something to become someone more then biological parent ever.
but nevermind - I got so many to do in life instead of getting into philosophical debates :tongue:

DrJones

04-24-2007, 10:52 AM

See a perfectly good thread about the belief in God or a deity has turned into an attack on Christianity.

While there may be some animosity with such a heated topic, I don't think it's as extreme as you are making it out to be.

That is just the natural course of having a good debate on this subject. It often comes that Christianity is under attack, because there is more to debate than there are with atheists. Atheists are more often asked why they aren't Christian (or religious) rather than why they are Atheists. In order for them to describe that, they are going to have to bring up points that they feel are marks against Christianity. They aren't always meant to be aggressive, but more explanatory.

That's just the way things are. I bet if you asked atheists why they are atheists, many would simply answer (as I do) that none of the other sides have made a strong enough case. Religion is something people work towards believing in, atheism is the default "religion" of someone with no belief in other religions.

I think this thread has been great so far. It certainly got me to think about things more, such as where atheists define their moral standards from.

LOL_ALIAS

04-24-2007, 12:42 PM

you guys should read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400

I know it's like 11 pages long, but it's a good read. It talks about the evolution of the mind and why we have this inherit drive to believe in things like god and religion.

DrJones

05-07-2007, 04:34 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3121083&page=1

That's a link to a story about a researcher who is using brain scans to look into where our "morality" comes from.

From what they say about it so far, it seems like our brain has a built in center that helps us decide what is moral and what isn't. That could shed some light on the "how can an atheist be moral" question.

myshtern

05-17-2007, 07:38 PM

Question -

For those of you who believe in God but are opposed to organized Christianity, why do you believe in Jesus? Organized Christianity is what created Jesus as a messiah in the first place. Why don't you just follow god and him alone as would be taught by Judaism?

Weston-work

05-17-2007, 08:21 PM

Many non-Christians believe in Jesus, including Jews and Muslims, and even atheists who realize that there's historical evidence of his existance. What's up for debate is if he was the son of God, a prophet, or just a good man. Regardless of what you believe, most reasonable people can find common ground and see that he set a good example, and that we'd all be better off if we followed it a little better ourselves.

yapann

05-20-2007, 01:10 AM

it seems like our brain has a built in center that helps us decide what is moral and what isn't...or like moral uses some brains centers.
This article, really interesting (only seem to be not really scientific written - I’m surprised to see MRI scan in color, looks like fMRI), only detection of activity centers used when we ‘use morals’ (like when lying) doesn’t have to be equal pointing to ‘moral centers’ (even if we find excellent correlation), it might also be physical layer of non-physical moral thing, (otherwise I’m waiting they find out how to transplant moral lol).

That could shed some light on the "how can an atheist be moral" question.did anyone suggest that atheists can’t be moral?

Spoon92

05-29-2007, 04:48 PM

This thread needs a poll.

DrJones

05-29-2007, 09:07 PM

I've posted this before, but here it is again

People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so all are easier to fool.

That is from one of Terry Goodkind's books. I find it to be a very profound quote. I have a few questions to pose to people

First, do you agree with it? Do you agree that people are more or less stupid, and they will believe something simply because they fear that it's true, or wish that it was?

I think that is the case in so many parts of life it's almost sad. Just look at politics. How many people are uninformed on all kinds of issues, yet think they are 100% correct?

If you believe this quote to be a fair explanation of much of society, then my next question is if you think that is an explanation of religion and people's faith.

Do people believe Jesus was the son of good simply because they want to believe it to be true that he was, so that they can be saved from their sins? Do people believe in the bible simply because they are afraid of what would happen if Hell and the commandments were real, and they didn't believe?

What do you think?

Spoon92

05-30-2007, 04:31 AM

I think people believe cause it fills a void, and makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Except for the Catholics, they don't have warm fuzzy's. They believe cause their parents believed, and so on and so forth.

stu

05-30-2007, 08:21 AM

Every religion is passed down like that though.

I like to believe in ghosts and aliens because I want them to be real. I've unfortunately never seen evidence of either though.

Brian

05-30-2007, 08:44 AM

That;s all religion is. It's a way for people to find comfort in their lives when things are going bad, or to find guidance when they don't have people around them to support them. There have been studies done that show that our brains are prewired to believe in gods and such as an evolutionary trait. Maybe us atheists lack this predisposition, because I look at it all and find it quite silly. It's no different than believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. There is probably more evidence that those two are real anyway lol.

Spoon92

05-31-2007, 04:31 AM

More Santa sightings. Unless you count burnt toast. :)

yapann

06-09-2007, 03:54 PM

The Pope arrives in heaven, where St. Peter awaits him. St. Peter asks who he is.
The Pope: "I am the pope."
St. Peter: "Who? There's no such name in my book."
The Pope: "I'm the representative of God on Earth."
St. Peter: "Does God have a representative? He didn't tell me..."
The Pope: "But I am the leader of the Catholic Church..."
St. Peter: "The Catholic church...Never heard of it... Wait, I'll check with the boss."
St. Peter walks away through Heaven's Gate to talk with God.
St. Peter: "There's a dude standing outside who claims he's your representative on earth."
God: "I don't have a representative on earth, not that I know of... Wait, I'll ask Jesus." (yells for Jesus)
Jesus: "Yes father, what's up?"
God and St. Peter explain the situation.
Jesus: "Wait, I'll go outside and have a little chat with that fellow."
Ten minutes pass and Jesus re-enters the room laughing out loud. After a few minutes St. Peter asks Jesus why he's laughing.
Jesus: "Remember that fishing club I've started 2000 years ago? It still exists!"

BigGunzMcgizzle

01-16-2008, 10:44 AM

I dont believe.

Brandon

01-16-2008, 11:03 AM

I dont believe.

Finally, we just couldn't file away this thread that's been dormant for 6 months without your enlightening words of wisdom!

hrcDSM719

01-16-2008, 11:14 AM

Im not what you would call religious. I dont believe there is a god.

But, at the same time, I am willing to admit there may be. I figure if there is, then at some point in time, Ill find out!

I do believe in living by the golden rule though, Im not just some "godless hethen". I think that everyone should treat everyone they way they would want to be treated. I believe in being respectful and honest with everyone. And Im also not one to segregate or discriminate toward anyone for any reason.

Ive had people tell me that I need to find Jesus, and that I need to be saved....to which I answer "saved from what?" or "why?" I figure that if I live my life well, by being respectful, honest, and an all around "good person" then that has to count for something. And if it doesnt, then hey! Sheit happens! If I will be frowned upon by "God" for not going to church and not praying, regardless of how I lived my life, then Im not too sure I want to be a part of that "members only heaven club", you know?

Also, I dont consider the bible to be the "word of god". Its not! Man wrote the Bible, and on top of that, a couple times! It was re-written until they got it just the way they wanted it. After seeing all of the other books left out of the Bible that were origionally intended to be put in, Im not too sure I could bring myself to live my life by it, or model my own life after it. See what Im saying?

Just my .02 on the subject! Sorry if Ive offended anyone!