-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why do you believe in god?
- Thread starter BTRA
- Start date
- Status
Earthstrike
Member
Gattsu25 said:
Actually, you shouldn't be dead or blind. Proof: You're alive and are not blind.
I think people using extreme coincidences as a basis for faith should look at it another way. The biggest extreme coincidence possible, is that in a world with 6 billion people, no extreme coincidences occur at all.
Earthstrike
Member
AmMortal said:
Wait, I'm confused. Forgive my misunderstanding but Islam does not have a notion of hell? If they do isn't that something to lose (an eternal hereafter of goodness). And to get that doesn't that mean you can only do certain things i.e. you can't practice polytheism? You don't have to observe salah? You don't have to observe sawm or perform Shahadah? Not doing these things does not prevent you from losing an eternal hereafter with Allah?
AKingNamedPaul
I am Homie
Just skipped to this page and skimmed but for some reason I'm curious as to what your philosophical ideas are.Feep said:
twilitesparklemotion
Member
:lol, I know. It was late and I was tired and my thoughts on the subject aren't complete yet.Druz said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
(Q-Tip: Damn, Phifey got fat!)Shaheed79 said:
Yeah, I know it looks pathetic
Ali Shaheed Muhammad got me doing calisthenics
Needless to say, boy I'm bad to the bone
Making love to my mic like Jarobi on the phone
But um, no time for jokes (what!), there's bills to be paid (what!)
Hoes to be laid (what!), funks to be sprayed (what!)
Chumps to attack, so my man watch your back
Cuz '93 means skills are a must, so never lack (uh!)
Sit back and learn, come now watch the birdie
Your styles are incomplete, same as Vinny Testaverde
Battlin, whenever -- hot Damn!
Give me the microphone bwoy, one time, bam!
... <3 the Quest.
Anyways, to be on topic I don't believe in God. I use to go to church and stuff but I couldn't think of a good reason to believe in God so I became an atheist. Being that I go to southern VA for college I know a ton of religious people and they are cool, but so many are hypocrites as far as values go. I have nothing against people who choose to believe in God.
soul creator
Member
did we ever agree upon a definition of what the word "god" means?
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
It's just what people choose for it to mean, just like any other word. To come of with an objective definition for something that abstract is folly and in the end might be too ambiguous to really be useful in an argument.soul creator said:
I think we all get the idea enough to be able to use it here and if anyone wants to use it differently they can define their terms and try to be thoughtful.
Earthstrike said:
he is saying that you can't go wrong by believing in God and doing good things. He will live a good life and when he dies he will go to heaven because of these good deeds. So, he gets the best of both worlds.
Obviously, part of believing and doing good deeds is to avoid going to hell.
soul creator
Member
BobsRevenge said:
That's the thing though...you don't really get all the mental gymnastics and definition confusion when it comes to, say, horses. We have a pretty straightforward definition of that word, and there's an agreed upon meaning. So if someone asks "why do you believe in horses" it's something that at least can potentially be shown to be true, you can notice its effects, what it looks like, etc. You don't get weird philosophical discussions on whether horses exist. It either does or it doesn't. Sure, someone can come through and say horses "are the love in our hearts" or something else pretty sounding, but you don't really take them seriously. A horse is a horse.
The very fact that "god" has been this vague word for everyone to push their on interpretations onto, is in my opinion strong evidence that it's just a generic concept/metaphor/etc. in our heads use to represent anything "unknown", and not some separate being that has done specific actions. And since I happen to live in a society where the dominant notion of god is in fact a separate being that has done specific actions, practically speaking, I'm an atheist.
If everyone suddenly acknowledged that god is another concept such as "love" or "freedom" or "equality", etc., then no one would have any debates when it comes to its existence. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do believe in a god as a separate being, and it's not just "abstract", so until then, I'm an "atheist". But like you said, if for whatever reason we're defining god in some completely different conceptual way, then I may technically be a "theist", and we can discuss on those terms.
cyclonekruse
Member
ZAK said:
The idea is probably to tear down skepticism in general as being a valid approach.
Or a "you were wrong about this so you must be wrong about this other thing too" kind of thing.
Dahellisdat
Member
I believe in god because he is everlasting, just like this thread.
soul creator said:
Of course of course.
soul creator said:
This is bullshit. People argue over the existence of freedom and equality everyday. There are entire political ideologies predicated on the existance and non-existance of equality. It's only in modern society where 1st world countries are apparently equal enough and free enough that concepts don't have any value anymore to the average person.
I like where your head is at. I have no problem with an atheist who just says "show me your God or I don't believe". It's fair and rational. What not rational is to believe in other created concepts if they can be actualized or made real.
soul creator
Member
Fatbot said:
are the debates over existence done in a "thing" sense? Are freedom and equality usually defined as "beings" that can "do" things? Gods can supposedly create universes and talk to you and answer prayers, has feelings, and cares about humans. Do freedom and equality have "feelings"?
I've honestly never seen freedom and equality discussed in those terms, as if they were separate "things". Concepts, sure, that are obviously useful and very important to us. But attempting to discuss those concepts as if they're things that are entirely separate from humanity seems...odd. Things like morality, justice, freedom, equality, etc. are a result of humanity having these big ol' brains of ours, and possibly of other animal species (and potentially extraterrestrials). Unless we're now proposing that "justice" and "morality" are floating out in the ether somewhere, waiting on someone to find it.
If god is simply one of these types of concepts, then great, I'm no longer an atheist. But I find it hard to imagine that the 4+ billion people who comprise the vast majority of god believers, think of their god as just an abstract concept in their heads.
Pizza Luigi
Member
Jesus is, or was perhaps, an alien! (as in Extra-Teressial, not someone from outside the country)
Dahellisdat
Member
Indiana Jones 5: Indiana Jones and The Extraterrestrial JesusPizza Luigi said:
Nexus Zero
Member
-viper- said:
Typical cyclical thinking. The Bible is true because it says it is!
Not really. The Bible has been heavily modified and altered over centuries.Nexus Zero said:
Half of it is probably false to be honest.
Anyway, I refuse to believe we were once monkeys, and I refuse to believe all the life we see in the world has come from micro organisms through evolution. How did life appear on a bunch of rocks forming together?
The human body is unbelievable; unique and complex. How the fuck did evolution play a role in that, HUH?
God is the reason everything exists.
Dahellisdat
Member
:lol :lol I know right? For some reason its so hard not to jump back into these conversations though.Mash said:
-viper- said:
yeah, we are all descendants from adam and eve...thats why we all are retarded! sister and brothers should never have sex together.
come on... its a scientific fact that we were once monkeys...everything else is bullshit (im catholic by the way!) cant believe that we are discussing things that every human with a working brain should know. whats next? the earth is the center of the universe and the sun goes round the earth (which by the way is flat and not round as some scientists make us believe!)
you cant refuse the truth...
Druz
Member
Fatbot said:
and yet I don't know what you're referring to.
Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity and the theory of relativity. When the word scientific theory is mentioned, religicites seem to confuse it with the word hypothesis, or the non-scientific definition of theory. Scientific facts are experimentally verified facts, through experimentation and observation.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, a collection of facts. It can be considered a fact, easily.
cyclonekruse
Member
chico said:
Not true. Mash has it right. We had a common ancestor with apes. Although if you go further back we had a common ancestor with monkeys too I suppose.
Edit:
Druz said:
I don't know if this is quite right. A scientific theory is an explanation created to account observed phenomena. This theory is then used to generate specific hypotheses which can be verified through experiments. The more hypotheses that are borne out, the more confidence one has in the theory. If just one hypothesis turns out wrong the theory needs to be revised (or thrown out).
Evolution is the best explanation we have until such time an experiment shows it to be wrong (if such a time ever comes).
soul creator said:
For something to exist you have to objectively be able to observe it. If you are saying you that you don't believe in something that you can't observe then believing in freedom, equality, love and all other non existing concepts is pointless as well.
God in general is described with nothing but conceptual elements, usually dealing with infinity (all knowing, all loving). The contextualization of God is something that everybody does with everything. When you hear "justice is served" or "equality in action" those are just materialized concepts so that people can better understand what they hell they believe in. To have a binary requirements (meaning God is real or isn't) of gods existence and not the existence of beauty or eqaulity is intellectually dishonest. The simple question people have to ask themselves is do they believe perfect justice, equality, or beauty can be achieved? If not why bother?
Though, personalized in traditional religions, most theologians still consider God a type of thing, not a specific entity like you or me. Monotheism just presupposes that you only need one if this type to fix all the metaphysical problems that encompass peoples lives.
Earthstrike
Member
AmMortal said:
Evolution does not postulate that humans have the same origin as monkeys. This is a strawman created by the creationist/fundamentalist community.
However there is an error in you saying "This is why monkeys are still around" which I'm going to address in a second.
After being on gaf for quite a while, I've come up with an example that addresses many of the misunderstandings religious fundamentalists have with evolution.
Imagine a German shepard and a Great Dane. A great dane and a german sheppard are both dogs.
Noone would refute the relation between these animals by asking for a "transition" between the great dane and german sheppard. It is understood that they are both dogs, but with characteristics distinct enough that we can each give them their own classification. A human never came from a monkey and a monkey never came from a human. The primates (Primate is one animal at the time) gave birth and over time their offspring we're different enough that we could give them each their own unique classifications. humans and monkeys (I relaly should be saying apes, but I think the understanding is being imparted fine with monkeys since that was the original false assertion).
Evolution is not about animals transforming into other animals! Its about the offspring of animals eventually acquiring many differences through natural selection that we can classify their offspring into different groups.
Now there's no such thing as the perfect analogy, and as such my dog example may be attacked on the grounds that its from breeding that we get these distinctions. Yes that is true, and just as artificial selection can make these differences apparent, so does natural selection.
Edit:
cyclonekruse said:
Evolution is the theory which explains the observed phenonon of species. It answers the question "what is the origin of species" One testable hypothesis that emerges out of evolution is the nested hierarchy model of organisms which states that all organisms' qualities fit into a nested hierarchy of properties. In other words a species at the bottom of this hierarchry will not have the traits that another species has that has an uncommon ancestor. So far this has been verified. Another testable hypothesis is that a species of animal cannot perpetually produce generations of children which do not meet the criteria of a selection mechanism. This has been tested too by the attempted evolution based engineering of the boeing 747.
Druz
Member
Putting a god outside the realm of reason, comprehension, time, space... is just a poor attempt at nullifying all arguments against it. You're one step away from the ridiculous philosophy of "How do I know this keyboard is even here!?"
From what I understand of your post, you say "Can you measure justice? Well.. such is god!"
You crammed god into a tiny space along with our perceived notion of justice and beauty and said "Okay, my god of the gaps? he exists in here.. "
Perfect beauty can't be achieved. Now that that has been answered, why bother with what?
From what I understand of your post, you say "Can you measure justice? Well.. such is god!"
You crammed god into a tiny space along with our perceived notion of justice and beauty and said "Okay, my god of the gaps? he exists in here.. "
Perfect beauty can't be achieved. Now that that has been answered, why bother with what?
Druz said:
No, it has nothing to with solipcism. I "believe" in reality. I also never put God outside those realms. I'm not even saying that there will be a time when we know for certain that we can or cannot detect a God.
Druz said:
No, it has to with the fact that most people measure EVERYTHING from a point of utility and value. Something existing or being "true" usually has a high premium of value but it is not always the case. People are not consistant in why something is valuable to them. Subjectivity comes into play whenever the hell people feel like it.
Druz said:
This is just total nonsense. How the hell is an unrealized concept a "tiny space"? Secondly, I never even said this was my god. You apparently just assume anyone who doesn't take cheap shots at religion is just stumping for Jesus.
If an idea seems impossible to you or doesn't makesense that does not make it false. This is a just a ridiculous inductive fallacy that plagues all "proofs" of evidence. If you never saw ice or had reason to believe that ice exists you probably would think that ice does not exist. Fortunately for me and margaritas, is does exist.
This can be applied to cutting edge technologies that seem impressive like nanotechnology to fringe technology thats pretty much Star Trek like working fusion. Your ability to reason what can or can't be is severely limited by the frame of reference (the time/culture/class) in which you see things.
Its fine if you want to say beauty doesn't exist or justice but I doubt you discount them just because they don't exist. My post had more to do with knowledge and value rather than the existence of God.
I have a coin in my closed fist. When I open it, you will either see heads or tails.
You have the same chance of picking the correct side of the coin, as you do picking the correct side of this argument.
You're either right or wrong, but you sure as shit don't know the answer.
You have the same chance of picking the correct side of the coin, as you do picking the correct side of this argument.
You're either right or wrong, but you sure as shit don't know the answer.
Druz
Member
Fatbot said:
You're saying such a thing is there, we just can't understand it yet. Or don't understand it yet... or can't prove it yet because we can't understand it. Or can't conceive of it. Regardless, you're placing the concept outside comprehension to try to win a debate which simply doesn't fly.
Fatbot said:
Being against doesn't always equate to cheap shots. If "You can't prove god exists" sounds like a low blow then ehh... I cheap shot constantly.
Fatbot said:
Religious people find the idea of no god as impossible and doesn't make sense.
There is no data for a gods existence, we can take that fact and make a gods existence extremely improbable, not impossible since Science would never claim that something definitely doesn't exist because that's not the nature of science.. something constantly trying to better itself.
This argument for a god still doesn't work. A god only exists in gaps that we can't explain, gaps that grow smaller by the century(Or larger if the US population had anything to do with it). We are starting to understand the universe, currently there is no god needed in our understanding of the universe.
Fatbot said:
This can be applied to the existence of the celestial teapot, spaghetti monster, unicorns, fairies... we can't say they don't exist, but we can say it's highly unlikely that they don't.
Fatbot said:
I'd say justice and beauty is a concept of the brain. It's funny you say beauty, because its the experience of beauty that I think people confuse as god.
soul creator
Member
Fatbot said:
I've never heard anyone say "Beauty doesn't exist". I just don't think beauty exists as some mysterious substance out there in the world that we will one day discover. It's a human concept. We made it up, and we make up the rules for what it means. We disagree on it, we debate it, so on and so forth. But "beauty" isn't some separate thing entirely removed from sentient beings talking about it. "Ice", on the other hand, doesn't depend on human beings making up rules for it to exist. Ice will be ice no matter what any human being says about it. (of course, the language used to describe it is technically a "concept", but the ice itself isn't)
My entire point is that the vast majority of people when they say "god" don't approach god similar to just "beauty". God for most people is in fact some "being" out there in the world that can theoretically be discovered (or has been discovered, by all the folks who say they have religious experiences, talk to "him" when they pray, people who wrote holy books, etc.)
I think the confusion is that some people think this version of god is some niche thing that "theologians" don't agree with, therefore nonbelievers shouldn't focus on it. But when 4+ billion people claim to worship a "being" that's more than just a concept in our heads, it seems weird to suggest that this "god is a concept like beauty and justice!" is what we should focus on. Like I said, if we're lumping god in with those concepts, I'm no longer an atheist. But I don't think god as "invisible superbeing" is some strawman argument that atheists have made up. That's been the vast majority of god belief for our entire history! That's what most people mean when they ask the question "do you believe in god?" They're talking about some invisible dude with thoughts and motivations that made universes from nothing and/or told us to follow some rules.
And to that, I'm a pretty "hardcore" atheist. But if we're defining god in some more vague way, that's fine. Just let me know beforehand. But I won't pretend that when someone asks if I believe in god, they're asking me about some subjective concept that represents existence and love and justice, or whatever.
- Status