Support NeoGAF

[onipex]

You can’t explain belief in God to someone who does not believe. Sometimes people who don’t believe think they are smarter and will mock those who do. The believers then try to explain their blind faith to people who don’t want to be blind. It’s gets kind of pointless really.

In the Bible God couldn’t convince most people to believe in him so why do you think they would believe you.


I don't totally believe in evolution. It's obvious that animals adapt to their environment over time. Since adaptation is now being called micro-evolution by some that is that part I agree with. There is enough evidence to support it.

For me to believe that one species becomes another over time would take a fossil record that shows each stage.

 

[Druz]

You can’t explain belief in God to someone who does not believe. Sometimes people who don’t believe think they are smarter and will mock those who do. The believers then try to explain their blind faith to people who don’t want to be blind. It’s gets kind of pointless really.

In the Bible God couldn’t convince most people to believe in him so why do you think they would believe you.


I don't totally believe in evolution. It's obvious that animals adapt to their environment over time. Since adaptation is now being called micro-evolution by some that is that part I agree with. There is enough evidence to support it.

For me to believe that one species becomes another over time would take a fossil record that shows each stage.

It is possible but rare to find people who weren't brought up with religion. So to say it is not possible for atheists to "know" is absurd and just another created marshmallow wall to soften the blow of argument.

For me, it was easy to assume there probably is no god. Too many different religions, each one thinking they're the right one... the total suspension of logic, the introduction of the bullshit word of the millennium, "faith," why church and state have to be separated, people basing their lives on an old book etc.. all this figured out while a pretty young teen.. little did I know what I was thinking barely scratched the surface.

 

[Fatbot]

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.

This isn't a debate and I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm saying your qualification of understanding God are too limited to begin disproving anthing but the most trivialized versions of God. Let's take a concept like all-knowing and materialize it by saying "almost all-knowing". How would we know the difference? What kind of measuring stick aside from your desire to conjure up God at your whim do you have?

Here's another example. We have three pillars of reference to show the Big Bang happened. All three are dissapearing. One day, we will have no referable evidence but charts and articles about the big bang. It doesn't mean it did not happen, it just means it can't be "known" forever.

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.

"Being against" has nothing to do with assuming the beliefs of another position.

Religious people find the idea of no god as impossible and doesn't make sense. .

This is just bullshit conjecture for you to place generalizations on 5 billion people.

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.

Knowledge breaks out in fractals, it does not diminish. Saying the gap gets smaller by the century is just nonsense unless you are talking about a specific God. This is just dogmatic rhetoric misused on the internet.

If the amount of things we can "know" get smaller every century, I'd sure as hell like to see the evidence behind that.

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.

Or just as reasonable to say dinosaurs exist on another earth like planet going through an evolutionary phase. Or even better, if we lived in 1300s, to say dinosaurs don't exist at all. It has little to with probability and everything to do with utility.

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.

Sure, it probably is as all ideas are originally just concepts of the brain. Things like cars, or buildings, etc.

I have to get back to work but I see where you are going and theres nothing wrong with demanding evidence. People are hypocrites when it comes to evidence but thats just how things are. We have an intrinisically dualistic view of the world.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

You can’t explain belief in God to someone who does not believe. Sometimes people who don’t believe think they are smarter and will mock those who do. The believers then try to explain their blind faith to people who don’t want to be blind. It’s gets kind of pointless really.

I'm highlighting this to make a point (to everyone, not just you).

I'm not sure some of you realize which side you're on. There are agnostics, and there are believers.

There are two types of believers: those who believe God exists and those who believe he does not (atheists are the latter type). Agnostics like myself are not on the fence of the argument - we're actually opposing it. We just sit back and wonder, "why do they fight when neither one knows the answer?"

I see a lot of friction between believers in this thread, and I find it odd that some of you take such offense to one another. You've all chosen sides without proof one way or the other. You both have faith, so you have more in common with the other type than you do with us.

If you read this and thought, "I knew that already," please don't point that out because I wasn't addressing you.

 

[Druz]

I'm highlighting this to make a point (to everyone, not just you).

I'm not sure some of you realize which side you're on. There are agnostics, and there are believers.

There are two types of believers: those who believe God exists and those who believe he does not (atheists are the latter type). Agnostics like myself are not on the fence of the argument - we're actually opposing it. We just sit back and wonder, "why do they fight when neither one knows the answer?"

I see a lot of friction between believers in this thread, and I find it odd that some of you take such offense to one another. You've all chosen sides without proof one way or the other. You both have faith, so you have more in common with the other type than you do with us.

If you read this and thought, "I knew that already," please don't point that out because I wasn't addressing you.

Are you serious? Agnostics are not above the argument. You are currently sitting on the fence yelling, "I AM NOT ON THE FENCE!" and probably the most confusing people of all. Do you pray to a god?

Atheism is a lack of belief. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you want to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you're welcome to be.

 

[Fatbot]

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.

No offense, but what do you fucking expect?

The world is screwed up, everything is driven by an apparently random sense of causality. Over a billion people are starving everyday. Governments and economic structures come and go. Bad shit happens to people every second of every day.

Bottom line, people are dumb. The evidence that life has gotten progressively better means nothing in the end when it comes to understanding what is possible to be understood.

The "invisible superbeing" is a strawman in that most people are not totally ready to jump up and claim God lives somewhere in the vega system and has a big telescope. Less people than you would think actually believe God is a "man in the sky". Even in the bible, God is used in metaphor in the vast majority of references. People just contextualize because they don't know any better.

They (atheists) are not using a strawman when someone says this cloud is a sign from Jesus and an atheist says "prove it". It is this innate desire of man to materialize their desire for meaning in which all of the sudden God "gives them purpose" or "gives them a sign" in some physical way that of course seems totally conjured. This can quickly move from "I saw jesus" to "your not teaching my children that" which is highly problematic.

Organized religion and formal religion have personal Gods. The failure of organized religion, like all man made institutions, is to live up to its promise. Again, look at the utility of something and think of this thought experiment... What if religion worked? There does not have to be a God, but everyone went to church and because of that everyone were kind and giving like in John Lennon's Imagine. No one would really care likely, at least the vast majority of people wouldn't.

I have no problem and totally understand the atheist position. I would say it is the natural one. Ultimately though, its a trivial position unless attached to an ideology that actually has a use. Along with a bunch of other failures of man is the failure to create an actual working ideology. Go figure.

 

[Druz]

Organized religion and formal religion have personal Gods. The failure of organized religion, like all man made institutions, is to live up to its promise. Again, look at the utility of something and think of this thought experiment... What if religion worked? There does not have to be a God, but everyone went to church and because of that everyone were kind and giving like in John Lennon's Imagine. No one would really care likely, at least the vast majority of people wouldn't.

I have no problem and totally understand the atheist position. I would say it is the natural one. Ultimately though, its a trivial position unless attached to an ideology that actually has a use. Along with a bunch of other failures of man is the failure to create an actual working ideology. Go figure.

If religion worked, if it healed people mentally, if it gave people a sense of purpose... that's great, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[jacf29]

Actually meeting girls is a really good reason. I always see some ugly dude with a hot ass bitch. Why is that? Because she is in his church group.

 

[onipex]

It is possible but rare to find people who weren't brought up with religion. So to say it is not possible for atheists to "know" is absurd and just another created marshmallow wall to soften the blow of argument.

For me, it was easy to assume there probably is no god. Too many different religions, each one thinking they're the right one... the total suspension of logic, the introduction of the bullshit word of the millennium, "faith," why church and state have to be separated, people basing their lives on an old book etc.. all this figured out while a pretty young teen.. little did I know what I was thinking barely scratched the surface.

What? Where did I say it is not possible? Are you just looking for a reason to attack people and state your point over again?

You are putting things in my post that are not there in anyway. You actually seem to be making my point for me at the same time. You state your point in way that says you’re smarter than anyone who believes in God. The other extreme would be someone who does believe in God calling you a fool for your belief.

If you’re only in the thread to attack people who don’t share your views you are not as enlightened as you think you are.

 

[Jackl]

Why do you believe in god?

Because I can't believe that we're here for no reason, and everything happened just because.

God may not care, may be dead, or is busy playing scrabble somewhere in the universe. But someone started this party.

 

[Druz]

What? Where did I say it is not possible? Are you just looking for a reason to attack people and state your point over again?

You are putting things in my post that are not there in anyway. You actually seem to be making my point for me at the same time. You state your point in way that says you’re smarter than anyone who believes in God. The other extreme would be someone who does believe in God calling you a fool for your belief.

If you’re only in the thread to attack people who don’t share your views you are not as enlightened as you think you are.

I bolded what I responded to.

I don't think people that believe in god are dumb because the human race would be in trouble if that were true. There are intelligent religious people out there, many way more intelligent than me, but these people are mentally bound by their belief. Some of these people break and try to rationalize both arguments at once. Their brain is telling them science works, their religion is telling them some dude was born of a virgin.

You're throwing in with a book, I'm throwing in with the greatest minds of our time. Oh shit!

 

[Insertia]

My view on God.

It's fake. I mean, studying the Bible and the origins of the Bible as well as history, science, and people; religion is seen for what it really is.

It's purely faith. I understand why people believe, but it's amazing how the biggest and most blatant tale ever is real to so many.

 

[Mango Positive]

I'm highlighting this to make a point (to everyone, not just you).

I'm not sure some of you realize which side you're on. There are agnostics, and there are believers.

There are two types of believers: those who believe God exists and those who believe he does not (atheists are the latter type). Agnostics like myself are not on the fence of the argument - we're actually opposing it. We just sit back and wonder, "why do they fight when neither one knows the answer?"

I see a lot of friction between believers in this thread, and I find it odd that some of you take such offense to one another. You've all chosen sides without proof one way or the other. You both have faith, so you have more in common with the other type than you do with us.

If you read this and thought, "I knew that already," please don't point that out because I wasn't addressing you.

Afraid of commitment are we?

Are you familiar with the concept of "inference"? Basically, you can look at the evidence and "infer" the reality of the situation. I don't have any evidence that Goofy wasn't designed by a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue from the Zarkon dimension, but I can "infer" that he wasn't based on all available evidence. It's the same with "god", as described in numerous texts (written by humans who were basically retarded by today's standards). The only evidence we have for a creator are texts written almost 2000 years ago by numb-skulls. Due to the impossibility of many elements of the religious texts (see Tower of Babel... also resurrection) and the thorough lack of communication between man and god, one can intelligently and rationally "infer" that god probably does not exist (as described in the ancient texts).

Atheism isn't being sure there's no god. It's being reasonably sure that there probably isn't a god.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Are you serious? Agnostics are not above the argument. You are currently sitting on the fence yelling, "I AM NOT ON THE FENCE!" and probably the most confusing people of all. Do you pray to a god?

Atheism is a lack of belief. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you want to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you're welcome to be.

Did I say we're above the argument? Actually, I didn't, but good job reading. I said we don't make judgments without evidence. That means we're outside the believers' argument, but we have our own argument with them as a whole.

Also, don't bring semantics about atheists into this. Not only are you wrong yourself, but you're missing the point. The point is that people who choose to believe something without proof oppose people like me who choose not to choose.

K?

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Afraid of commitment are we?

Are you familiar with the concept of "inference"? Basically, you can look at the evidence and "infer" the reality of the situation. I don't have any evidence that Goofy wasn't designed by a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue from the Zarkon dimension, but I can "infer" that he wasn't based on all available evidence. It's the same with "god", as described in numerous texts (written by humans who were basically retarded by today's standards). The only evidence we have for a creator are texts written almost 2000 years ago by numb-skulls. Due to the impossibility of many elements of the religious texts (see Tower of Babel... also resurrection) and the thorough lack of communication between man and god, one can intelligently and rationally "infer" that god probably does not exist (as described in the ancient texts).

Atheism isn't being sure there's no god. It's being reasonably sure that there probably isn't a god.

Oh wow, another ignorant reply.

I laughed when you asked if I'm afraid. Who do you think you are to attack me? Did I hurt your feelings somehow?

You sound like you're trying to convince me of your belief, but I really didn't ask you to do that, did I?

1) I'm not sure old texts written by men count as evidence.
2) You claim some examples from these texts to be impossible, but I'm not sure what qualifies you to determine what's impossible and what isn't. Some people used to think space travel, television and elliptical orbits were impossible.
3) You claim there's a lack of communication between man and God, and yet I can name many examples of people seeing/hearing/feeling communication. Some people see communication on toast - TOAST! Just because you don't observe it doesn't mean it isn't there.
4) Your own rational thought is not proof of anything.

 

[way more]

For me to believe that one species becomes another over time would take a fossil record that shows each stage.

Is nobody going to help this lost soul become a believer?

 

[Druz]

Did I say we're above the argument? Actually, I didn't, but good job reading. I said we don't make judgments without evidence. That means we're outside the believers' argument, but we have our own argument with them as a whole.

Also, don't bring semantics about atheists into this. Not only are you wrong yourself, but you're missing the point. The point is that people who choose to believe something without proof oppose people like me who choose not to choose.

K?

First you incorrectly categorize theism and atheism, then you oppose the argument theism vs atheism. I can't read, you're not above the arguement.. you're just choosing not to choose. Good one!

 

[BobsRevenge]

Did I say we're above the argument? Actually, I didn't, but good job reading. I said we don't make judgments without evidence. That means we're outside the believers' argument, but we have our own argument with them as a whole.

Also, don't bring semantics about atheists into this. Not only are you wrong yourself, but you're missing the point. The point is that people who choose to believe something without proof oppose people like me who choose not to choose.

K?

I have no reason to believe in a God so why should I? Since I don't bother with theism due to lack of proof I'm an atheist because of that lack. I don't need you equating my logic with people who believe in something they have no scientific reason to.

 

[soul creator]

No offense, but what do you fucking expect?

The world is screwed up, everything is driven by an apparently random sense of causality. Over a billion people are starving everyday. Governments and economic structures come and go. Bad shit happens to people every second of every day.

Bottom line, people are dumb. The evidence that life has gotten progressively better means nothing in the end when it comes to understanding what is possible to be understood.

The "invisible superbeing" is a strawman in that most people are not totally ready to jump up and claim God lives somewhere in the vega system and has a big telescope. Less people than you would think actually believe God is a "man in the sky". Even in the bible, God is used in metaphor in the vast majority of references. People just contextualize because they don't know any better.

They (atheists) are not using a strawman when someone says this cloud is a sign from Jesus and an atheist says "prove it". It is this innate desire of man to materialize their desire for meaning in which all of the sudden God "gives them purpose" or "gives them a sign" in some physical way that of course seems totally conjured. This can quickly move from "I saw jesus" to "your not teaching my children that" which is highly problematic.

Organized religion and formal religion have personal Gods. The failure of organized religion, like all man made institutions, is to live up to its promise. Again, look at the utility of something and think of this thought experiment... What if religion worked? There does not have to be a God, but everyone went to church and because of that everyone were kind and giving like in John Lennon's Imagine. No one would really care likely, at least the vast majority of people wouldn't.

I have no problem and totally understand the atheist position. I would say it is the natural one. Ultimately though, its a trivial position unless attached to an ideology that actually has a use. Along with a bunch of other failures of man is the failure to create an actual working ideology. Go figure.

So if god is now just a metaphor, why do people "talk" to him? Why do so many people "worship" him? Why do so many people ignore things (the easy example being evolutionary theory) in favor of what a holy book says? Why do so many people say things like "god created the universe"? Why do people say "god loves us"? Why do so many people think god had a "son"? Why the need for separation of church and state? Why do so many people hold certain viewpoints because "god wants them to"? Why are so many people offended by an atheist position, if their god is supposedly just a metaphor? Are Christians now just "people who think stories in the Holy Bible are cool"?

And atheism is not supposed to be anything more than a position on the existence of god. Any other "ideology" is entirely up to that individual. You say it's "trivial" but it's supposed to be "trivial". My lack of belief in thousands of other fictional beings is "trivial" as well. The only reason the word even exists is probably because "god as invisible superbeing" has been so common in our society.

You make "organized religion" and "personal gods" sound like some aberration that only a few people take seriously, when they have been the most common source of "god concepts" for a long time now.

People may not claim that God lives in the Vega system, but plenty of folks claim that they can talk to God and he can change their lives, and he has feelings and emotions, and he can create universes, and he can intervene in human affairs, and do all sorts of wonderful things. If they didn't think that, what exactly is the point of "worship" in the first place?

And the "can religion work?" thing is an entirely separate discussion from whether one believes in the existence of a god or not. As far as I can tell, I never made any judgments on religion's utility or not, or the "usefulness" of spiritual thinking, but only on the accuracy of religious claims. Such as the ones about god creating the universe, loving us, wanting us to follow rules, etc. You know, the ones that the vast majority of the world claim to follow, and what's generally meant when someone asks "do you believe in god?" I guess we disagree on how prevalent this is. If the vast majority of the world just saw god as some metaphor, then atheism probably wouldn't even exist. Just like aHobbitism doesn't exist, or aZeusism doesn't exist.

I think that's another source of confusion. It's like you're basically saying "yeah, god as typically defined is BS, but it might work for a lot people!" When the only thing I'm discussing is whether god as typically defined is BS or not. Whether it being BS or not is beneficial to humanity is an entirely different post.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

I have no reason to believe in a God so why should I? Since I don't bother with theism due to lack of proof I'm an atheist because of that lack. I don't need you equating my logic with people who believe in something they have no scientific reason to.

First, calm down, I'm not attacking you. Second, you have no proof that he doesn't exist either. You have a belief in an unanswerable question, and another word for that is faith.

 

[MoxManiac]

First, calm down, I'm not attacking you. Second, you have no proof that he doesn't exist either. You have a belief in an unanswerable question, and another word for that is faith.

I see this response, so I ask, why is not having evidence that something doesn't exist, satisfactory enough to believe that it does exist? I hope that wasn't too confusing a sentence, but I wasn't sure quite how to word it.

 

[soul creator]

First, calm down, I'm not attacking you. Second, you have no proof that he doesn't exist either. You have a belief in an unanswerable question, and another word for that is faith.

an "unanswerable question" is pointless/useless/meaningless. If you can't find out anything about god either way to make any sort of conclusion (even though humanity has somehow found a way to make conclusions about tons of other fictional beings in history, yet no one ever has a problem with that), what exactly is the use of it? I would say that another phrase for "belief in unanswerable questions" is "making things up that sound good to me". Which is totally someone's prerogative, but it's hardly useful outside of that individual's own head.

I guess "ignostic" is probably the term you're looking for. Which says that "god is a gibberish concept, no point in debating it". Which, judging by how god threads usually go, is probably true, lol.

Of course, as I've been saying, the majority of people in our society don't see god as some "unanswerable question". The typical god supposedly interferes in our lives in pretty blatant ways. Ways that can be tested/observed. Of course, when things are tested/observed and found to not have supernatural meaning behind it, people tend to retreat into the "god is a metaphor!" territory. Which is also someone's prerogative, but is hardly convincing for the "god did XYZ" crowd.

 

[BobsRevenge]

First, calm down, I'm not attacking you. Second, you have no proof that he doesn't exist either. You have a belief in an unanswerable question, and another word for that is faith.

Modern science understands that there's no absolute answer to any question. If a scientist believes something it's because there's proof for it. If a scientist doesn't believe something it's because there is no proof for it. Why should I scientist have to prescribe to a belief like "this lamp may be a sentient being" even when there is no proof for it?

Do I think that it is possible for a God to exist? Yeah, sure. Do I believe one does? No. Because I have no reason to. Same reason I don't believe there is a ghost in my office. Is it possible it is? Sure. Should I believe it? No. So I don't. I have no faith that God doesn't exist, I just assume he doesn't because there is no proof for it.

edit: Theism is the belief in God. A- is a prefix meaning without. I am without the belief in God because it doesn't make sense and there is no proof for it, so I'm an atheist.

 

[onipex]

I bolded what I responded to.

I don't think people that believe in god are dumb because the human race would be in trouble if that were true. There are intelligent religious people out there, many way more intelligent than me, but these people are mentally bound by their belief. Some of these people break and try to rationalize both arguments at once. Their brain is telling them science works, their religion is telling them some dude was born of a virgin.

You're throwing in with a book, I'm throwing in with the greatest minds of our time. Oh shit!

I believe in God and have a high interest in science. My mind is not bound by one or the other. One is based on faith and one on fact. Trying to counter science with the bible is foolish as it is a book of faith. Using science to try to disprove God will seem just a foolish to a believer.

The whole debate is nothing new. It goes as far back a Moses and Pharaoh with hey look I made a snake. One side is usually not shaken by the other, but the debate goes on.

 

[Az987]

I believe in God because I talked to him once. He seemed like a cool enough dude

 

[Fatbot]

So if god is now just a metaphor, why do people "talk" to him? Why do so many people "worship" him? Why do so many people ignore things (the easy example being evolutionary theory) in favor of what a holy book says?

People are dumb. They kill each other over tennis shoes and soccer matches. As far as evolution goes, people hate being wrong. They hang their hat on some idea and when they find out the hanger doesn't exist they get pissed. Even scientists hate being wrong. They like learning more than anything but science tries its damndest to objectify external understanding so people can't push their own beliefs and agenda. That doesn't mean my friends at the Fermilab super collider weren't depressed and pissed when they didn't find the higgs particle after 10 years of trying. Some of them even doubt it exists, not because they have evidence, but because if you look for something long enough and don't find it, it takes its toll.

And atheism is not supposed to be anything more than a position on the existence of god. Any other "ideology" is entirely up to that individual. You say it's "trivial" but it's supposed to be "trivial". My lack of belief in thousands of other fictional beings is "trivial" as well. The only reason the word even exists is probably because "god as invisible superbeing" has been so common in our society.

its trivial because people bother even calling themselves atheists. There is not a theism that is not tied to an ideology. theism is more about an ideology that presupposes an objective value than just a ritualistic belief in a man in the sky. There are many atheistic ideologies (like nihilism and certain forms of existnentialism) but all of them have generally failed in society as a whole. This does not make atheism wrong but it does make it hard to work into a philosophical framework.

You make "organized religion" and "personal gods" sound like some aberration that only a few people take seriously, when they have been the most common source of "god concepts" for a long time now.

Paintings and music have been the main source of art for our history. That does not mean art is defined only as a painting or music. Also many eastern religions are nothing but one big concept and metaphor with some badass mythology around it.

People may not claim that God lives in the Vega system, but plenty of folks claim that they can talk to God and he can change their lives, and he has feelings and emotions, and he can create universes, and he can intervene in human affairs, and do all sorts of wonderful things. If they didn't think that, what exactly is the point of "worship" in the first place?

Worship, and many forms of meditation are scientifically shown to reduce stress. I think thats one of the evolutionary reasons it even exists. When scientists wanted to identify emotional states like compassion in the human brain, they didn't go to the catholic church or even some hippies practising Zen out in Berkeley. They went to a tibetan monestary where monks really knew how to control themselves. They also found that, as many would think, is not some natural thing but takes excersice and belief that control of that level is even attainable.

I think that's another source of confusion. It's like you're basically saying "yeah, god as typically defined is BS, but it might work for a lot people!" When the only thing I'm discussing is whether god as typically defined is BS or not. Whether it being BS or not is beneficial to humanity is an entirely different post.

And I'm saying that that is ultimately a trivial question from a truth standpoint. You can easily say that you can disprove most Gods that people believe in but can you say you will disprove every god that will ever be believed? That is what it means to objectively disbelieve something. To say you are not Christian because its dishonest or you don't believe in God because its a waste of time is fine but from a truth standpoint it is hypocritical. Truth is not inherently good, people lie to themselves and others all the time because it is useful. Blind faith has a history of danger and thats what makes it bad, its not bad just because it isn't true.

 

[Shaheed79]

(Q-Tip: Damn, Phifey got fat!)
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.

Nice

The best there ever was. I hope you can make it to one of the Rock the Bells festivals that kicks off in Chicago later this month. Tribe, Dela, Pharcyde, Nas, Mos Def, Rakim, Ghostface, Little Brother and MF Doom.

http://www.guerillaunion.com/rockthebells/

Back on topic. That's perfectly fine as I use to be agnostic myself along with most of my closest friends. I went from a Christian upbringing to gradually discovering that the things I had been told were far from proven truth to just outright lies. I lost faith in religion and the institutions that use it to subjugate the worlds population. It all became clear to me that most of the stories and literature that we had been fed were nothing more than the bottom level of the cave in the allegory of Plato's Cave which I had also been studying in "The Republic" (which is a must read for anyone who begins to sense the different layers of bullshit in this world).

All of my closest friends who were also agnostic we use to sit around to debate and philosophize but one of our favorite activities was to blow holes in all of the arguments people used to justify the existence of God. This brand of bi-weekly intellectual gathering started in 1998 after we graduated from high school and continue even today but with a small difference. Out the five of us who all use to subscribe to generally agnostic views and beliefs only 1 continues to hold those values while the rest of us have adopted our own personal versions of spirituality and a belief in what we simply refer to as "the creator".

The search for truth is a very particular and funny thing. Truth can only be measured through the viability of all the evidence presented against it. Finding truth could mean going against all modern standards and beliefs as so often is the case real truth is hidden and not so easily ascertainable as presented by Plato in his allegory of "The Cave". So if finding truth means digging and investigating into territories that are considered "taboo" by societies aristocracy you are only limited by the weight and validity of the arguments presented and not by the negative labels they succeed in attaching to them. Given the very nature of control and subjugation isn't it conceivable that the many layers of falsities that we have been fed throughout our existence could bleed into all aspects of presented and generally accepted "truth".

 

[Druz]

I believe in God and have a high interest in science. My mind is not bound by one or the other. One is based on faith and one on fact. Trying to counter science with the bible is foolish as it is a book of faith. Using science to try to disprove God will seem just a foolish to a believer.

The whole debate is nothing new. It goes as far back a Moses and Pharaoh with hey look I made a snake. One side is usually not shaken by the other, but the debate goes on.

Anyone who can think critically with science, then suspend thought for religion isn't someone I'd brag about knowing, if you knowwadamean.

 

[Mango Positive]

Oh wow, another ignorant reply.

I'm happy I could be "ignorant" for you. You sound fun.

I laughed when you asked if I'm afraid. Who do you think you are to attack me? Did I hurt your feelings somehow?

You just overreacted. While you may have disagreed with the content, the tone of my post was lighthearted. It was a joke. The agnostic does not commit to either side of a black & white debate... I turned that concept into a silly relationship joke. Sorry if you took that as an attack.

You sound like you're trying to convince me of your belief, but I really didn't ask you to do that, did I?

I am trying to convince you! I believe your life will be better when you can adopt strict policy of logic into your life! But wait... didn't you say you're agnostic? What does that even mean? That you don't care if there's a god or not? I get a little annoyed with the "enlightened middle-of-the-roadist" facade a lot of pseudo-intellectuals like to adopt in order to create conflict in 3 dimensions by attacking both sides of a relatively black and white issue. There either is or isn't a god and due to possible political power held by believers, it is certainly a topic worth debating.

No one here is really expressing hate towards anyone on the opposite side! We're jousting and we enjoy it! Despite your problem with the debate, it provides very intelligent and / or entertaining content that many of us enjoy reading and writing. It's part of what makes both sides come to the internet and communicate with complete strangers. Since we keep having these discussions, we must enjoy it!

1) I'm not sure old texts written by men count as evidence.

1) I agree!

2) You claim some examples from these texts to be impossible, but I'm not sure what qualifies you to determine what's impossible and what isn't. Some people used to think space travel, television and elliptical orbits were impossible.

2) Impossible may have been a bad word, but belief in miracles is irrational based on all available evidence.

3) You claim there's a lack of communication between man and God, and yet I can name many examples of people seeing/hearing/feeling communication. Some people see communication on toast - TOAST! Just because you don't observe it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I believe people who claim such communication are slow, confused, or lying. The lack of evidence implies that this communication probably doesn't happen.

4) Your own rational thought is not proof of anything.

Of course not. Why would you say that? Thought is only used to analyze proof.

 

[Shaheed79]

Anyone who can think critically with science, then suspend thought for religion isn't someone I'd brag about knowing, if you knowwadamean.

So do you believe that we should question any scientific data or conclusions presented by the 40% of working scientist who believe in God?

 

[soul creator]

Fatbot, are you proposing one of those "you can't ultimately prove rationality, therefore it's just as arbitrary as god belief!" ideas?

I think I see what you did there

 

[Mash]

Most of the believers in this thread don't agree with organized religion, so other than an interesting topic of debate, I really don't see the need for any of this anger here. The problem with organized religion is it tends to force the belief system onto others and hold them to it whether the other person believes it or not. Like Christians of particular, identifiable, denominations pouring scorn upon gays. When someone who doesn't believe the texts are anything but metaphors and recycled moral teachings, like most here seem to lean towards, the question over god's existence isn't such a burning issue in my eyes.

That is, unless the believers here who don't believe in the Abrahamic form of god, think god does give us moral imperatives in some way? And I don't mean benign things like the golden rule, people didn't need Jesus to understand that one.

So do you believe that we should question any scientific data or conclusions presented by the 40% of working scientist who believe in God?

What is your point here? Science is questioned regardless of someones beliefs, it's as impartial as you can get. When someone's ideas are put into a journal the readers are very unlikely to be familiar with the persons beliefs, and it is usually a team anyway. Besides, the number of believing scientists has declined since its infancy, I see a pattern.

 

[Feep]

Just skipped to this page and skimmed but for some reason I'm curious as to what your philosophical ideas are.

Sorry, I was sleeping for most of the day...

My views are generally deistic. It is exceedingly clear to me that there is no invisible man in the sky, but to me, the universe is a very precise and beautiful place. Many people bash this view due to the general deistic "god of the gaps" argument of the Big Bang, but even if the origin of our universe was a natural phenomenon, or spawned from something larger, the eternal question of "why is there anything at all" exists. Causality cannot explain why anything exists in the first place, and so I believe something has to break that chain, and you might as well call that thing, that Creator, God. I am fully aware that I could very well be wrong, and will look upon peer-reviewed scientific evidence with an open mind and will change my belief structure accordingly. An agnostic deist, perhaps?

Also, are there really people in here bashing evolution? For the love of God. Okay. This is one of the most wonderful explanations I've heard, so I'll repeat it for everyone.

Evolutionists claim that we evolved from apes. Though we share approximately 98% of our genetic material with apes (and this is not enough for you people?), a key difference is that they have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans 23. This is a pretty significant discrepancy.

What could have caused this? We couldn't simply "lose" a chromosome: the resulting loss of genetic information would be deadly. Perhaps they merged, or joined together somehow? Let's take a look. Every chromosome ends with something called a "telomere", found at the beginning and end, ONLY, of each pair. This means that if two chromosomes were to merge, you'd find a telomere somewhere in the MIDDLE of the sequence, as opposed to the ends. Well, surely we haven't--

Oh, wait. Human chromosome pair number 2 clearly shows telomeres in the middle, as well as on the ends. No other chromosome pair exhibits this structure. What a fucking surprise.

Creationists need to stop holding back mankind.

 

[Fatbot]

Fatbot, are you proposing one of those "you can't ultimately prove rationality, therefore it's just as arbitrary as god belief!" ideas?

I think I see what you did there

No, which is why I don't like discussing this much.

I don't advocate solipcism and I don't want atheists to surrender reason just because they can't be reasonable all the time. What I mean by this is life would suck if you felt the need to justify every fucking thing you believed. At some point you are just going to believe it and that's OK. When your beliefs start fucking things up, someone should let you know, whether you are Christian, Conservative, Socialist, etc.

I just want people to seperate truth from value because they are two totally seperate things.

Value drives EVERYTHING. Truth is just a component of many valuable things but not all things.

Finally, my beliefs are nothing I personally like. I hold multiple degrees in the fine arts and post modernism is something I would like to reject but the evidence is overwhelming when it comes to liberal arts like philosophy, music, and film.

I just think that critical thinking should apply to all things and not just some if people are going to try to make progress.

 

[AndresON777]

yeah I do but the question I often wonder is does he enjoy torturing me?

 

[onipex]

Anyone who can think critically with science, then suspend thought for religion isn't someone I'd brag about knowing, if you knowwadamean.

1) Faith in God is not religion. Religion is a set of rules that men made up when it comes to some kind of supreme being.

Religious people tend ( not always) to pay more attention to the man who says he speaks the word of God or speaks for God, then they do for the actual message.

2) I find it strange that people who don't believe in God don't read the bible since it shows a lot about human nature. Almost every human fault is written in the book. There are even some words of wisdom about health and wellbeing that todays science has proven to be true.
I'm not pointing to out to argue about the truth of the book, so please don't assume that.

3) I hope that most people don't think like you. No one has to choose between science and faith. There is nothing that says that we cannot explore and explain the works of the Creator. One of the greatest sins of the early church was to hold back science. The more I learn about the universe we live in the stronger my faith grows.

 

[Shaheed79]

What is your point here? Science is questioned regardless of someones beliefs, it's as impartial as you can get. When someone's ideas are put into a journal the readers are very unlikely to be familiar with the persons beliefs, and it is usually a team anyway. Besides, the number of believing scientists has declined since its infancy, I see a pattern.

I think you are a little confused as he is the one who stated that "he wouldn't brag about knowing someone who could critically think in science and then suspend thought for religion". Shouldn't you be addressing him with this question? I understand your desire to engage me in debate but this time it is quite misdirected.

 

[BTRA]

2) I find it strange that people who don't believe in God don't read the bible since it shows a lot about human nature. Almost every human fault is written in the book. There are even some words of wisdom about health and wellbeing that todays science has proven to be true.
I'm not pointing to out to argue about the truth of the book, so please don't assume that.

I do agree with that the Bible could be used as a guideline about living a good life and treating others well; everything else is just dribble.

 

[Shaheed79]

I do agree with that the Bible could be used as a guideline about living a good life and treating others well; everything else is just dribble.

I've read the entire bible, old and new testaments, all the way through at least twice since I was a teenager and this is also the conclusion I have come to concerning not only the Bible but most religious texts. Some parables are just plain entertaining for other more personal reasons for example Ezekiel's Wheel and the description of the journey of Moses and the Jews. The Bible is full of interesting tales that bare an almost timeless relevance.

 

[Yagharek]

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.

But what sort of coin out of all the currencies that have ever been in use in the world is in your hand? I bet you dont really have one in your hand

 

[Mash]

I think you are a little confused as he is the one who stated that "he wouldn't brag about knowing someone who could critically think in science and then suspend thought for religion". Shouldn't you be addressing him with this question? I understand your desire to engage me in debate but this time it is quite misdirected.

I think you're right, the nested quotes confused me.

 

[isamu]

Because I want to.

Let's take something small and basic like a fly. A fly may be small, but it has specific reasons for existing, and specific structure. It can think, it can act, it can fly. It may not be the most complex thing in the universe, but it's far out of humans reach to create something as complex as even a tiny fly.

I refuse to believe something like a fly, or trees, or the sky, or the sun, or even this planet came exist on pure chance. It is too perfect for that. These things exist for a reason.

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

 

[disappeared]

I don't believe there is a god. And if there is one, he lost interest in us a long time ago.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

You've all chosen sides without proof one way or the other.

Well, one side has a rather large amount of supporting evidence that continues to grow over time. The other, well, it sort of diminishes a bit over time.

Because I want to.

Let's take something small and basic like a fly. A fly may be small, but it has specific reasons for existing, and specific structure. It can think, it can act, it can fly. It may not be the most complex thing in the universe, but it's far out of humans reach to create something as complex as even a tiny fly.

I refuse to believe something like a fly, or trees, or the sky, or the sun, or even this planet came exist on pure chance. It is too perfect for that. These things exist for a reason.

None of them exist on pure chance. A fly didn´t show up by magic, as a fly. Read the God delusion there is an entire chapter that explains this 'do you think this just appeared by magic' argument.

Also, saying ´it was designed, clearly' actually further complicates the thing. Because now you have the complex thing like the fly, and you have just added an even more complicated being right on top of that to 'explain' the situation. It doesn´t actually explain anything, just adds a further layer of implausability.

 

[isamu]

I think you are a little confused as he is the one who stated that "he wouldn't brag about knowing someone who could critically think in science and then suspend thought for religion". Shouldn't you be addressing him with this question? I understand your desire to engage me in debate but this time it is quite misdirected.

Shaheem79 I think you bring up a good point. But the thing you have to remember is, organized religion and formal religion have personal Gods. The failure of organized religion, like all man made institutions, is to live up to its promise. Again, look at the utility of something and think of this thought experiment... What if religion worked? There does not have to be a God, but everyone went to church and because of that everyone were kind and giving like in John Lennon's Imagine. No one would really care likely, at least the vast majority of people wouldn't.

I have no problem and totally understand the atheist position. I would say it is the natural one. Ultimately though, its a trivial position unless attached to an ideology that actually has a use. Along with a bunch of other failures of man is the failure to create an actual working ideology. Go figure.

 

[sikkinixx]

Because I can't believe that we're here for no reason, and everything happened just because.

God may not care, may be dead, or is busy playing scrabble somewhere in the universe. But someone started this party.

I can believe that, and that is what is scary and depressing. What if it IS all for no reason?

 

[TheHeretic]

I believe in God and have a high interest in science. My mind is not bound by one or the other. One is based on faith and one on fact. Trying to counter science with the bible is foolish as it is a book of faith. Using science to try to disprove God will seem just a foolish to a believer.

Faith is the permission slip you give yourself for not having a good reason for believing in something. If you had a good reason to begin with, you wouldn't need "faith". A "believer" is simply someone who has been convinced God exists, and yet whenever one of these people is prompted to give justification for thier belief nothing of value is offered.

An explaination only has value if it can be distinguished in worth from other explainations. For example, how did the universe come to exist? You say, God, I say, a horde of magic pixies dreamed it into existence. Each of these have exactly the same amount of evidence going for them, so why is it fair to call someone who believes in God rational and someone who believes in pixies irrational?

You might have a high interest in science, you may be a very intelligent person, but that would be in spite of faith. The fact that there are scientists who believe in God lends no credence to the idea of God.

 

[bounchfx]

I can believe that, and that is what is scary and depressing. What if it IS all for no reason?

Does it matter, really, if it is for any reason? Even if it is, we sure as hell don't know what it is, and will never learn what it is. Sure, it's comforting to think that there is life after death, thus many people believe theres a heaven (and some believe theres a hell.. yeah ok)

Try not to think that there needs to be a reason for anything, just enjoy the ride, and like others have said, try your best to be good and treat others with respect as well.

except people that kill other people for no reason. fuck them.

 

[Druz]

If people read The God Delusion this thread would only be on page 3

 

[cyclonekruse]

An explaination only has value if it can be distinguished in worth from other explainations. For example, how did the universe come to exist? You say, God, I say, a horde of magic pixies dreamed it into existence. Each of these have exactly the same amount of evidence going for them, so why is it fair to call someone who believes in God rational and someone who believes in pixies irrational?

Like I said long ago, there IS evidence for God. Almost every (perhaps even every) human culture we've encountered has a belief in some type of divine entity or entities. Of course, it's extremely weak evidence. I'll be the first to admit that. The more likely explanation is that religiosity was, for some unknown reason, evolutionarily advantageous. Nevertheless, to claim that there is NO evidence (or even the same amount as for pixies) for some type of higher being is being a little dishonest.

If people read The God Delusion this thread would only be on page 3

Not having read the book myself, I can't be certain, but I think giving up a belief you've held your whole life is a little harder than reading a few pages of what I understand to be very old arguments. I actually think reading the Bible would convince more people to give up their faith (unless, I suppose, they had a theologian nearby explaining the more difficult parts to mesh together).