Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,487 comments
  • 1,133,240 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
You can't prove he exists just as you can't prove he doesn't exist. All I'm saying is you gotta have some ego to bet your eternal life that he doesn't exist when modern day scientists with cutting edge technology are still trying to fight without success a 2000+ year old book.

Choose wisely :)

I'd say you must have some ego to believe that you, here on this insignificantly small piece of rock in a unfathomably huge universe, are chosen by the omnipotent creator of all of existance. That is egotistical.

Also, since when does science fight the bible? It creates an alternative (to the bible that is) explanation to our existance and the world around us, based on actual facts. It can prove itself. Sure it's not perfect but it's constantly evolving.

The bible has no proof. Whatsoever. It's faith´and just that, and I don't believe faith is a good way to find out the truth.
 
You can't prove he exists just as you can't prove he doesn't exist. All I'm saying is you gotta have some ego to bet your eternal life that he doesn't exist when modern day scientists with cutting edge technology are still trying to fight without success a 2000+ year old book.

Eh?

How exactly is science trying to "fight" religion? Science is about making discoveries, whatever that entails. Religion is about blindly believing that 2000 year old book without even thinking about questioning it.

Call me stupid but I think I'll side with the guys attempting to discover how our universe works, rather than the guys who've been reading the same book for centuries whilst the rest of the world developed.

Also, I find that "choose wisely" crap really condescending, along with all the "I'll be praying for you" and "I hope you're granted pity at the gates" stuff. It's not "loving" in any way, it's an implication that I'm poor and deluded for not believing and that I deserve pity because of my eventual trip to hell, with no consideration that I'm choosing a path in life that makes me, my friends and my loved ones happy, and one in which I'm kind and charitable without having to devote my life to a being that doesn't exist, only to have to pray all the time anyway because however much good I do I'm still a dirty sinner.

I need the pity of a religious follower like I need my testicles removed.
 
Last edited:
I need the pity of a religious follower like I need my testicles removed.
That's all religion has ever done to non-believers, pity and look down upon them as if they were less human. I enjoy a "bless you" or "may god be with you" because it's polite and respectful, but like you I strongly dislike any mention of pity. And they wonder why I'm so critical and impatient.
 
Also, I find that "choose wisely" crap really condescending, along with all the "I'll be praying for you" and "I hope you're granted pity at the gates" stuff. It's not "loving" in any way, it's an implication that I'm poor and deluded for not believing and that I deserve pity because of my eventual trip to hell, with no consideration that I'm choosing a path in life that makes me, my friends and my loved ones happy, and one in which I'm kind and charitable without having to devote my life to a being that doesn't exist, only to have to pray all the time anyway because however much good I do I'm still a dirty sinner.

Why would something you don't even believe in irritate you? If you consider what they are saying to you as completely useless and untrue, why bother complaining?
 
Why would something you don't even believe in irritate you? If you consider what they are saying to you as completely useless and untrue, why bother complaining?

Because it's condescension. If an atheist were to say out loud to you that they pity you for your beliefs, would you feel irritated?
 
Because it's condescension. If an atheist were to say out loud to you that they pity you for your beliefs, would you feel irritated?

I might, but this shouldn't work the other way round' because the non-believer doesn't have to re-think his/her beliefs when slated with that statement, whereas the religious one does.

Here's an example ( And don't make another argument out of this regarding the topic as it's all I could think of at the time): If a global warming believer came up to me and told me to "save the planet" by signing a petition of sorts, I would kindly decline. This is because I know for a fact that global warming isn't all it's hyped up to be. Now, if I came up to a global warming believer with a petition to stop carbon taxation, the global warming believer would most likely be offended and/or irritated as this goes against their beliefs.

See what I'm getting at?

Any atheist who is offended or irritated by a negative religious comment directed at them is not a true atheist at all.
 
Last edited:
Any atheist who is offended or irritated by a negative religious comment directed at them is not a true atheist at all.

What a load of bollocks.

I object to being "pitied" for not believing in a God. I don't need someone telling me they'll pray for my soul because it doesn't need praying for. Since I'm pretty happy with my life, why should I want anyone to pray to a being that doesn't exist for me? I'd rather I was left to my own devices not knowing that someone is pitying me for not believing in God.

Your global warming example is poor, too. It's more like someone coming up to me and accusing me of killing the planet and spray-painting slogans on my gas-guzzler, even if there wasn't a shred of evidence to support their claims. It's making someone else feel bad for their own misguided beliefs.

I enjoy a "bless you" or "may god be with you" because it's polite and respectful

Agreed. There's a massive difference between someone saying "bless you" and meaning it, and someone saying "I'll pray for you" simply because I'm not doing the praying myself...
 
What a load of bollocks.

I object to being "pitied" for not believing in a God. I don't need someone telling me they'll pray for my soul because it doesn't need praying for. Since I'm pretty happy with my life, why should I want anyone to pray to a being that doesn't exist for me?

Why do you even care?

Your global warming example is poor, too. It's more like someone coming up to me and accusing me of killing the planet and spray-painting slogans on my gas-guzzler, even if there wasn't a shred of evidence to support their claims. It's making someone else feel bad for their own misguided beliefs.

That is much more extreme and physical than someone simply saying they'll pray for you. Being irritated by such untrue, meaningless, and un-effective remarks shows that you doubt yourself in regards to atheism. (And that's coming from a christian)
 
Nobody likes to be faced with a "condescending" attitude from others, and I think that results quite obvious for both sides in this thread.

The problem here lies more in the fact that for some religions there is a moral duty to desire good for others, and - logically - that might mean to "pray" for them. So, it all becomes a dilemma, I can't honestly say "I'll never pray for you" especially since, in church, many prayers are exactly about those, religious or not, known to us or not, etc. ... so, how to solve this? :dopey:

Well, not being neither an atheist rocket scientist nor a catholic Professor in Theology, I have a solution, one that won't go irking the atheists and won't surely put theists before an unsolvable moral/religious problem. Prayers are nothing to bragg about so, for all intents and purposes, if - example - a christian uses the "condescending tone" to say "I will pray for your poor soul" he is in fact doing something very wrong according to the religion he supposedly believes in.

Because ...

... in the end, it's all about politeness and decency in a discussion. And the "condescending tone" goes against it.
 
Sam48 - this is exactly what I'm getting at:

Well, not being neither an atheist rocket scientist nor a catholic Professor in Theology, I have a solution, one that won't go irking the atheists and won't surely put theists before an unsolvable moral/religious problem. Prayers are nothing to bragg about so, for all intents and purposes, if - example - a christian uses the "condescending tone" to say "I will pray for your poor soul" he is in fact doing something very wrong according to the religion he supposedly believes in.

👍

Using your religion to effectively speak down to someone is pretty poor form IMO.

And again, I'm quite confident in my atheism. So much so that, unlike someone who considers themselves religious, I don't need to constantly think about being an atheist. It's not a lifestyle, it doesn't require faith, I just get on with my life and enjoy the fact that my eyes are constantly being opened to the wonders of the world without needing to believe that everything happens because God did it.
 
Using your religion to effectively speak down to someone is pretty poor form IMO.

And I agree, it is poor (Most of the time). However, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that you were irritated by this, which you shouldn't be at all. They're just words. They're not harming you. They're surely not persuading you.

And like I said, being irritated by someone else's statement generally shows that you have doubts about your stance that you'd rather ignore. Maybe that isn't the case with you.
 
Sam48 - this is exactly what I'm getting at:



👍

Using your religion to effectively speak down to someone is pretty poor form IMO.

And again, I'm quite confident in my atheism. So much so that, unlike someone who considers themselves religious, I don't need to constantly think about being an atheist. It's not a lifestyle, it doesn't require faith, I just get on with my life and enjoy the fact that my eyes are constantly being opened to the wonders of the world without needing to believe that everything happens because God did it.

I'm the same, but at the opposite end of the spectrum. Religion doesn't play a big part in my life. I don't attend church anymore, I don't pray that often. I just happen to believe in intelligent design and the morals of Christianity.
 
And I agree, it is poor (Most of the time). However, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that you were irritated by this, which you shouldn't be at all. They're just words. They're not harming you. They're surely not persuading you.

Condescension is rude. Period.

And like I said, being irritated by someone else's statement generally shows that you have doubts about your stance that you'd rather ignore. Maybe that isn't the case with you.

Being irritated by someone speaking down to you does not highlight your own insecurities.
 
Condescension is rude. Period.

But you shouldn't be offended or irritated if you think you know better. (At least with me)

Being irritated by someone speaking down to you does not highlight your own insecurities.

Hence why I said, "Maybe that isn't the case with you".
 
But you shouldn't be offended or irritated if you think you know better. (At least with me)

Where is it I said I knew better? If that was the case then it'd be pretty condescending itself, and I'd be a massive hypocrite.

I object to someone else implying that they know better by praying "for" me (my belief? they're praying for themselves to make themselves feel good for doing a "good deed" for somebody else) to a god I don't believe exists, when I believe I can live a perfectly happy life without any input from anyone's God.

And to the comment behind my original statement, someone saying "I hope you choose wisely" seems pretty smug to me, like those who believe in concepts with evidence rather than blind faith are just deluded and they'll regret it when they die if they don't change their mind. It's condescending and also pretty ignorant, IMO.
 
Where is it I said I knew better? If that was the case then it'd be pretty condescending itself, and I'd be a massive hypocrite.

I'm a bit confused then. I know you did not say that, but does this mean you do in fact doubt your stance? I'm not speaking on a level that suits all, just you.

I object to someone else implying that they know better by praying "for" me (my belief? they're praying for themselves to make themselves feel good for doing a "good deed" for somebody else) to a god I don't believe exists, when I believe I can live a perfectly happy life without any input from anyone's God.

I suppose it's all down to personal opinion in the end.
 
Dawkins has a lot to say about what he considers 'God', really what he does in most of his work is criticise organised religion and what man uses 'God' for. He really doesn't go so far as to disprove existence, although he tries, his gripe seems more with religion.

I agree with you, but I'd say that Mahar comment was more worth your words than the actual Dawkins one. I mean Mahar is an extremist and someone that just seems to have been touched by a priest or two in his day and loathes all religion. Being critical of it is one thing, just having an outright hate is a bit different.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused then. I know you did not say that, but does this mean you do in fact doubt your stance? I'm not speaking on a level that suits all, just you.

Depends on your interpretation of "know better". To me it suggests an attitude that assumes anyone with a different view is an idiot.

I don't believe God exists because there's no evidence to say he does, and many of the things people often explain with religion or God have perfectly reasonable explanations in the real world. This makes them misguided, but if someone sees God as the only way to make their life better, then far be it from me to outright say they're wrong about it.

Anyway, I've said before in this thread, I'm quite confident God does exist - but only in the minds of his believers (as with unicorns, Santa Claus etc), and nowhere else.

That makes both parties right in their own way, but things we observe in this world and this universe weren't of his creation. Existing in the human conscious is a form of existence, but not a sufficient one to explain anything we see, feel, hear, taste, smell or touch every day.

Someone saying they'll pray for my soul has no more basis in reality to me than one adult claiming to another that if they're good this year, Santa will bring them some nice presents. The reason it irritates me is that someone saying that somehow believes that my life, or afterlife, will be worse off if they don't "help" me.
 
That makes both parties right in their own way, but things we observe in this world and this universe weren't of his creation. Existing in the human conscious is a form of existence, but not a sufficient one to explain anything we see, feel, hear, taste, smell or touch every day.

That's simply the result of the fact that science has yet to study the unobservable. (Which is not possible yet) Nonetheless, I don't think it will ever be possible to prove God exists. Maybe it will be possible to prove Noah's arc sailed one day (Which, in a way, is evidence of God), but I don't believe there will ever be any direct evidence for God.

saying they'll pray for my soul has no more basis in reality to me than one adult claiming to another that if they're good this year, Santa will bring them some nice presents. The reason it irritates me is that someone saying that somehow believes that my life, or afterlife, will be worse off if they don't "help" me.

Then it is a difference of opinion. Because I would simply ignore them if I was an atheist because I would be sure that I was indeed correct in that situation. Thus, I wouldn't be irritated.
 
That's simply the result of the fact that science has yet to study the unobservable. (Which is not possible yet) Nonetheless, I don't think it will ever be possible to prove God exists. Maybe it will be possible to prove Noah's arc sailed one day (Which, in a way, is evidence of God), but I don't believe there will ever be any direct evidence for God.


The deluge myth predates Christianity in it's entirety. Proving it true would really work against the effort of proving any modern religion to be true.
 
The 'Noah's arc' story has lose connections to floods that would sweep across the Nile river banks in ancient times, flooding the land for mile. Suppose a trader with a boat full of livestock animals was to become swept into the river due to the floods and became so far from land that he believed that the Earth had flooded, wouldn't that be a more feasible story?

Sam48
That's simply the result of the fact that science has yet to study the unobservable

Hence Schroedinger's cat. That is part of the reason why, when I think about this topic and argue about it the only real way to do it is from a philosophy mind set.
 
^ The question is though, if one can actually get somewhere in the discussion using philosophy.

I personally believe no.
 
The deluge myth predates Christianity in it's entirety. Proving it true would really work against the effort of proving any modern religion to be true.

Yes, but it was stated in the Bible as a real event (But that's about it). I didn't say it was very much evidence.
 
Yes, but it was stated in the Bible as a real event (But that's about it). I didn't say it was very much evidence.

Very true. It bothers me how many of the stories in the bible are stated as fact, but are really just re-visiting the myths of older religions and cultures. And more troubling is the people that believe them as fact, despite being aware of the older stories existence and prior authorship. It's like faith has really overtaken their ability to use logic and reason.
 
Very true. It bothers me how many of the stories in the bible are stated as fact, but are really just re-visiting the myths of older religions and cultures. And more troubling is the people that believe them as fact, despite being aware of the older stories existence and prior authorship. It's like faith has really overtaken their ability to use logic and reason.

Whether they were intended on being interpreted as factual or fictional, the whole point of all Bible stories are the moral lessons they teach.
 
Back