Do you believe in God?

[TankAss95]

"God? Wasn't he chased out of heaven by Marx, banished to the unconscious by Freud and announced by Neitzsche to be deceased? Did not Darwin drive him out of the empirical world? Well, not entirely. In a quiet revolution in thought and arguments that hardly anyone could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers ... but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse." - Time Magazine (1980)

 

[AlexGTV]

Can natural laws explain everything including the "cause" of this thread?

I don't know because of limitations to our knowledge, the chaotic information needed and the uncertainty principle e.t.c. So I don't know if it meaningfull to say in theory yes.

But, natural laws as discovered have a consistency that no god of any religion has.

Personally, I find that the absolute speed of light and differing rates of change (i.e. "times") of moving objects is a miracle that needs no faith. If indeed a god designed these laws as they are, their knowledge leads us closer to him.

What we need is not believe in gods but in people, in each other. Starting from ourself.

 

[TankAss95]

C. S. Lewis made an interesting point when writing about the time when he was an atheist:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? ... Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."

I think C. S. Lewis makes an interesting point here. In the absence of transcendent values, we are floundering about the best as we can.

"Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd." - Ravi Zacharias

If there is nothing more to us than matter, then our very own lifestyle seems hilarious.

"If my mental processes are wholly by the motions of my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason to supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J. B. S. Haldane

At this point in time, secularism looks absurd. I just thought I'd add that.

 

[Strittan]

What are you trying to say? Can you please stop quoting other people's thoughts (none of 'em make sense anyway) and start putting down your own words instead?

 

[Exorcet]

C. S. Lewis made an interesting point when writing about the time when he was an atheist:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

The man doesn't need to know anything. If a line is crooked, it's crooked. He does not need to understand the concept unless he wants to discuss it.

"Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd." - Ravi Zacharias

That quote is absurd. Why can't chemicals become complex enough to hold discussion?

If there is nothing more to us than matter, then our very own lifestyle seems hilarious.

Makes no sense either. Why do I need to have anything other than matter to enjoy life? It would be quite depressing moping around because I think that just being matter isn't "good enough".

"If my mental processes are wholly by the motions of my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason to supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J. B. S. Haldane

Holy books are even less convincing as far as I can tell. At least supposing that my brain is composed of atoms makes sense with what information I have.

 

[Rich S]

Holy books are even less convincing as far as I can tell. At least supposing that my brain is composed of atoms makes sense with what information I have.

But god created your brain from dust, then he commanded the sea to teem with living creatures.

What are you saying, are you denouncing the lord your god?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Tankass, please use your own words instead of spamming quotes (that don't make any sense). It's not much of a discussion really is it?

And I've always wondered: What is it about the physical and material that's not good enough? Why must there be "magic"?

 

[AlexGTV]

And I've always wondered: What is it about the physical and material that's not good enough? Why must there be "magic"?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

 

[theotherspongey]

But god created your brain from dust, then he commanded the sea to teem with living creatures.

What are you saying, are you denouncing the lord your god?

Can't tell if trolling or...

 

[Guardian]

But god created your brain from dust, then he commanded the sea to teem with living creatures.

What are you saying, are you denouncing the lord your god?

^^First post that hasn't made me want to burn this thread to the ground.

 

[Pagey279]

Forgive me if this opinion had already been voiced.
But I can see why people WANT to believe in god, a higher being that has created everything could be comforting in times of need.
But what completely baffles me is HOW people believe in god. The story of Adam and eve has been proven wrong by Darwin and his book the origin of species. And also decades of scientific research has shown beyond doubt that us humans and every creature on the earth have evolved. And were not created by god.
Also the belief that god created the earth and planets and so on has also been proven wrong. The creation of the earth happened from the death of a star and matter reforming or something. I am no expert but how could all of this evidence and billions of pounds of research be wrong??

And these things are the basis for Christianity, and in part for other religions. So therefore, how can they be correct? If they have been proven wrong

 

[Guardian]

Moderators why hasn't this derogatory drivvel been shut down yet?
It basically sticks two fingers up at a very large group of people; me included, and tells them they are wrong to follow their religion.

 

[Blitz187]

^ Its not derogatory and there is civil discussion going on here throughout the entire thread, thats why it hasnt been shut down. Why are people not allowed to talk about the belief or unbelief of god?

 

[Guardian]

^ Its not derogatory and there is civil discussion going on here throughout the entire thread, thats why it hasnt been shut down. Why are people not allowed to talk about the belief or unbelief of god?

It focuses on a VERY significant topic. One which, by being on the 'I Don't' side of things, results in you saying that every single christian on the planet is wrong.

 

[Pagey279]

Well someone must be wrong, so whats wrong with some educated discussion where people voice their opinions as to what they believe?
It might help people broaden their views and become a little less narrow minded

 

[Touring Mars]

Moderators why hasn't this derogatory drivvel been shut down yet?

The short answer is because it doesn't contravene any of the rules of the site.

The longer answer is that this is the Opinions forum after all, and the owner of the site wouldn't have an opinions forum unless he was comfortable with the concept of allowing people of all opinions to express their views, so long as they do so within the rules of the site.

It basically sticks two fingers up at a very large group of people; me included, and tells them they are wrong to follow their religion.

No, it doesn't. This thread provides a forum for people from all viewpoints to express themselves and to debate with people who may hold opposing views to themselves. If you find it offensive, then it's probably best if you didn't participate - but you should atleast respect the right of others to participate. What you are saying is that you think this discussion should be shut down simply because you personally find it offensive, and therefore we should effectively censor what everyone else might have to say about it. I would imagine that the 350+ different contributors to this thread over the last three years may not agree with your views on that one.

every single christian on the planet is wrong.

But that is a possibility, and it is a possibility that everyone ought to be allowed to discuss.

How can you hope to change someone's views by silencing them and shutting down the debate? If you don't agree with what people are saying, or you feel strongly enough about the topic, then you should try contributing in a constructive manner rather than asking why the discussion hasn't been closed yet.

 

[BobK]

It focuses on a VERY significant topic. One which, by being on the 'I Don't' side of things, results in you saying that every single christian on the planet is wrong.

Which, by implication, means that Christians are saying that every single Jew is wrong. Every single Muslim is wrong. Every single Buddhist is wrong. Every single Hindu is wrong. Every single... you get the idea.

Is that what you're trying to say here? Why is it okay for you to say they're wrong but not okay for them to say you're wrong?

 

[Blitz187]

^ Took the words right out of my mouth BobK 👍

 

[marchi]

Putting it simply, when somebody oppresses society for personal gain, I find it difficult to place faith in them. Not only this but can people honestly tell me that when you see some person on the street, claiming they're jesus, you wouldn't instantly throw them in the nuthouse?

It's easy to see why people follow religion. It gives them guidance on values and ethics 'how ever dated and wrong some of them may be' but it also prays on ignorance. Not accepting homosexuals in modern society is not exactly something you can ignore. They may be a minority, but the support base is massively increasing. The bible says love thy neighbour, but how come the church tells us not to? Why can't two grown men marry one another?

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The bible itself says that love is the most important thing. But apparently some groups say otherwise.

 

[TankAss95]

I have finally came to the conclusion that any points that I make in this whole discussion is becoming worthless, due to my current, obvious lack of knowledge in the many fields of studies that I am including in my arguments.
For this reason I will temporally discontinue and contributions in this thread until I have more substantial understanding. It seems to be that my contributions in this thread are not productive, but rather the opposite, and I apologise for that.
There are a few questions that I would like answered before I leave, though.
It seems to be that most atheists bring forward supporting a variety of ideas such as rationalism, empiricism, materialism, existentialism, and humanism (I am sure there would be more). Why do they continue such lines of thought when they have all been criticised for having major, inescapable flaws?
Why is it that they often say that religion is so dangerous, and outdated, when it has given us so much of the things that we enjoy in western civilisation today?
Why is it that they often say atheism (when I say atheism, I do not refer it to a religion, but rather view of the world) is totally logical, when it was the very thing that drove some of the prominent disasters of the 20th century?
I am by no means classing atheism as an evil view, but rather that many branches of that thought have been proven destructive, all while the common new atheist denies this?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Which, by implication, means that Christians are saying that every single Jew is wrong. Every single Muslim is wrong. Every single Buddhist is wrong. Every single Hindu is wrong. Every single... you get the idea.

Is that what you're trying to say here? Why is it okay for you to say they're wrong but not okay for them to say you're wrong?

Exactly, that is what he is saying.

People like Zamado75 drive me nuts. I mean, large amount of people? This is a forum open to the world.

There are more people of other religions in the world.

To cater to the demands of people from 1 religion is silly.

And Tankass95, atheism did not drive the disasters in the 20th century. Atheism did not drive Hitler to kill 6 million Jews, rather it was his unwillingness to tolerate the Jewish religion in society and probably a mental health issue that did it.

 

[TankAss95]

Exactly, that is what he is saying.

People like Zamado75 drive me nuts. I mean, large amount of people? This is a forum open to the world.

There are more people of other religions in the world.

To cater to the demands of people from 1 religion is silly.

And Tankass95, atheism did not drive the disasters in the 20th century. Atheism did not drive Hitler to kill 6 million Jews, rather it was his unwillingness to tolerate the Jewish religion in society and probably a mental health issue that did it.

I think the story is that Hitler saw the belief in a deity of any kind a weakness to humanity. He wanted to get rid of such thoughts in his superior race, and cleverly twisted religion to get himself into power to allow him to achieve his goals. I'm not sure, though.
Even with ignoring Hitler, what about Stalin and Mao?

 

[Pagey279]

And Tankass95, atheism did not drive the disasters in the 20th century. Atheism did not drive Hitler to kill 6 million Jews, rather it was his unwillingness to tolerate the Jewish religion in society and probably a mental health issue that did it.

Many historians have speculated that after World War 1 hitler was left with nothing, he had a suitcase with his clothes and nothing else. He saw the successful and wealthy Jews around him and didnt like it. Plus the fact he might have thought that they weren't true Germans (yes i know hitler was Austrian) so they did not have the right to be wealthier than him or any of his fellow countrymen (this is similar to the beliefs of a minority in modern society, the english defence league comes to mind) . This viewpoint is noticeable in Mein Kampf.

In my opinion some, and only some, people "hate" other religions simply because its contrary to what they believe. However i do not think this to be the case with Hitler, as was said it was his lack of acceptance of Jews being successful in a society where he himself was not.

 

[Akira AC]

I have finally came to the conclusion that any points that I make in this whole discussion is becoming worthless, due to my current, obvious lack of knowledge in the many fields of studies that I am including in my arguments.
For this reason I will temporally discontinue and contributions in this thread until I have more substantial understanding. It seems to be that my contributions in this thread are not productive, but rather the opposite, and I apologise for that.
There are a few questions that I would like answered before I leave, though.
It seems to be that most atheists bring forward supporting a variety of ideas such as rationalism, empiricism, materialism, existentialism, and humanism (I am sure there would be more). Why do they continue such lines of thought when they have all been criticised for having major, inescapable flaws?
Why is it that they often say that religion is so dangerous, and outdated, when it has given us so much of the things that we enjoy in western civilisation today?
Why is it that they often say atheism (when I say atheism, I do not refer it to a religion, but rather view of the world) is totally logical, when it was the very thing that drove some of the prominent disasters of the 20th century?
I am by no means classing atheism as an evil view, but rather that many branches of that thought have been proven destructive, all while the common new atheist denies this?

People like Stalin and Mao used progress as a vehicle to maintenance on power, not atheism as is wrongly believed, Hitler proclaimed himself as a god which outright denies any conception or claim that he represented or resembled any atheists aspects, the mere meaning of atheism is the negation of gods existence, which means that atheism cant be used as a vehicle or method to sustain what Stalin and Mao did which was totalitarism in the name of progress, this mistakes occur when the definition of atheism is wrongly mistaken with the ideologies that includes this believe, analogically there has been no deaths in the name of atheism, just in the name of god or in the name of an ideology.

When you ask for questing the things done by atheism you are confusing concepts, you confuse science with atheism and you confuse the very concept of atheism, bad things were done using science, which is different to say to say that such things were done in the name of science, likewise science have done arguably bad things(killing animals for research and study for example) but these thing were done to accomplish a greater good and don't impose an ideology or a believe.

Here I just respond the questions that you do towards atheism and science, unlike you who dismisses and overlooks most of the questions that everyone formulates when everyone responds every question that you make, no wonder why that guy got tired with you and got banned.

 

[berty1979]

This is an awesome thread, I come too late to the party to start joining in but great read 👍

 

[Strittan]

I think the story is that Hitler saw the belief in a deity of any kind a weakness to humanity. He wanted to get rid of such thoughts in his superior race, and cleverly twisted religion to get himself into power to allow him to achieve his goals. I'm not sure, though.
Even with ignoring Hitler, what about Stalin and Mao?

If Hitler was an atheist, why would he hate the Jews? From what I've been told, Hitler was pissed at the Jews because the Jews killed Jesus. Maybe I've been told wrong though.

As far as I know most wars is a matter of "My God has a bigger penis than your God". That and USA's desperate need for oil drives most wars nowadays I'd say. The "war against terror" is just something the US government call it to hide the truth. At least that's what I think.

 

[TankAss95]

If Hitler was an atheist, why would he hate the Jews? From what I've been told, Hitler was pissed at the Jews because the Jews killed Jesus. Maybe I've been told wrong though.

As far as I know most wars is a matter of "My God has a bigger penis than your God". That and USA's desperate need for oil drives most wars nowadays I'd say. The "war against terror" is just something the US government call it to hide the truth. At least that's what I think.

I have answered why in my above post. If Hitler believed in no God, and thought any beliefs of God was weakness (a weakness that he didn't want in his 'superior race') then it makes sense.
As I have said above, didn't Hitler use religion cleverly to get himself into power? Many people have referred to Hitler as being a nihilist.

Please read my posts carefully.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

As far as I know most wars is a matter of "My God has a bigger penis than your God". That and USA's desperate need for oil drives most wars nowadays I'd say. The "war against terror OIL!" is just something the US government knows is the truth. At least that's what I think.

There were no Weapons of Mass Distruction, more like weapons of Mass Distraction .

I think the story is that Hitler saw the belief in a deity of any kind a weakness to humanity. He wanted to get rid of such thoughts in his superior race, and cleverly twisted religion to get himself into power to allow him to achieve his goals. I'm not sure, though.

More like Hitler saw that people who were Jewish or tried to help the Jewish were not being loyal to him (They weren't), and it is a possibility that he thought he WAS a god. He wanted to rid of possible traitors in his "superior" race. Hitler was a incredibly persuasive man. His oral communication skills brought out emotion and a response in the people who supported him. There is a reason he was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. Being that your not sure, a quick google search before you post (like I just did) would help you, a lot.

 

[Strittan]

I have answered why in my above post. If Hitler believed in no God, and thought any beliefs of God was weakness (a weakness that he didn't want in his 'superior race') then it makes sense.
As I have said above, didn't Hitler use religion cleverly to get himself into power? Many people have referred to Hitler as being a nihilist.

Please read my posts carefully.

Sorry but that makes no sense. If he hated all religions he wouldn't attempt to erase just one of them.

 

[PeterJB]

i have answered why in my above post. If hitler believed in no god, and thought any beliefs of god was weakness (a weakness that he didn't want in his 'superior race') then it makes sense.
As i have said above, didn't hitler use religion cleverly to get himself into power? Many people have referred to hitler as being a nihilist.

Please read my posts carefully.

I wouldn't say Hitler did his acts in the name of atheism. If that was the case he would have attempted to exterminate all thiests. He was using Jews as a scapegoat for the devastation upon Germany during the First World War and the years after it. Plus, for a while he had nothing and the Jews he observed appeared to be rolling in money.