Do you believe in God?

[TankAss95]

That's why it's best if I stay out of everything, but for some reason I just can't put down a good fight.

Likewise.
You learn stuff from arguing. You know whats weak in your argument and what's strong. After a while you learn to reconsider and look at things in a better perspective.

 

[Azuremen]

I always manage to insult everybody somehow. That's why it's best if I stay out of everything, but for some reason I just can't put down a good fight, or case for my position rather.

You may want to reconsider how you word your statements and support them. Calling a large group of people weak-willed or ignorant isn't going to make your case appeal to them anymore.

 

[Dennisch]

You may want to reconsider how you word your statements and support them. Calling a large group of people weak-willed or ignorant isn't going to make your case appeal to them anymore.

Where does your statement about Oregonians fit in then?

 

[homeforsummer]

I believe that everything was created by a deity. As I said the fact that we are conscious and can admire and attempt to understand the universe is enough evidence to convince me.

And that's something I find overly simplistic.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "creationist". If you mean someone who rejects evolution and supports creation of every species of life, then to be quite honest I don't want to be part of that discussion. I simply don't know enough to argue for/against evolution. I tried and failed, and I don't want to annoy the GTP community any more than I already am.

I didn't use the word "creationist". I used the term "creation theory", and I used it to illustrate a point. Someone who sees everything as being created by God is taking a significantly more "simple" viewpoint that someone taking the time to study how we actually got here.

In that respect, and several others, believing in God, or believing that God did certain things (or everything), is much more "simple" than my personal viewpoint.

I suppose I also see living life by the rules suggested in a religious text simplistic compared to making my own decisions in life.

 

[huskeR32]

I truly believe religion is evil. This includes atheism.

Again with this? Really? Atheism is not a religion, or a belief. It's a lack of belief.

And atheism is just as terrible as claiming to be religious. Neither side knows for sure, but they choose sides like people do in war.

If you knew what atheism really meant, you'd know that atheism doesn't claim to know anything for sure. Atheism simply means not believing in god because there's no proof. To go further and say definitively "I am 100% sure there is not a god" is NOT part of atheism. Rather, it's a thought that some atheists have.

If a few agnostics said "I am 100% sure that aliens have visited Earth in the ancient past," would that mean that a belief in aliens is suddenly part of the definition of agnosticism? Of course not.

You can't lack belief in god and admit that is is possible.

Of course you can. In fact, that describes me exactly. I feel the same way about things other than god too: unicorns, bigfoot, dragons, etc. I don't believe in them because I've never seen any evidence of them. But I admit that all of them possibly exist.

The opposite of agnosticism is atheism and religion.

Hogwash. Let's look at the line below. Let's say that point A is for people who 100% do not believe in god, and point B is for people who 100% do believe in god. Line D contains everything in between those two extremes, but does not include the extremes.

In your view, theists are at point B, all Atheists are at point A, and agnostics are on line D.

You've got B and D right, good work. Where you're wrong though, is point A. This is due to your complete misunderstanding of what atheism is.

In reality, atheism on it's own lives at point C. It doesn't lie anywhere on the line at all. Atheism isn't an active belief in anything. Atheism is choosing to not commit to any point on the line because there's no evidence to base that decision upon.

Now, some atheists may be 100% convinced there is not a god. These people are at point A, but not because of their atheism. They are there due to a belief that they hold that is separate from atheism.

 

[TankAss95]

And that's something I find overly simplistic.

And I disagree. Here's how I think:

1. If there is no deity there is no meaning to everything.
2. If there is no meaning to everything then we would have never found out there was no meaning.

As I have mentioned above, the fact that we can observe and attempt to understand how the universe works is enough evidence for me to believe in God. Consider Einstein's E=MC^2 (can't find the squared button lol). Isn't it amazing how we can write it on the back of a post stamp? Even when we consider more complex quantum physics formulas, I find it stunning how we can comprehend the universe in such a way.
The universe is so complex yet so simple.

I didn't use the word "creationist". I used the term "creation theory", and I used it to illustrate a point. Someone who sees everything as being created by God is taking a significantly more "simple" viewpoint that someone taking the time to study how we actually got here.

In that respect, and several others, believing in God, or believing that God did certain things (or everything), is much more "simple" than my personal viewpoint.

I suppose I also see living life by the rules suggested in a religious text simplistic compared to making my own decisions in life.

Sorry my mistake. I suppose I'm just that kind of guy who can't comprehend that. We don't know if there is a multiverse or not, but let's assume that there was an absolute beginning to everything (the alternative is eternal universe). I just can't comprehend how something came to be out of nothing. You could turn that argument back and say that about God, but I believe that God is the ultimate reality. I just find it the most plausible explanation.

 

[YSSMAN]

And I disagree. Here's how I think:

1. If there is no deity there is no meaning to everything.
2. If there is no meaning to everything then we would have never found out there was no meaning.

Why does there have to be a meaning to everything? Or does their have to be a meaning to justify your own existence? We're finding out that, more and more frequently, a majority of things that occur in our universe are nothing more than happy little accidents.

Life has found a way, completely separate from some invisible hand guiding things. Its your purpose to extend the dominance of the human race, and that's really about it. What you do with the rest of your life is up to you. There is no limit beyond what you and your ideals put upon it. Why waste your life worried about something that is probably not there thinks about what you do? Be a good person, help people out, and you've worked things out alright, I'd say.

 

[Hun200kmh]

... and you've worked things out alright, I'd say ...

meh ... I sense some kind of purpose in life in such a statement. If I thought that life had no meaning and no purpose, that a big city's population had no more intrinsic value than an ant colony, what would I consider about a human "working things out alright" ? At best, when a human dies, it's just like any ant, probably he and it just "worked out how to survive the best possible way until they died. And then they were, done, dusted, puff ... no more"

 

[fitftw]

HuskeR32, actually I would put agnostics at point C, because everything on the line is a SURE thing. Everyone at point B definitely believes, everyone at point A definitely doesn't, everyone at C stays out of it. All point D is is people who are sure there either IS or ISN'T a god, at whatever part of the line, whether they lean towards A or B. A typical statement would be "75% of me believes in god, 25% doesn't." That's not an agnostic statement. An agnostic statement is "I neither believe nor disbelieve." That's point C, and that's agnostics. I would place all atheists in point A or in your definition of atheism, point D. I would place all theists at point B, or also point D.

As an atheist, would you say "100% of me doesn't believe in god?" Or could you say "25% of me does?" Either way you're point A or D.

As an agnostic, one would say "0% of me believes and 0% of me doesn't"

 

[homeforsummer]

And I disagree. Here's how I think:

1. If there is no deity there is no meaning to everything.
2. If there is no meaning to everything then we would have never found out there was no meaning.

1. Who says anything has to have meaning?
2. False.

As I have mentioned above, the fact that we can observe and attempt to understand how the universe works is enough evidence for me to believe in God. Consider Einstein's E=MC^2 (can't find the squared button lol). Isn't it amazing how we can write it on the back of a post stamp?

Not really. It's amazing for what it represents, but then it's an equation so it's designed to be simple to understand.

Start plugging a few numbers in there to represent energy, mass and the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Then try fitting that on the back of a postage stamp...

Even when we consider more complex quantum physics formulas, I find it stunning how we can comprehend the universe in such a way.
The universe is so complex yet so simple.

This is where I come in with one of quantum physics' favourite statements:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't know enough about quantum physics"

Everything looks simple when you don't know enough about it. Football looks like a pretty simple game to me, you just kick a ball into a net, but I don't know the first thing about positioning, strategy, choosing the right team etc...

Put it this way: The sort of people who make quantum physics look simple have spent the best part of their lives studying it in great detail. They make it look simple in the same way a team manager makes running a football club look simple...

 

[TankAss95]

1. Who says anything has to have meaning?

Me I guess...
For everything to come from nothing it has to have had an ultimate purpose behind it.

2. False.

Looks like I'm not getting far with this then...

Not really. It's amazing for what it represents, but then it's an equation so it's designed to be simple to understand.

Start plugging a few numbers in there to represent energy, mass and the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Then try fitting that on the back of a postage stamp...

What I was really meaning was how elegant nature is. What Einstein did was imagine how he would have created a universe, and use such thinking to help him understand stuff.
I remember a Honda Advert saying:
"Isn't it amazing how everything just... works?"

This is where I come in with one of quantum physics' favourite statements:

"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't know enough about quantum physics"

Everything looks simple when you don't know enough about it. Football looks like a pretty simple game to me, you just kick a ball into a net, but I don't know the first thing about positioning, strategy, choosing the right team etc...

Put it this way: The sort of people who make quantum physics look simple have spent the best part of their lives studying it in great detail. They make it look simple in the same way a team manager makes running a football club look simple...

Haha at no point was I saying that quantum physics was easy! What I was saying is how the universe was accessible to the human mind. We can actually write down interpretations of our understanding of the workings of the universe. To me that is incredible.

Try to look back to the beginning of matter/energy, space and the laws that govern them. Before that I find infinite. Nothing else makes sense to me.

 

[huskeR32]

HuskeR32, actually I would put agnostics at point C, because everything on the line is a SURE thing.

No, points A and B are sure things. Everything on the line would be all possible active religious viewpoints that aren't 100% sure of either end.

Everyone at point B definitely believes, everyone at point A definitely doesn't...

Exactly...

...everyone at C stays out of it. All point D is is people who are sure there either IS or ISN'T a god, at whatever part of the line, whether they lean towards A or B.

Not how I see it. Line D (it isn't a point) represents agnosticism to me, actively subscribing to a religious viewpoint, but not certain of the details. The different flavors of agnosticism all to some degree say there is or isn't a god, just not to the extent of those in points A or B. But they belong on the line.

A typical statement would be "75% of me believes in god, 25% doesn't." That's not an agnostic statement. An agnostic statement is "I neither believe nor disbelieve." That's point C, and that's agnostics.

I really don't want to get into the semantics of agnosticism. There's so many different flavors of it, and I don't really care. And the fact that you're placing any emphasis at all on agnosticism means you missed the entire point of my post. Which brings us to...

I would place all atheists in point A or in your definition of atheism...

Again (and again, and again, and again), atheism in itself does not include saying without a doubt that there is no god. That's a separate opinion that some atheists have. And since atheism does not actively say there is no god, it doesn't belong at point A.

In fact, because atheism, by definition, doesn't include any particular religious belief of any kind, it doesn't belong anywhere on the line.

This was the actual point of my whole post, which you didn't even address. Let's make it really simple: You (and a lot of others in this thread) have no idea what atheism really means. Please stop arguing against it any further until you do understand.

...point D. I would place all theists at point B, or also point D.

How could somebody who is a theist, and therefore has a religious belief, not be on the line?

As an atheist, would you say "100% of me doesn't believe in god?" Or could you say "25% of me does?" Either way you're point A or D.

Your mistake is thinking that as an atheist, I am 100% committed to not believing in god. I am simply committed to not believing in anything without proof. There's a big difference there, but I sense that you don't see that.

 

[Exorcet]

Looks like I'm not getting far with this then...

That's because this:

1. If there is no deity there is no meaning to everything.
2. If there is no meaning to everything then we would have never found out there was no meaning.

Isn't an argument. You supply statement 2, but you do not support it. It's blatantly untrue.

Your evidence for God basically boils down to "I don't know everything, so God did it". That's a terrible way to come to a conclusion. The real conclusion, that you're avoiding, is that you just don't know.

 

[homeforsummer]

"Isn't it amazing how everything just... works?"

That depends on the timescale. The universe is tending towards increasing entropy. It "works" a little less with every moment of passing time.

Ironically, as entropy increases, you could also say that the universe is getting simpler all the time. Or more complicated, if you consider increasing disorganisation to be more complicated. But it's also more uniform.

I still think it's misleading to imply that everything came from "nothing" too. Our best theories suggest that there has always been "everything", even prior to the big bang. All the matter in the universe was simply squeezed into an unimaginably small area. Since that area contained all matter, it was technically everything, and everywhere.

And with that sort of thing we do come back to the age-old "if the universe can't be infinite, then why can God?" thing which doesn't really get us anywhere.

As an aside though, that Honda "Cog" advert is probably my favourite ever advert...

Haha at no point was I saying that quantum physics was easy! What I was saying is how the universe was accessible to the human mind. We can actually write down interpretations of our understanding of the workings of the universe. To me that is incredible.

It's impressive for sure, but we really don't understand a great deal in the greater scheme of things. There's enough we don't know to suggest that the universe isn't that easy to understand.

 

[fitftw]

Your mistake is thinking that as an atheist, I am 100% committed to not believing in god. I am simply not committed to believing in anything without proof. There's a big difference, but I sense that you don't see that.

So if you don't believe in god without proof, and I'm not sure if there's a god because there's no proof, what separates us? Why can't you just be "not sure because there's no proof that there is or isn't a god" and why can't I just say "without proof I will certainly not believe in god."

Are you SO sure that there isn't a god just because there's no proof? How can anyone be? Why tempt fate, much like a satanist does?

Show an agnostic and an atheist proof of god, and they will both become theists, yes? Seems pretty antagonizing to be an atheist and demand proof of the existence of god (being a natural and direct adversary to theists everywhere) rather than to be agnostic, shrug your shoulders, and be an outcast on the matter until you MIGHT see god in person.

 

[homeforsummer]

Are you SO sure that there isn't a god just because there's no proof? How can anyone be? Why tempt fate, much like a satanist does?

How is it tempting fate if you don't believe God exists anyway? What non-existent vengeful being are you going to annoy, exactly?

Show an agnostic and an atheist proof of god, and they will both become theists, yes?

Not really. If God was proven to me I'd acknowledge his existence, but I wouldn't start going to church each Sunday and worshipping him.

"Theist" implies you believe in God. If he actually existed, I wouldn't need to believe in him, no more than I need to believe my laptop is real. It is real, I'm using it, so I don't need to believe in it.

And nobody is "demanding proof" of God. We simply don't believe in him in the absence of proof.

 

[fitftw]

But why can't you accept that there is a possibility of his existence, even without proof? I mean it's really not THAT far-fetched when you consider how weird this life is. I mean being alive is weird. What are we doing here? What made all of this? What made the thing that made all of this? WHAT STARTED IT ALL? Before all of this, there must have been pure blackness. Nothingness. Why was there something crawling around the nothingness to spark all the planets and such? Why is there anything? All kinds of animals, with eyes ears noses and senses just like humans? Plants, veggies, fruits, trees, water, stars, etc...SPACE is insane. So is how deep the ocean is. We still have much to explore, and I'm sure someday they will get to the bottom of it once and for all and see all there is to see. But not in our lifetime.

There's no proof that a god DIDN'T create all this.

 

[huskeR32]

So if you don't believe in god without proof, and I'm not sure if there's a god because there's no proof, what separates us? Why can't you just be "not sure because there's no proof that there is or isn't a god" and why can't I just say "without proof I will certainly not believe in god."

OK, I think now you're getting into the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism means many things to many people, and as I said before, I'm not interested in that debate.

The original point of my posts to you was that you don't know what atheism means, and you're misrepresenting atheism in your posts. And you still are.

Are you SO sure that there isn't a god just because there's no proof? How can anyone be? Why tempt fate, much like a satanist does?

Are you serious? Have you read what I'm saying? No, I'm not sure there isn't a god, and I've said so many times. I just know that there's not proof that I'm aware of now, and so I don't believe. If there would ever be proof, I would certainly accept it.

Show an agnostic and an atheist proof of god, and they will both become theists, yes? Seems pretty antagonizing to be an atheist and demand proof of the existence of god (being a natural and direct adversary to theists everywhere) rather than to be agnostic, shrug your shoulders, and be an outcast on the matter until you MIGHT see god in person.

This thread is a conversation about belief in god, what do you want us to talk about? Within this discussion, when a theist claims god exists, the logical response for the atheist would be to ask for evidence of the claim.

If you've got a problem with the existence of this conversation, I've got a really simple solution for you: Don't participate. I came in here to discuss the topic at hand, and I don't need any self-righteous ridicule thrown at me for doing so.


**EDIT: I'm adding this on to avoid double-posting...

But why can't you accept that there is a possibility of his existence, even without proof?

For the last time, atheism by it's true definition is NOT closed to the possibility of god. Many atheists are completely open to the possibility, but would never commit to believing without proof.

Some atheists may be completely closed-minded to the possibility. So are some women. So are some gay people. So are some Germans. So are some baseball players. That closed-mindedness doesn't define atheism any more than it defines femininity, homosexuality, being German, or being a baseball player.

 

[jtv90069]

After a quick read on wiki on the meanings of Agnosticism and Atheism I have come to the conclusion that I am a Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in God (or any deity) but I don't rule it out completely (95% sure there isn't). To be honest I don't really care either way, I just like reading these arguments.

 

[homeforsummer]

But why can't you accept that there is a possibility of his existence, even without proof? I mean it's really not THAT far-fetched when you consider how weird this life is.

I don't find it that weird, but that's just me.

There's no proof that a god DIDN'T create all this.

That's not how science works.

If it was, I could say, hand on heart, that my pet hamster keeps our neighborhood free from elephants. I've never seen an elephant around here, so that must be true. There's no proof to say he doesn't keep away elephants, so that must mean he does, right?

 

[fitftw]

I just think it's silly to argue for or against the existence of god with the lack of proof on both sides. Seems to me that it is inherently known inside of everybody that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. Nobody on this planet has provided proof of god to anyone else. Therefore, literally EVERYONE should be agnostic. To be atheist or theist without proof is laughable to me. Sort of a sad joke, really. I'm thinking there's quite a bit of faith on the part of atheists and theists alike. And on that note, I bid all of you farewell and happy fighting for no gain or purpose.

PS. your pet hamster exists for a fact. That statement is irrelevant.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I just think it's silly to argue for or against the existence of god with the lack of proof on both sides. Seems to me that it is inherently known inside of everybody that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. Therefore, literally EVERYONE should be agnostic. To be atheist or theist is laughable to me. Sort of a joke, really. And on that note, I bid all of you farewell and happy fighting for no gain or purpose.

Are you agnostic when it comes to unicorns and santa too?

 

[jtv90069]

If it was, I could say, hand on heart, that my pet hamster keeps our neighborhood free from elephants. I've never seen an elephant around here, so that must be true. There's no proof to say he doesn't keep away elephants, so that must mean he does, right?

It does keep the elephants away

 

[nitrorocks]

I just think it's silly to argue for or against the existence of god with the lack of proof on both sides. Seems to me that it is inherently known inside of everybody that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. Nobody on this planet has provided proof of god to anyone else. Therefore, literally EVERYONE should be agnostic. To be atheist or theist without proof is laughable to me. Sort of a sad joke, really. I'm thinking there's quite a bit of faith on the part of atheists and theists alike. And on that note, I bid all of you farewell and happy fighting for no gain or purpose.

PS. your pet hamster exists for a fact. That statement is irrelevant.

Nothing you say makes sense. Especially the last line

 

[huskeR32]

I just think it's silly to argue for or against the existence of god with the lack of proof on both sides. Seems to me that it is inherently known inside of everybody that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. Nobody on this planet has provided proof of god to anyone else. Therefore, literally EVERYONE should be agnostic.

Actually, by your logic that we shouldn't believe without proof, we should all be atheists. Because what atheism really means is.... Oh never mind.

To be atheist or theist without proof is laughable to me. Sort of a sad joke, really. I'm thinking there's quite a bit of faith on the part of atheists and theists alike. And on that note, I bid all of you farewell and happy fighting for no gain or purpose.

PS. your pet hamster exists for a fact. That statement is irrelevant.

Unbelievable.

 

[homeforsummer]

PS. your pet hamster exists for a fact. That statement is irrelevant.

Translation: you have no comeback

Also, how do you know I actually have a hamster? Do you take my word for it? Or does he not exist, like God?

 

[RBW]

Why is it that some of the best scientists that have ever lived, believe in God?

How about that one, try to figure that out?

 

[niky]

Which God? Be specific now, or Chandrasekhar will be displeased.

By the fact that many Paleontologists (*cough* "Evilutionists" *cough*) are Christian, Einstein is a cosmicist (though Jewish by descent) and Newton was a devout Catholic, it's a pretty fair assumption that they don't all believe in the same God, and largely keep their faith and their work separate.

 

[dylansan]

Not to mention all those great Greek philosophers and mathematicians, and that's not evidence that what they believed in was true.

 

[BobK]

Absolute good does exist, but absolute evil is impossible:
"Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now beg to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work." - http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/yin-yang-dualism-cs-lewis-and-christianity/

Utter hogwash. A conclusion based on false premises. Specifically, that existence intelligence and will are all in themselves good. In fact they are neutral; neither good nor evil.

As for Hitler (or any other person) being absolute evil: Yes he did horrific things. But he does have a positive accomplishment or two, the Autobahns for example. The German highway system so impressed Eisenhower that he modeled the US interstate highway system on it.