Do you believe in God?

[Mike_grpA]

I completely agree with you @Scaff if any evidence did come to light that would mean a re-evaluation of creation was required, any logical person would consider it. My opinion is as it is because I am a man of science. The beauty of science is that it is constantly evolving as new evidence comes to light. I also don't find it probable that any evidence of a god would ever be found, as it's a belief held by people long before Christianity ever existed, and not even the most hardcore of religious people have found evidence of any kind.

I apologise if my wording could have been taken out of the context I meant it in, but by saying I can say something without doubt, I mean I myself have no doubt, not that I am solid in a belief that couldn't be changed with any evidence to the contrary.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think quite a number of people get stuck in a reactionary state where while their true stance aligns with atheism, the way they present aligns more with non-theism. Comments like "There is no God..... and I hate him" ensue, and give me a good laugh.

We'll have future generations that will be largely indifferent to the concept of God I expect, and with no real push or pull on the subject.

 

[Dotini]

There is some shake-up going on in cosmological circles these days, with talk of new models with no beginning and no end, avoiding singularities and dark energy. Some serious mainstream physicists are now beginning to speak of the "big bang" as unscientific.

Obviously science evolves. Sometimes that involves new paradigms, which can be unsettling. In my case, a certain tolerance for ambiguity is helpful in dealing with this.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yes there is a God. Who else could have come up with something as infuriatingly and needlessly complex as the clotting cascade.

 

[huskeR32]

Yes there is a God. Who else could have come up with something as infuriatingly and needlessly complex as the clotting cascade.

The whole irreducible complexity thing has been tried many times in here before, usually in the form of the human eye, and it doesn't sell well.

I'd encourage you to go read on such ideas in-depth on your own, but suffice it to say that all so-called examples of irreducible complexity have been debunked. Including the coagulation cascade.

 

[Spurgy 777]

The whole irreducible complexity thing has been tried many times in here before, usually in the form of the human eye, and it doesn't sell well.

I'd encourage you to go read on such ideas in-depth on your own, but suffice it to say that all so-called examples of irreducible complexity have been debunked. Including the coagulation cascade.

I think you missed the heavy sarcasm

 

[Imari]

There is some shake-up going on in cosmological circles these days, with talk of new models with no beginning and no end, avoiding singularities and dark energy. Some serious mainstream physicists are now beginning to speak of the "big bang" as unscientific.

Except that will never be true. The big bang is the best explanation of the available facts, and even if some other explanation later becomes available that is better it doesn't make it unscientific. It just makes it no longer the best explanation.

The Steady State theory was a viable contender for a while, but it just doesn't explain certain phenomena as well as the big bang does. It's not unscientific, people had an idea and tested it against reality and it turned out not to work as well as another idea.

Unscientific would be insisting that a theory is still the best explanation of events in the face of clear evidence that it isn't. In the case of cosmology, it can be pretty tough to get clear evidence, and so things tend to devolve to statistics. Once enough contrary observations have been made it becomes increasingly likely that the theory is in error rather than instrumental or observational errors.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think you missed the heavy sarcasm

I must try harder next time.

 

[sammy neuman]

Resurrection and eternal life. The most beautiful lie ever told.

Beautiful, yes. A lie? Maybe, maybe not. But it worked, didn't it? And for many, it still does.

 

[Dotini]

Beautiful, yes. A lie? Maybe, maybe not. But it worked, didn't it? And for many, it still does.

Not only a beautiful lie, but a useful one, too!

 

[sammy neuman]

Not only a beautiful lie, but a useful one, too!

Still maybe or maybe not, but definitely the Finest Kind.

 

[zzz_pt]

Just thought I should share this gem.



__________

And a very inspirational video from the same person. Simply beautiful.

 

[Com Fox]

I should be honest. I used to be Christian at the start of Year 2 at school when I was at a Christian School though had a crazy theory that God made the Big Bang . I suddenly stopped at the end of Year 7 after going through 5 years of Primary School and am now an atheist. To be honest this change of religion to no religion really makes me think that Christianity is becoming more about Brainwashing people to think God exist despite the fact there are facts against it that are growing.

Sorry, if I insulted any Christians in this site.

 

[urmie]

If the church is the problem, follow the teacher then, Jesus, whether you believe in him or not, I don't see him as a bad guide. I don't see it as "brainwashing" people to think God exists, people are just afraid of dying and wonder about those they lost, meaning of life, etc., simple as that.

This isn't just rooted in Christianity, all religions do it. "Brainwashing" to some is "hope" for others.

The Muslims I know are lawyers, doctors, very intelligent and very much into their faith.
Is it "fairy tales" for them to believe in God?
Is there a contradiction with belief and highly-educated people?

If no God, then the famous question of "what is the meaning of life?" comes about.
Randomness? If the rocks were a few centimeters off, no Earth?

I always say we all find out when we die, the problem is you cannot come back and tell the real truth.

Unfortunately, I think if there was 100% proof of no God, the world would explode, too many religious folk wouldn't accept it. I wonder what that press conference would look like though, which lead scientist would give the speech, etc.

 

[zzz_pt]

Unfortunately, I think if there was 100% proof of no God, the world would explode, too many religious folk wouldn't accept it. I wonder what that press conference would look like though, which lead scientist would give the speech, etc.

wouldn't be the most honest position to suspend belief until the people who make the claim that god exists present 1 single proof/evidence?

Proving a negative (outside mathematics and some other very specific cases) it's impossible and pointless.

ps1: Jesus himself (if you believe in the bible) talked about the church as his bride. But I understand the cherry picking.

ps2: I don't have the time to answer to all the other ideas atm but I think someone will do it.

 

[Imari]

If no God, then the famous question of "what is the meaning of life?" comes about.
Randomness? If the rocks were a few centimeters off, no Earth?

Why does life have to have a meaning?

If I asked "What is the meaning of cheese?" you'd look at me like I was a bit weird. It's just cheese, it is because it tastes nice and people enjoy it.

Unfortunately, I think if there was 100% proof of no God, the world would explode, too many religious folk wouldn't accept it. I wonder what that press conference would look like though, which lead scientist would give the speech, etc.

As far as the Christian God, he's already logically impossible as described. It could be that there's something very similar that turns out to be the Christian God, but according to the definition that Christians give he cannot exist. This has been the case and has been known to be the case for quite some time.

If you ask a Christian about this, the answer you will probably get is "Because God" or some variation thereof. You know, the same answer you get to any piece of information that doesn't conform to their worldview.

The world would not explode, because Christians have been dealing with people telling them that there's no God for ages. It's hardly slowed them down. These are not the sort of people that would accept any sort of rational proof of non-existence anyway, they would simply say "nuh-uh" and carry on.

Is it "fairy tales" for them to believe in God?

No, they're just aware that there's a difference between belief and fact.

Is there a contradiction with belief and highly-educated people?

No, they're just aware that there's a difference between belief and fact.

I've met highly educated people who were believers in various faiths, and the thing that they have in common is that they're aware that it's a belief. They know that there's no particularly rational reason to hold any particular belief, but they do so because of whatever personal reasons they have. They like the community, they like the idea of the religion, they feel that it helps them be a better person, whatever.

There are good reasons to be part of a religion. The difference with educated people is that they generally don't pretend that it's because the religion is objectively true. They may think that it is, but they're unlikely to tell you that because they're aware that they have no evidence to establish that it's objectively true.

 

[urmie]

wouldn't be the most honest position to suspend belief until the people who make the claim that god exists present 1 single proof/evidence?

What I mean is there are more religious folk than none combined, that's why it's phrased in that way.

 

[Scaff]

If no God, then the famous question of "what is the meaning of life?" comes about.

Why do you need one and why do you need and invisible power to provide one?

Randomness? If the rocks were a few centimeters off, no Earth?

Yep, and?

 

[sammy neuman]

This isn't just rooted in Christianity, all religions do it. "Brainwashing" to some is "hope" for others.

I would not consider Hope to be brainwashing. That I am a believer has meaning only to myself, and I am free to reject that belief (and have in the past, but for subjective reasons returned). I do think that indoctrination can be brainwashing, because it does not always encourage free thinking, and can lead to unpleasant behavior.

 

[Imari]

I would not consider Hope to be brainwashing.

It isn't always, but it can be.

If someone believes that they'll burn in the eternal fires of hell unless they sacrifice enough goats, then they may find that gives them hope. The rest of us would probably consider them to be a looney, or if we were being kind we might say that they had been brainwashed into it.

Other beliefs can be just different shades of the same thing. The only thing turning you off is that "brainwashing" has a distinctly negative connotation, whereas you're seeing "hope" as a positive. But you can brainwash people into believing positive things just as well as negative, that's what product marketing relies on.

 

[05XR8]

Eternal life. I do believe there is God.

I have good debates with my father-in-law. I like how he brings up he knows something exists because there is scientific proof. Things that can be proven are reality.

Eternal life. I can say I live on. I die and am resurrected. I do live on in my daughter. My DNA. that's scientifically proven. I will never die.

My mind. Where is that? My spirit. Where is that? What is the equation? The proof that I exist. What stirs up an idea? Chemicals and information from my senses? If I am lacking all 5 senses, what am I?

I can perform magic tricks on my 4yo and never tell her the secret. She would believe to be real. Only when I tell her how it was performed, will she then have knowledge. Belief in God. "Pics. Or it didn't happen." Take my word for it. God does exist. Proof scripture. Still don't take my word for it? The collective minds of believers have been saying it for years. Maybe a new approach is to speak the language of scholars. A spiritual equation is needed for scholars to understand the simplicity of faith.

So, as the equation is still being worked on to explain our existence from when the big bang occurred. The equation of how three can qual One, will more than likely be explained on all our deathbeds.

 

[JMoney]

An open question to any atheists or agnostics: What do you believe is the origin of Pentateuch? (The first five books of the Bible, which Christians and Jews believe were written by Moses through God's guidance). In other words, where did the belief in the God of Abraham come from?

 

[Exorcet]

An open question to any atheists or agnostics: What do you believe is the origin of Pentateuch? (The first five books of the Bible, which Christians and Jews believe were written by Moses through God's guidance). In other words, where did the belief in the God of Abraham come from?

Religion is old. As Christianity borrowed from Judaism, Judaism borrowed from older religions. Zoroastrianism is one of the precursors of modern monotheistic religions (and it is actually still around itself).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

 

[JMoney]

Religion is old. As Christianity borrowed from Judaism, Judaism borrowed from older religions. Zoroastrianism is one of the precursors of modern monotheistic religions (and it is actually still around itself).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Yet the Pentateuch isn't present in Zoroastrianism- do you believe that someone was simply inspired by Zoroastrianism and decided to make up their own religion and wrote the first few books of the Old Testament to use as text? If so, who, and when?

 

[Exorcet]

I wasn't saying that it was direct transition from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity. I was using Zoroastrianism to show that some ideas in Christianity predate the religion.

I've never been an expert on the history of religion and I don't really remember the details of what I've learned (nothing at a particularly high level). I can't tell you the specific origins of Christianity, but the religion itself is not completely unique. Even the story of Jesus is similar to myths from other cultures.

The Bible itself is a compilation of stories written by many over a large span of time, the same would go for some of its parts. It wouldn't have been one person sitting down and inventing everything at once. The stories would have formed and changed over time until they were compiled together.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

who

Literally, anybody.

and when?

A long time ago (though probably not in a galaxy far, far away).

Mondegreens, malapropisms, and other accumulated errors can crop up in a simple game of Operator amongst children, in the span of a few minutes. Stretch that timeline out to centuries, mix with liberal amounts of societal change, and serve.

 

[Imari]

An open question to any atheists or agnostics: What do you believe is the origin of Pentateuch?

We'll likely never know. It was a long, long, long time ago in an age where record keeping and attribution of works was spotty at best.

This is the difference between theists and atheists. When asked a question that has no obvious answer, theists will often lean towards making up one that they feel is plausible. Atheists will probably just say "we don't know".

There's no shame in admitting that you don't know stuff. Especially when that stuff is probably unknowable without a time machine.

If pressed, the best one can do is paint in the broad strokes, which are so obvious that a child could do it. They're books, so they were probably written by a person or people like every other book that has ever been witness being written. There are other similar works that this person or people likely took at least some inspiration from. There's a rough time frame in which they were probably written, based on copies found and references from other sources. And so on.

The more interesting question is where do you think it came from, and how much of the reasoning for that can you trace back to primary sources?

 

[Liquid]

If I am lacking all 5 senses, what am I?

There are more than five senses. This is a pretty basic error which is seemingly still taught.

Hunger
Thirst
Balance
Pressure
Temperature
Pain
Humour
Closing your eyes and still being able to move your body parts and knowing where they are and being able to touch your nose without fail

et cetera, et cetera

 

[JMoney]

This is the difference between theists and atheists. When asked a question that has no obvious answer, theists will often lean towards making up one that they feel is plausible. Atheists will probably just say "we don't know".

There's no shame in admitting that you don't know stuff. Especially when that stuff is probably unknowable without a time machine.

Not necessarily- some questions I and other "theists" don't have answers to. Take the question of extraterrestrial life for example- you never see religions taking an official stance on it. Personally, I don't know whether or not there are aliens, as I'm not led to believe there are because the Bible never addresses the matter.

The more interesting question is where do you think it came from, and how much of the reasoning for that can you trace back to primary sources?

I believe it was written by Moses under guidance from God. There aren't any primary sources I can cite, as it is something I merely believe.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Take the question of extraterrestrial life for example- you never see religions taking an official stance on it.

Scientology?

Personally, I don't know whether or not there are aliens, as I'm not led to believe there are because the Bible never addresses the matter.

Revelations has a very alien bit. Then there's the sky-daddy chap, he hardly seems human, and lives, y'know... up there....