Does Anyone In This 'forum' Believe In God?

[tonibari]

I used to be agnostic, but I eventually became atheist.

Same here, raised Lutheran then became agnostic and eventually became atheist. I really believe it had mostly to do with my educational progress and growing up (I love math and physics).

The most intelligent thing I have ever read was on an atheist website that said "in this day and age of science and technology anyone who worships god must be mentally ill. You don't believe in fairies or magic so why a supreme being that controls all and performs miracles?" I also think anyone who teaches their children that the earth is 6,000 years old and men lived with dinosaurs, contrary to scientific fact, should be locked up for child abuse. Pure rubbish.

Welcome to Kansas

Athiesm always seems to involve a little too much wallowing in your own pride and thinking about how smart you are to have it all figured out for my taste. Pride / Hubris is a terrible thing (considered one of the 7 deadly sins)

"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." - Jean-Paul Sarte before he died

Well, sounds like JP Sarte did not take into consideration the not so elegant things the human design includes.

It is prideful to say you exist for whatever purpose you choose. Making that purpose helping others is not however, selfish. You are moving to the second point to get away from the first.

So an atheist choosing to further mankind is selfish? Interesting

You have made your purpose your children because you chose to do so (internal). You have no reason to do so other than your own (internal) processes. With athism everything is internal (the individual), with God there is an external factor. I don't believe it is arrogant to point out this difference.

So atheist can not be compassionate? Wow.

All this being said, everyone has the right to believe or not. I grew up in a country where there was no separation of church and state; had to go through religious studies for several years in school. It was very interesting and I experienced religion in an educational setting taught by a priest with two test a semester. I still became an atheist and aced the class every semester.

[ratchpot]

It isn't weak why? I don't see how you can go either way on this on "evidence" argument outside of people that don't believe because of some great tragedy (perhaps there was a reason they don't understand) or people that believe because they see evidence in math, nature, beauty, etc. It is just a clever little thing to say, not something to base your beliefs on.

By analogy there is no "evidence" that a perfect circle exists or has ever existed - take it to a high enough level of precision and any circle will be off. I can represent it conceptually and mathematically, and I don't think I would say I don't believe in a perfect circle because there is no actual evidence of one.

Again, you have failed to advance your argument in any meaningful way. There is a fundamental difference between believing in the concept of a perfect circle and believing that one actually exists. I can believe in the concept of a spaceship that can fly 100 people to the moon and back. There is strong evidence to suggest that such a spaceship could be built. But there's no evidence that the spacship exists or has ever been built, and therefore I do not believe the spaceship has ever been built. If they build it, I'll believe it exists. But in the meantime, I will stick to believing in the concept that such a spaceship can exist.

Likewise, I can accept the possibility (i.e. acknowledge the concept) that god created the universe. However, I rank the existence of god alongside the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, they are all equally likely to have created the universe (hint: not very likely ).

[TWP]

Christians are the ones that are selfish IMO. It is quite selfish to believe that you are the only group that is right and everyone else is wrong. It is selfish to push your beliefs on everone else. It is selfish to teach your children things that you cannot prove and are contradicted by science. It is selfish to expect 10% of your earnings for "tidings".

Religion is all about being selfish. Atheism is about having free thought. All atheists gather their own conclusions about the universe and life based on fact not fairy tales. It is selfish to expect everyone to think the same way. I believe that is what Hitler wanted.

I'd say your bulb is running on less than eighty watts...sorry I meant to say forty after reading your post for the second time...

[Craytonic]

Same here, raised Lutheran then became agnostic and eventually became atheist. I really believe it had mostly to do with my educational progress and growing up (I love math and physics).

Welcome to Kansas

Well, sounds like JP Sarte did not take into consideration the not so elegant things the human design includes.

So an atheist choosing to further mankind is selfish? Interesting

So atheist can not be compassionate? Wow.

An athiest can be compassionate, but has no reason to do so; doing good if you are an athiest has about the moral weight of eating a bowl of oats. It is the difference between the internal/external.

[fotoman]

An athiest can be compassionate, but has no reason to do so; doing good if you are an athiest has about the moral weight of eating a bowl of oats. It is the difference between the internal/external.

This is where your 100% wrong - lets analyze the "reason to do so"

Definition of compassion 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

its a FEELING - you can have feelings with or without god

if your talking about kindness and doing right by your fellow man and being a "good Person?" (a good person as opposed to committing good acts) your theory is that an athiest can commit good acts but can not be a good person. because it has the "moral weight of a bowl of oats"

Under your analysis the only way that someone can be a good person is if a set of rules are established and the fear of punishment will occur if not followed. That would give it moral value

HOwever, is that a good person at all? - no it is not.

I would argue that a good person is one who does good acts wihtout expectation of reward or under threat of punishment.

Is a MORAL person someone who does things because he is told to, or because he believes it is the right thing to do independant of punishment or reward

in fact - you have it backwards - a "religious" person can not be a "good person" under most popular religions, as they do so in order to be obediant/ curry favor/ or avoid punishment.

however, the athiest who commits good acts is truly a good/ moral person because he can do so and not be doing so out of any selfish benefit.

[pubus]

many nice thoughts and quotes here and very interestic topic Kostas

I may just say that I trully believe that there is a God, not a particulat one, as many faiths refer to, but there is someone out there for sure.

Anyway in Poland, where I live, a faith comes just to one thing, that being a catolic, you cant just be a passive catolic, you have to wisit church, give some money to churches, even you can say, the more you give the mroe catolic you are. And that scares me in all, many takes me as a non believer as I dont give a thing about churches, prayers and stuff, im not really into it.

But i do believe in God, just dont participate in all the sacral gatherings

[Pugwash]

I believe that is what Hitler wanted.

You lose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[hambone]

I do believe there is a God or a spirit greater than man. I keep my beliefs personal for the most part, but am happy to answer the question. What I do not believe in is the gross hypocricy of organized religion and the billions of people who use it as a cloak and cover to make amends and excuses for their misdeeds. Too many an evil bastard has wreaked havoc upon his fellow man only to go to church on Sunday to be absolved of wrong doing. That is complete [censored]. Then there are the holy rollers with their 'holier then thou' affrontery that nauseates me to no end. It has been my experience and observation time and time again that atheists have much more compassion and love in their heart for their fellow man simply because they believe that they only have one shot at this thing called life and so they make the best of it. Many so called people of religion feel they can get away with any behaivior because in the end they will be forgiven and admiitted to heaven. Religion has been the principle cuase of suffering since the beginning of history.

[TwoTone]

What I do not believe in is the gross hypocricy of organized religion and the billions of people who use it as a cloak and cover to make amends and excuses for their misdeeds.

Then there are the holy rollers with their 'holier then thou' affrontery that nauseates me to no end.

Religion has been the principle cause of suffering since the beginning of history.

I've left this topic alone on purpose...

However, I have to respond to Hambone...

I agree whole heartedly with the above statements...

I think that's why when choosing the Twelve, Jesus did not pick one Religious person...

At the end of the day - Man needs Religion, but God doesn't...

justmy2centsforwhatitsworth

TT

[Roland]

I did not want to post in this thread. There were too many irrational post, like science and religion contradict each other etc. But after watching it over the last few days, I feel I have to reply. By the way, I am a scientist and here is my answer to the question:

I believe in God, the one with the capital G, not "a god"; I attend Mass on Sundays and on holidays of obligation.

[Craytonic]

This is where your 100% wrong - lets analyze the "reason to do so"

Definition of compassion 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

its a FEELING - you can have feelings with or without god

if your talking about kindness and doing right by your fellow man and being a "good Person?" (a good person as opposed to committing good acts) your theory is that an athiest can commit good acts but can not be a good person. because it has the "moral weight of a bowl of oats"

Under your analysis the only way that someone can be a good person is if a set of rules are established and the fear of punishment will occur if not followed. That would give it moral value

HOwever, is that a good person at all? - no it is not.

I would argue that a good person is one who does good acts wihtout expectation of reward or under threat of punishment.

Is a MORAL person someone who does things because he is told to, or because he believes it is the right thing to do independant of punishment or reward

in fact - you have it backwards - a "religious" person can not be a "good person" under most popular religions, as they do so in order to be obediant/ curry favor/ or avoid punishment.

however, the athiest who commits good acts is truly a good/ moral person because he can do so and not be doing so out of any selfish benefit.

Sigh, i see exactly what you are saying and you are still missing it. Really busy tonight, will try to explain tomorrow.

[Pugwash]

Too many an evil bastard has wreaked havoc upon his fellow man only to go to church on Sunday to be absolved of wrong doing. That is complete [censored]. Then there are the holy rollers with their 'holier then thou' affrontery that nauseates me to no end. It has been my experience and observation time and time again that atheists have much more compassion and love in their heart for their fellow man simply because they believe that they only have one shot at this thing called life and so they make the best of it. Many so called people of religion feel they can get away with any behaivior because in the end they will be forgiven and admiitted to heaven. Religion has been the principle cuase of suffering since the beginning of history.

This is one of the key arguments for the non-existence of God. Remember how jealous and fickle he was when people worshipped other gods, and when his name was taken in vain? Today, there are so many people hiding behind the mantle of religion that surely he'd be a-smitin' them a lot more often.

A loony kills over and over because God told him to? Surely the God we've been taught about would have seriously [censored] on that guy's cornflakes after the first killing in his name.

Or the priests molesting children, or the white-haired evangelists with their planes and TV shows, or the hypocrites. These are precisely the sorts of people that we were told God despised and smote with a pure vengeance.

And let's not forget the church you pay tithes to was the same church that was behind the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition (that no-one expects, naturally). Both of these crimes against humanity were done in God's name by His followers. At what point were they not evil acts done in God's name by His followers as His will?

QED: The fact that the Spanish Inquisition happened means there is no God.

[Craytonic]

This is one of the key arguments for the non-existence of God. Remember how jealous and fickle he was when people worshipped other gods, and when his name was taken in vain? Today, there are so many people hiding behind the mantle of religion that surely he'd be a-smitin' them a lot more often.

A loony kills over and over because God told him to? Surely the God we've been taught about would have seriously [censored] on that guy's cornflakes after the first killing in his name.

Or the priests molesting children, or the white-haired evangelists with their planes and TV shows, or the hypocrites. These are precisely the sorts of people that we were told God despised and smote with a pure vengeance.

And let's not forget the church you pay tithes to was the same church that was behind the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition (that no-one expects, naturally). Both of these crimes against humanity were done in God's name by His followers. At what point were they not evil acts done in God's name by His followers as His will?

QED: The fact that the Spanish Inquisition happened means there is no God.

You are muddling God with human religion.

For instance, you proclaimed yourself a diety earlier in this thread. If I decide to worship you and kill millions in your name (with no instruction from you to do so) is that your fault? I think not. It would just mean I am a wack job (which may be true either way depending on who you ask).

[Pugwash]

You are muddling God with human religion.

For instance, you proclaimed yourself a diety earlier in this thread. If I decide to worship you and kill millions in your name (with no instruction from you to do so) is that your fault? I think not. It would just mean I am a wack job (which may be true either way depending on who you ask).

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

Pick one.

[jonthebhoy]

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

Pick one.

What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented! - then we might easily reply: 'We are, indeed, not among the least contented. You, however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book... As things are, however, all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.

from Nietzsche's Assorted Opinions and Maxims,s. 98, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

He was a smooth talkin twaddle that Nietzsche!

JTB

[omni]

I did not want to post in this thread. There were too many irrational post, like science and religion contradict each other etc. But after watching it over the last few days, I feel I have to reply. By the way, I am a scientist and here is my answer to the question:

I believe in God, the one with the capital G, not "a god"; I attend Mass on Sundays and on holidays of obligation.

You'd be surprised how many scientists I've met who believe in God. Having grown up in a family of scientists, I believe in God. It took some maturing through my hippie youth but I finally came around and found I wasn't alone; nor the peace it brought. Overcoming the tendency of literary vs. allegoric interpretations had a lot to do with it.

[Guest aclaimsman]

You'd be surprised how many scientists I've met who believe in God. Having grown up in a family of scientists, I believe in God. It took some maturing through my hippie youth but I finally came around and found I wasn't alone; nor the peace it brought. Overcoming the tendency of literary vs. allegoric interpretations had a lot to do with it.

As does a word called "faith"

[Craytonic]

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

Pick one.

You are over-looking the major shift as christianity arose and th New Testament was written that marked a substantial change in man's relationship with God (speaking jews v. christians).

[eddhead]

Obviously you can choose to do good. I know plenty of athiests (probably yourself included) that are "good" people that do "good" things.

But you do good because you choose to do so, not because you should. You chose your purpose and made it to do good. There is no "should" behind it other than your personal justifications for it. You would be justified similarly if you chose to build sand castles on the beach all day as to help others. Your purpose is what you choose it to be, which I find the selfish part of athism.

i agree with your assessment but not your conclusion (and i am not an athiest btw). In my view, an athiest who does good by choice has more altruistic motives than someone who does so because 'they should'. I I think that someone who does good by choice is more heartfelt than someone who is being consistent with some coda.

I really hope that most people who do good, love, etc.. (athiests, agnostic, or believers) are acting on their desire to do good for good's sake, and not to do good because that is what you are supposed to do.

You are over-looking the major shift as christianity arose and th New Testament was written that marked a substantial change in man's relationship with God (speaking jews v. christians).

And if you are a Christian (and I am) you believe in the tenents of both the new and old testament. The thing I struggle with is reconciling the the differences in the way God is perceived and represented in each canon. The old testament represents god in very righteous and even vengefull tones.. the new testament as a God of mercy and fogivness. I am not sure how you follow both. IT is yet another reason I struggle with organized religous dogma.

EDIT" @ Pug.. you beat me to it again!

[KB]

I must admit I cringed when V started this thread discussions on Religion rarely run smooth, however I must admit you guys have by and large handled yourselves very well.

What I find strange is this constant need for people to question each others beliefs, some of my closest friends (including my wife) are regular church goers so I know it is possible to live in harmony, in my opinion V's treament of those little old ladies was rude not just to their religion but to them as senior citizens.

Ken

[Pugwash]

in my opinion V's treament of those little old ladies was rude not just to their religion but to them as senior citizens.

Sure, but they turned up at his house to try to change his beliefs. They were ready for it and in some ways deserved it as they obviously had no respects for his beliefs.

[sssurfer]

god?

A three letter word word with no meaning.

A superfluous hypothesis.

Religion?

In the best case, an illusion.

In the worst case, a symptom of a(n even widespread) mental disorder.

(Yes, this post is offensive and ready for deletion... After all, it's just an old story).

@Phoband: Pho, I am amazed. Dawkins! You might have a bro-in-mind here.

Just a little more angry.

[olivia]

Sure, but they turned up at his house to try to change his beliefs. They were ready for it and in some ways deserved it as they obviously had no respects for his beliefs.

I don't think there is much evidence for that in V's initial post.. that they had no respect for his beliefs. They asked him essentially the same question that V asked everyone in this forum, i.e., Does anyone in this 'house' believe in God? Do you conclude that V is trying to change our beliefs?

Edited March 5, 2007 by olivia

[ratchpot]

QED: The fact that the Spanish Inquisition happened means there is no God.

You are muddling God with human religion.

For instance, you proclaimed yourself a diety earlier in this thread. If I decide to worship you and kill millions in your name (with no instruction from you to do so) is that your fault? I think not. It would just mean I am a wack job (which may be true either way depending on who you ask).

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

I actually agree with Craytonic on this point. Essentially your argument is: "if the Christian God was said to have acted a certain way before, then, unless he continues to act that way in similar circumstances, he doesn't exist". It's a fair point about the Bible being fiction, but it's an invalid argument against the existence of God.

[istretch]

I always was dumbfounded how/why people believe in modern times. People continue to pray while there has been no creditable study ever done that shows that there is any effect from doing so. As I said before... If the monotheisic personable god were to exist s/he could only be one of three possibilities. 1) powerless 2) abscent or 3) evil. 11 million people exterminated by Hitler's Germany God was your pic 1, 2, or 3?

Interestin article in the New York Times Magazine... Why do we Believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/inde...artner=rssyahoo