james2mart Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I believe in God simply because there is no reason not to. There is no evidence to disprove God, and only evidence that points to the probability of a God. And gwprod, why do we need to define God logically? This is utterly pointless. We believe that God created the universe and everything in it, including the human race. We are not God, and we cannot understand God, but we can still try. God makes the rules. Like Physics. But that doesn't mean God must follow them. Like miracles. Some (idiots) say that since miracles contradict science, then God cannot exist. This is a lousy argument. a miracle BY DEFINITION is something that is supernatural or inexplicable. Thats like saying since supernatural things contradict natural things, they are impossible. Physics, Gravity, Mathematics, these are things that are in our realm of knowledge. God created our realm of knowledge. This is pointless. You can't put God in a box, and you can't say God can't do something. Its counter-intuitive. Oh, and another thing, if evolution were real, we would be able to fly and {censored}.... The mere idea that animals run to higher ground before humans even know about a disaster puts a big dent in evolution. If that sense was necessary to survive, evolution would have kept it If you say that's not the point of evolution, then just imagine us turning into stupid fish again someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) You put the tail on the donkey. You say that God cannot be understood, but that you still try. If something is literally impossible by any definition and cannot ever be achieved, what is the point of trying to achieve it? That's the problem. If you want to believe in God, do so. But why should an inexplicable entity that does what it wants for reasons that cannot ever be comprehended be an acceptable answer to why the universe functions? While it may be flippant to suggest that the reason why people say "God must have done it" is because they cant think of any other way it could have been accomplished, I think it's genuinely true. Well, God either did it or didnt. If God did it, then we can never understand how. If he didnt, we'll only know how if we figure it out for ourselves. Religionists are afraid that someone, by probing the mysteries of the universe, is going to somehow prove their faith worthless. News Flash, you're faith is worthless already. So as not to get the jesus freaks all uppity, I'll define worthless as something you cannot eat, wear, smoke, be protected from the elements by, or exchange for something else. In reference to the evolution argument. Your argument makes sense if you dont know anything about the causes of evolution, which, as I know you dont, I will let pass. Arguably the most successful life forms arent humans, or vultures, but bacteria, or ants. Even cockroaches are higher in the evolutionary success tree than humans are. They're everywhere, hard to eradicate, can eat almost anything, are immune to most forms of radiation, etc. Flying is an evolutionary advantage, but not the only one of value. Sweet fruit is an evolutionary advantage in plants, as are floating seeds or poisonous bark. Please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, get some education that doesnt have Sunday as part of it's moniker. Animals have better senses than humans do, because since human beings focus most of their cerebral mass on planning activities, they have less to devote to smell, sight, hearing, taste and touch. So, by your argument "If evolution were true, humans would have wings, have the eyesight of an eagle, be able to echolocate like a bat, be able to swim, breath water as well as air, have the olfactory sense of a turkey vulture AND a shark......" Think about it for a second. Edited February 9, 2007 by gwprod12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) You can actually believe only what you don't know. Once you know something you don't need to believe (or disbelieve) it anymore if it has been validated to be true (or false). The big fallacies many people tend to get trapped in is when they start putting science vs religion face-to-face. Flaws in a scientific theory do not automatically render a different theory or belief to be true. In other words, it makes no utter sense to perpetrate the 'conclusion' that because the evolution theory has flaws and cannot explain everything (which no serious scientist denies) therefore all life has been created by a superior being. To take it further, the fact that there still are so many unanswered questions about our universe does not automatically validate the existence of a superior being. Inversely, if it was the case, humankind could stop any scientific research right there since any effort would always lead to the same 'conclusion'. The issue with science is - not least in order to remain credible - that it needs to keep moving on by reinventing itself, by trying to find explanations for observations, by fine-tuning existing theories or by throwing over old theories and replacing them with new ones. There's a permanent element of doubt in all sciences which constantly require review and verification. On the other hand, belief and doubt are incompatible. That's why religion can go only that far but eventually needs to stop at the dogma. Any attempt at review or verification in religion will inevitably crash into the dogma wall. Edited February 9, 2007 by solaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 OT: this topic is so important that apparently somebody has registered just to take part: LifeDroidGenesis7007. Some points: 1)Human beings have a need for the Supernatural. I don't need to prove it, it has always been the case and great men throughout History have believed in it. Just to stay within my field (counselling), Jung and Roberto Assagioli are two names which come immediately to mind. 2)Many people here have been trying to relate science and Spiritual beliefs. But nobody seems to even suspect that there can be means of knowing which go beyond the ordinary senses and traditional science. 3)I believe that many people dislike Spiritual beliefs because they identify them with monotheistic religions. I can understand them, I used to feel the same: monotheistic religions seem to be there only to create denial of Man's fulfilment and hatred. But what if the Supernatural was something very different, something which had nothing to do with what most human beings believe? (see the highest Buddhist teachings or the Advaita Vedanta as a couple of examples) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B612 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 OT: this topic is so important that apparently somebody has registered just to take part: LifeDroidGenesis7007. Some points: 1)Human beings have a need for the Supernatural. I don't need to prove it, it has always been the case and great men throughout History have believed in it. Just to stay within my field (counselling), Jung and Roberto Assagioli are two names which come immediately to mind. 2)Many people here have been trying to relate science and Spiritual beliefs. But nobody seems to even suspect that there can be means of knowing which go beyond the ordinary senses and traditional science. 3)I believe that many people dislike Spiritual beliefs because they identify them with monotheistic religions. I can understand them, I used to feel the same: monotheistic religions seem to be there only to create denial of Man's fulfilment and hatred. But what if the Supernatural was something very different, something which had nothing to do with what most human beings believe? (see the highest Buddhist teachings or the Advaita Vedanta as a couple of examples) I agree: believing in God doesn't necessarily mean believing in a stereotyped God with a long white beard etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Many people here have been trying to relate science and Spiritual beliefs. But nobody seems to even suspect that there can be means of knowing which go beyond the ordinary senses and traditional science. That's exactly where you start turning in circles. Something as intuitive (by today's standards) as our sun made once entire cultures believe that the sun was a god and an eclipse was a supernatural event with spiritual background. (There are many more examples which got demystified later in history.) The 'means of knowing' of later generations which actually explained certain things rationally would, although they were brilliant, not be seen as particularly 'going beyond ordinary senses' by present standards (Galilei, Newton, Einstein etc). Things which cannot be verified, observed or rationally explained have no relevance to science (at least by present standards - we know this can change any time). However the fact that science does not even want to make an attempt at proving or disproving those 'extraordinary' things does not constitute proof that they exist. That's where the circle closes and you're back at belief (or disbelief), a very human-made concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 solaar, Once again, you are trying to prove everything in terms of today's science. And I say once again: what if there are means of knowing that are totally unrelated to science as we know it now? I'll just make an example: imagine a world where only 1 person in a million had sight (ability to see). What about all the others? Would they believe in the existence of sight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solaar Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) I'll just make an example: imagine a world where only 1 person in a million had sight (ability to see). What about all the others? Would they believe in the existence of sight? If you were one of the blind people wouldn't you be curious to find out if it's true, even if it was just with indirect methods? Or if the methods don't exist (yet) wouldn't you at least be curious enough to want to have somebody invent a means of verifying? [As your example is fairly simplistic (don't get me wrong I don't mean to dis it) it's actually easy to verify. Just have the person who can see describe the shape and surface of an object without him touching it and then go and touch it to verify if his description is correct.] Edited February 9, 2007 by solaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 If you were one of the blind people wouldn't you be curious to find out if it's true, even if it was just with indirect methods? Or if the methods don't exist (yet) wouldn't you at least be curious enough to want to have somebody invent a means of verifying? Since at least the Lord Buddha (but actually much earlier, see for instance Taoism or Vedanta) such methods have been taught, and they bring to what is known as Enlightenment (in the spiritual meaning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28concept%29 When you reach Enlightenment you can "see". As to my example it was simplistic on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdcaupv Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Have anybody heard/study (seriously) about Islam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 All faith is irrational, by its very definition. faith |fāθ| noun 1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians. 2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. • a system of religious belief : the Christian faith. • a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe. Nothing about being irrational there, unless you want to debate spiritual apprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMC6053 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Human brains are literally wired to have a belief in something greater. Thats why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) All faith is irrational. There is no sense or truth to be derived from unsubstantiated belief. Also, anything that has no basis in proof must by default be irrational. Edited February 13, 2007 by gwprod12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username931 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) All faith is irrational. There is no sense or truth to be derived from unsubstantiated belief. Also, anything that has no basis in proof must by default be irrational. There are varied reasons that people believe in god. Of course it gives them something to believe in, but that can't be the primary reason... surely most people don't deliberately go out to deceive themselves, knowing better. A big reason is tradition. Some people like them, some don't, but many people love them. People continue along with beliefs that work for them, that make them happy. It also gives them a sense of belongingness to a group with similar beliefs, the community aspect. The belief in doing good things, in making sacrifices, and helping others is purely subjective but hardly illogical. There is hardly an atheist replacement for that. That is not to say religion, and of course we are talking Judeo-Christian religion, does not have tremendous negative influences on people and the world. The primary (though moderately debatable), is the restriction of sex. Everyone has sexual feelings and drive, to at least some degree. Sex is not looked upon as natural, of a way of being healthy human being, but as sinful. It also supports slavery and likely women also, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18). And the "turn the cheek" philosophy can get your ass beat. and has oppressive political implications in the older master-serf-slave despots and monarchies. Is the inter-related progression of democracy, science, and atheism a coincidence? But back to the question, religion is accepted by so many because it is a way of thought. There is a rational explanation for everything, and what seems logical to one person is illogical to another because the issue is subjective. Evolution, by means of DNA recombination, is established, but as for the origins of life it is not so. I find it hard to believe that we evolved from single-cell organisms. But it is all subjective - I find it completely illogical that the infinite complexity of the universe can be attributed to an objective mathematical randomness. That it really the idea that we are all struggling with here. But Atheism (or agnostic whatever) is not a religion, as most of us perceive ourselves when we say it, but a way of thought. It is the belief (or faith) in the concept of critical thinking. We think that the arguments for religion are not only weak, but excessively vague to the point of equivocation. We do not believe in blind faith and we are distrustful of those who as for it, as it so often implies ulterior motives. As for why people believe in religion, it can be distilled to to words: blind faith. They are taught not only to believe in God, but to do so unequivocally and never to question it - to do so would be a sin. In this sense, the "good boy" is put into a box. He can't question his beliefs because he wants to do good and he fears being sinful and displeasing God. But is there a god? To him it is not a question with two possible answers. He doesn't think, he just answers. In the same way, when confronted with possible contradictions - and there are too many to even start here - he doesn't say "maybe" (or admit that he did), he begins to think of how. I think that about solves the 'why do they believe' issue. lol that turned into an essay... but we're all here because we have too much spare time and think a bit too much. I also took issue with that "its illogical" argument. Edited February 14, 2007 by username931 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinobe Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) You dont need science or religion to find god. Just look at the exsistance/concept of creativty and imagination. To me the biggest proof of the existance of a god or gods (a creator/creators) is in the human creativity. Artists, painters, designers, programmers, song writers and so on and so forth all show a special gift of fluid imagination. Every creature has it but to certain amount. Even animals have it . It goes from from simple procreation (sex=birth) to designing the wildest buildings or writing complex computer languages or beatyfull paintings. As long as you can take something and make it into something its creativty. Set any scale of success on it but it still is a proof of creativty. Now if u think about it if mere men can create something why shouldnt there be a special something (defined by the word God in our language) that has created all of the known/unknown reality. Some other god created god and so on. If i can draw a picture (im a graphics designer) of something and almost give it life so easly thanks to my imagination/creativity why cant there be someone that drew all we know off? Maybe god wrote a nice advanced program compiled it and set it to motion. Maybe he still is patching it fixin bugs maybe not. Doesnt mather. If you want proof of god u dont have to look further than creativity/imagination. This all reality could be a resault of a beta release. Imagine when science is advanced enough we acually create a self-thinking self-aware machines. What will we be to those machines if not their creators=gods. When 2 people have a baby havent they created life? Are those 2 ppl not a form of "god" to that child? If molded in such way that child could worship his parents just like any religious freak worships his god/s. Just get the child during his infancy when his harddrive is empty fill it with all kinds of instructions and it will worship you. Now what religion is about is hope..hope born in the human "heart" that god is still listening (updating, patchin, bug fixin). Add tons of inborn fear to it and you got tons of religious variations, good or bad. Im 100% sure no religion is even close to the real meaning of god. But they still hope for some sort of interaction. The problem is the human arrogance. We acually think we are ready to see him. We think we have all the power and knowlidge to concive a thought of what this god might be. We cant be more wrong. At the current stage of life we can not. It 's bigger than us in the most unconceivable way. It is beyond us still. It is as big of a step as it was to go from instinct to self awarness. Now what the next step after self awarness is i have no idea God might be there and it might not. No religion will take you there or help you understand it and no science will show proof of existance/non existance. Its bigger than that. Creativity, imagination, birth, interaction those are the concepts where u see proof of god. Not in some book or a house or the skies or in atoms. If we can create so can we in a simmilar or totaly different unconceviable way be created too. And hi im a lurker around here ^^ Edited February 14, 2007 by kinobe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 See, I think any talk of god is rumor and conjecture, and any evidence for its existence is anecdotal at best. Seriously its just strait irrational, whether its right or not is a different story, I just cant make that "leap" of faith, and I suspect there are many people in the same boat as me, I don't need god to stand on my own two feet, and I don't really care. I know some people REALLY need god for one reason or another, but those people aren't strong enough to stand on their own, and thats ok...but I think the strongest people don't need any kind of god to live a happy, productive life...just my thoughts on it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) See, I think any talk of god is rumor and conjecture, and any evidence for its existence is anecdotal at best. Seriously its just strait irrational, whether its right or not is a different story, I just cant make that "leap" of faith, and I suspect there are many people in the same boat as me, I don't need god to stand on my own two feet, and I don't really care. I know some people REALLY need god for one reason or another, but those people aren't strong enough to stand on their own, and thats ok...but I think the strongest people don't need any kind of god to live a happy, productive life...just my thoughts on it anyway. I hate to be the one to pop your thoughts bubble but, Its about CHOICE, and YOUR choice is not to believe. Edited February 16, 2007 by OryHara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Do people really choose to believe or disbelieve? I guess I could say that I choose to disbelieve, except that would be like saying that I might be tempted to believe, but force myself not to, which I am completely unaware of. As far as I can tell from my own introspection, I find the idea rediculous and incredible, and absolutely could not believe, choice or no. If what you're saying is that I choose to disbelieve something I am not capable of believing in, I guess that could be true, but how is it relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dice7 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Humans need hope or need to believe in something, like dreams or goals. I believe that there is a God and he is 3 people in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't believe in religion, I have faith in Jesus who is the Son of God, who Died for everyone that has ever taken a breath on this earth, to take the sins of this world away. Not all people with believe that, God even said that in His word. I can not convince anyone that they need to believe or force them too. All God asks us to do I love everyone as ourselves, though its hard to do, I try to do so. I try not to judge anyone cause I do believe we have all done something that is wrong in our life. And God has told everyone not to Judge less you be judge yourself. I am not the one that will change any one persons opinion of something, all I can do is tell you where I put my faith, and why. If you disagree with me that is fine. It will not hurt my feels. Dice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I am not capable of believing in, I couldn't have said it better myself. You took 3 paragraphs out of my post, and simplified it into one self admitted statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revroy Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 what takes more faith? a.) Beliveing everything was created by God. b.) Beliveing everthing came from nothing at all. Booth take faith. I just think I would rather have faith in option a. It has better results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Your choice not to believe is faith, which is by your definition irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conroe Mac Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Comfort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Your choice not to believe is faith, which is by your definition irrational. No its not, not believing and believing in nothing are two totally different things. I just don't believe, seeing as I have no reason, or evidence to suggest that I should. This does not mean that I believe in nothing, rather, that I have no reason to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Your choice not to believe is faith, which is by your definition irrational. I said the same thing, but nobody wants to believe it. No its not, not believing and believing in nothing are two totally different things. I just don't believe, seeing as I have no reason, or evidence to suggest that I should. This does not mean that I believe in nothing, rather, that I have no reason to believe. Which is by definition .... choice. 'Choice' as stated from my earlier posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice DUH. OR. You can choose NOT to believe that too. Edited February 17, 2007 by OryHara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts