[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church for what he taught.

From wikipedia article :


wikipedia article on Galileo Galilei

The Catholic Church in a sense apologized for how it treated Galileo. We all make mistakes so I think the churches have a right to make mistakes too.

---

Persecuting someone isn't just a simple mistake. Especially when you're such an influential community as the catholic church. These "men of god"...should they not know the truth universe and how its built? If they claim that heliocentrism is false back then, should it not also be false now? Why the sudden change? If they claim to have a book that explains the creation of the earth, and being able to "contact" the creator of earth...why have they been wrong on so many accounts? Thats just one of the things I've been thinking about from time to time.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

Ask yourself why, fundamentally why, do you believe in the existance of God and don't be afraid to examine the truths, even if they might be uncomfortable.

---

For me personally I don't need to believe in God because I know for certain He exists so belief is unnecessary. It's not anything that I could ever prove to anyone else though. Some people have abilities that you or I do not have. So I guess you could say I have a perception of God that not everyone does. For those that don't have the same perception they might believe or not believe in God but I'm convinced that we will all eventually evolve our consciousness to a state where we directly perceive God so that belief is unnecessary.

As for the purpose we exist I say it is to realize perfect joy and God is that perfect all satisfying joy. So I say the purpose of life is to realize our oneness with God who is perfect joy. Examine your motives in everything and you'll see that you are always acting to find joy in some form or other. Whether you believe it's possible to attain or not is another question.

All the joys of the senses(food, sex, music, etc) are tainted so to realize God we have to learn to transcend the senses and identification with the body at will. That is what the science of meditation is all about. The masters dedicated incarnations to meditation in order to become God-realized souls.

Most people when they are awake are in a constant state of sensory activity and sensory identification. Through meditation you can learn to gradually calm the senses and even shut them down at will. That takes practice and time. When you become sufficiently fed up with the senses and realize that they are truly powerless to satisfy your soul then it's possible you might be ready to make a serious commitment to start disciplining the senses and perhaps even meditating. Suffering can be a prod to awaken us.

I was wrong, God does exist; he is a regular commuter on the 08:20 from Paddington. Here's the proof:

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

For me personally I don't need to believe in God because I know for certain He exists so belief is unnecessary. It's not anything that I could ever prove to anyone else though.

---

I'm afraid that is pretty much a definition of belief. Without any physical evidence, and with the open acknowledgement that you will never have any, then how is there any difference between your belief and your certainty? That you have certainty of belief is something that you have in common with many other religious people, however it does not make it an actual certainty.

Your belief, or your certainty if you choose, is defined entirely within your own mind. I suspect that your reasons for continued believing are also contained entirely within your own mind. For example, perhaps you perceive an unusual feeling when you close your eyes, or meditate, or pray, or whatever it is that allows you to confirm your beliefs.
Is it a coincidence that prayer / meditation of some description is a significant part of a majority of religions? It involves putting your body into a state in which as many of the senses are suspended as possible; closed eyes to hamper sight, body supplicant to hamper touch, a location that is quiet or with chanting to hamper hearing, and which similarly tends not to have a wide variety of smells (nobody prays in the kitchen whilst wife is cooking, for example), and there is nothing to taste.
So you cut off as many of your bodily senses as you can, and concentrate your mind on the search for a mental contact with the "other being". Is it any surprise that, because you desperately want to believe it is there, or because you are certain that it is there, that you find it?

Given how easy it is for the brain to interpret its surroundings in so many ways, such as the basketball example cited earlier, or even simple colourblindness, it makes it all the easier for the brain to form its own interpretations when deprived of significant external stimulus.
This psychological phenomenon has been studied extensively, and continues to be so.
My original question, however, has what prompted this? Did you read a book one day, decide you liked the sound of it and gave it a try? And hey presto, you found "something"? I am curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

I'm afraid that is pretty much a definition of belief. Without any physical evidence, and with the open acknowledgement that you will never have any, then how is there any difference between your belief and your certainty? That you have certainty of belief is something that you have in common with many other religious people, however it does not make it an actual certainty.

Your belief, or your certainty if you choose, is defined entirely within your own mind. I suspect that your reasons for continued believing are also contained entirely within your own mind. For example, perhaps you perceive an unusual feeling when you close your eyes, or meditate, or pray, or whatever it is that allows you to confirm your beliefs.
Is it a coincidence that prayer / meditation of some description is a significant part of a majority of religions? It involves putting your body into a state in which as many of the senses are suspended as possible; closed eyes to hamper sight, body supplicant to hamper touch, a location that is quiet or with chanting to hamper hearing, and which similarly tends not to have a wide variety of smells (nobody prays in the kitchen whilst wife is cooking, for example), and there is nothing to taste.
So you cut off as many of your bodily senses as you can, and concentrate your mind on the search for a mental contact with the "other being". Is it any surprise that, because you desperately want to believe it is there, or because you are certain that it is there, that you find it?

Given how easy it is for the brain to interpret its surroundings in so many ways, such as the basketball example cited earlier, or even simple colourblindness, it makes it all the easier for the brain to form its own interpretations when deprived of significant external stimulus.
This psychological phenomenon has been studied extensively, and continues to be so.
My original question, however, has what prompted this? Did you read a book one day, decide you liked the sound of it and gave it a try? And hey presto, you found "something"? I am curious...

---

I sense that there is a being that is much greater than any human being. I know that That Reality is everywhere and connects everything and is involved with everything and everyone. You can develop a relationship with God just like you can develop a relationship with someone you know. God can respond to you just as a human being can respond to you and He can respond in ways that no human could respond. There are many different levels of God contact and I could certainly be much more advanced in my contacting of God than I am but you can know God exists just as certainly as you know anything else exists. As certain as I am of my own existence so certain am I of God's.

To answer the question what prompted this, I would say life and all that happens in it prompted it. We're all seeking happiness and nothing less than God is going to satisfy our soul. I say all of us are going to come around to that truth whether it is sooner or later, in this incarnation or thousands of incarnations from now. There's a force that keeps pushing us to seek our satisfaction in the body, in material realities and sensory realities and that force is very strong. It takes time to evolve to a state where you can completely resist it and realize that absolutely everything you could possibly need or want is right at the center of what you are. That is what meditation is about. It's about realizing that the kingdom of God is within us. The joy we are seeking is within us. Even if you don't believe in God if you keep on trying to improve yourself as a person I say you're on a path back to God even if you don't think you are. Yogananda said, "The evil man in time becomes again the perfect soul." So even evil people will become illumined eventually but it might be after numerous painful lessons and many incarnations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wossname

...Well actually, technically it does.

If you look at all the main monotheistic doctrines from the past 4000 years or so, they all indicate that the God in question derives his (her?) power from the total number of believers that follow him. If everyone stopped believing in God all at the same time, then that God would cease to exist.

What is less clear though is that if people changed their mind again a minute later and believed again, would the God you get back be the same one that vanished a minute ago or would he be a different (but very similar) one?

Also it seems to me that as soon as you die, your own amount of belief instantly becomes valueless to God or Satan. I came to this conclusion because presumably there are many (say 1000 times) more sinners in Hell than their are holies in Heaven. The sinners would certainly have a very tangible belief in Satan because he's busy torturing them all the time. If that post-mortem belief in Satan and God was actually "counted", then Satan would be 1000 times more powerful than God.

This would lead to a state of affairs where Satan would vanquish God, and bring about a new era where people that worshipped Satan would be regarded as holy and those that worshipped God as evil. A complete 180 degree role reversal. Thus begins an endless, infinite cycle. On average, therefore, God == Satan.

Q.E.D.

Hmm, actually this logic thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

You know what? Forget it!

---

I don't know about those doctrines but I cannot agree with them if that is what they say. God has all been powerful even before He created humans hence it is illogical that He derived His power from the beliefs of humans.

True theist would also believe of the existence of Satan, I cannot imagine someone who would believe in Satan and don't believe in God, what could be reasonable is that those who don't believe in God would be following Satan's influence without them knowing. =)

God has given us freewill to choose what we should believe so He does not coerce all human to follow or believe in Him, it is up to us if we will accept or reject His existence. I just choose to believe in Him, after all what should I lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

(nobody prays in the kitchen whilst wife is cooking, for example)

---

I pray even when I am driving, prayer is conveying your message to God and does not require special rituals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

Can science create something?

My 1st year high school teacher thought us that creating means making something out of nothing so if someone else can make something out of nothing then I will be baffled.

---

Your 1st grade high school teacher is using the Straw Man argument.

Regardless, the belief in God does not require proof of the existence of God. But it does remind me of this:

A hurricane is coming to a small town. All the warnings have been given but one man says he will wait for a sign from God to tell him what to do. So he sits on the porch waiting for the sign.

As the wind builds, a guy in a truck passes by, but stops to offer him help to leave. The man replies that he is waiting for a sign from God.

The surge waters rise, swamping his house. A rescue team in a power boat see the man in a second story window. Still, the man states that he'll wait for a sign from God telling him what to do.

The water rises further, the man is on the roof. A rescue helicopter sees the man in peril and moves in to help. Once again, the man protests that he is waiting for a sign from God.

Later, the man is before God. He asks God why did he not receive a sign. God replies; the truck, the boat and helicopter were not enough for you?

The existence of science and technology does not preclude the existence of God, or visa versa. Science is not a 'belief' mechanism and is not a replacement for religion or belief. For example, creationism is not an 'alternative' to the science of evolution. Science is based solely on disprovable theories. Teaching and practicing science does not preclude a belief in creationism at all.

Quote:

---

For example, creationism is not an 'alternative' to the science of evolution. Science is based solely on disprovable theories. Teaching and practicing science does not preclude a belief in creationism at all.

---

I have to say that's nonsense, Creationism is basically the theory or belief that the Universe, life and humanity was created by god in 7 days as described in Genesis chapters 1-2.

This theory goes more against science than any other theory i have ever heard.

How can anyone believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and is approximatily 6000 odd years old despite all the archeological evidence against it is quite astounding.

I mean if we believe Genesis literately Eve the first woman was created out of 1 of Adams Ribs.

Most religions will fail once we find conclusive proof of life on other planets. Most of them are very earth-centric in their histories and beliefs. Why would god send his only son to just earth? God created us in his image. So that means that all sentient life in the universe looks like us? What happens if we find lizard people out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

(nobody prays in the kitchen whilst wife is cooking, for example)

---

Depends what she's cooking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I have to say that's nonsense, Creationism is basically the theory or belief that the Universe, life and humanity was created by god in 7 days as described in Genesis chapters 1-2.

This theory goes more against science than any other theory i have ever heard.

How can anyone believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and is approximatily 6000 odd years old despite all the archeological evidence against it is quite astounding.

I mean if we believe Genesis literately Eve the first woman was created out of 1 of Adams Ribs.

---

You have just argued my side. You are applying scientific theory to creationism: because you have argued that creationism is verifiably false based on scientific principles, it is, therefore, an invalid theory. However, a theory is not a belief.

Even so, have you not considered that God - based on the understood abilities of God - made the archeological evidence appear to be older than 6000 years? Maybe the universe was created yesterday, and we have been given all these memories and experiences in such a way that we believe them to be true?

Regardless, this would fall in the 'belief' category, and not 'science'. Many people insist on applying scientific principles to belief systems - the preordained (sic) outcome is that it will fail, thus proving such belief system to be false. It is odd that so many smart scientists are so blinkered in doing so; but it's not so surprising when so many creationists want to consider Creationisim as a replacement for science.

Further, many who furiously oppose creationism, the Bible and belief in god as shaping our world will inevitably fail because they assume far too much about a belief system; precisely that they cannot fathom a belief in something that cannot be scientifically disproved. Generally, they take the belief as literal: that those who believe in God, and by extension, The Bible (not distinguishing between the testaments) 'literally' believe the world was created in seven days. Weather a person 'believes' such a thing has no bearing on science beyond the fact that it doesn't follow scientific principles.

Scientists often build their arguments from the point that The Bible is a history book, or a document-of-what-happened, and gleefully point out the contradictions. Fundamentally, though, belief systems are not under the tenure of scientific principle.

So basically you are saying Creationism is valid because people believe it to be so.

Then if i believe that the Moon is in fact the main source of light in our solar system rather then the sun it may be an invalid theory, as scientifically it can be dis-proven but because i believe it, it is in fact perfectly valid and in fact true.

The Moon is the main source of light in the solar system as i believe it to be so such is the power of belief.

And nobody can disprove it because you cant use scientific reasoning against my belief as it is a belief.

Also what Science do you believe ?

Do you believe that all science is false or just the science that contradicts your beliefs.

For instance the law of gravity is a scientific theory that we can observe the effect of therefore we have created a theory that explains how it works.

If i was to believe that Gravity did not exists would it then not exists and in fact be false ? as belief cannot be explained or argued against by scientific principals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

You have just argued my side. You are applying scientific theory to creationism: because you have argued that creationism is verifiably false based on scientific principles, it is, therefore, an invalid theory. However, a theory is not a belief.

Even so, have you not considered that God - based on the understood abilities of God - made the archeological evidence appear to be older than 6000 years? Maybe the universe was created yesterday, and we have been given all these memories and experiences in such a way that we believe them to be true?

Regardless, this would fall in the 'belief' category, and not 'science'. Many people insist on applying scientific principles to belief systems - the preordained (sic) outcome is that it will fail, thus proving such belief system to be false. It is odd that so many smart scientists are so blinkered in doing so; but it's not so surprising when so many creationists want to consider Creationisim as a replacement for science.

Further, many who furiously oppose creationism, the Bible and belief in god as shaping our world will inevitably fail because they assume far too much about a belief system; precisely that they cannot fathom a belief in something that cannot be scientifically disproved. Generally, they take the belief as literal: that those who believe in God, and by extension, The Bible (not distinguishing between the testaments) 'literally' believe the world was created in seven days. Weather a person 'believes' such a thing has no bearing on science beyond the fact that it doesn't follow scientific principles.

Scientists often build their arguments from the point that The Bible is a history book, or a document-of-what-happened, and gleefully point out the contradictions. Fundamentally, though, belief systems are not under the tenure of scientific principle.

---

I also think this is a weak argument for the simple reason that you are talking rubbish. It's your belief and that's cool but its not a tangible argument. Saying that Allah wrote the Koran is tangible. Saying that god made evidence to counter his followers evidence is just waffle. The funny thing is the first scientific prove of a god (if it happens) will be advocated by the very people that claim science is rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

lol i'm sorry but how can you use that as 'proof' ? Thats just a story that has no evidence whatsoever, sure a man called Jeesus may have lived at that time but how on earth can anyone be sure that his mother was a virgin? Just because it says in some old book then it must be true? Please...

One thing I really do not understand is why the Bible is any different to any other story book. Why did someone pick up the bible and think wow this must all be true, rather than thinking oh look an interesting story that someone has made up.

---

Tell me where I said that was proof? I have no more proof that God exists than you have that he doesn't. I simply used that as an example of things that I believe, which go against rational human thought based on the information we have currently.

It is clear that you would've figured this out, had you read my post instead of pouncing on the sentence that you picked out to make fun of.

That is what I have chosen to believe. Not one time in my post did I say "believe this or go to hell", as it is not my place to judge anyone's beliefs.

In the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

If you look at all the main monotheistic doctrines from the past 4000 years or so, they all indicate that the God in question derives his (her?) power from the total number of believers that follow him.

---

No they don't. That was Terry Pratchett :). The religions just say "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, if you don't believe me you'll be punished" or some loose derivation of that.

The problem here is the same one that comes up in every similar debate, whether it's phrased "Why don't you believe" or "Why do you believe". Those who do believe in a God do not and usually cannot provide logical proof that their God exists. Atheists take that as proof that he doesn't or as weakening the argument for his existence while missing the point that belief in a deity osn't logical, it's fundamental (not to be confused with fundamentalist:rolleyes:). To give an example of what I mean, close your eyes and hold out your hand. OK, you know where it is don't you? You have an absolutely fundamental knowledge of exactly where your hand is. You can even touch your nose with pin point accuracy without needing to open your eyes. You just know where it is without question. That's what believing in a deity is like - you just know. Logic doesn't enter into it.

Equally, theists are unable to understand the mentality of those who ask for proof of God. Why? Because they 'know' that their god exists. Atheists become the equivalent of someone saying 'your hand isn't where you thought it was and I won't accept that it is until you can prove it.' Well you know where your hand is. You don't need to prove it. You probably can't prove it. You just know it and can't understand how anyone could question something you know to be not only true but patently obvious.

The argument is destined to go round and round because the midnset behind each position makes it impossible to understand the opposite position.

Oh, and before any smart arse quotes Kinesthenic Perception back at me I know all about it. My hand analogy is meant as just that, an analogy (or parable, if you will:p) meant to help understand the opposite mindset, not as a scientific proof of some kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

Most religions will fail once we find conclusive proof of life on other planets. Most of them are very earth-centric in their histories and beliefs. Why would god send his only son to just earth? God created us in his image. So that means that all sentient life in the universe looks like us? What happens if we find lizard people out there?

---

The religion I follow wouldn't fail. It takes what you are talking about(discovering alien life) into consideration. It also has a different interpretation of the Christian scriptures from many churches out there. The only begotten son of God is an omnipresent reality that Jesus Christ was perfectly united with so in some sense you could say that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God but Bhagavan Krishna was also perfectly united to that reality so you could say that Krishna was the only begotten son of God. It refers not to a human individual but to an omnipresent reality. I believe that Jesus Christ has equals and that we are all potentially his equal. That's where I diverge from what some Christian churches teach. Paramahansa Yogananda(1893-1952) wrote commentaries on both the New Testament and the Bhagavad-Gita and taught that their teachings are compatible. I believe he was one of those rare equals of Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

The religion I follow wouldn't fail. It takes what you are talking about(discovering alien life) into consideration. It also has a different interpretation of the Christian scriptures from many churches out there. The only begotten son of God is an omnipresent reality that Jesus Christ was perfectly united with so in some sense you could say that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God but Bhagavan Krishna was also perfectly united to that reality so you could say that Krishna was the only begotten son of God. It refers not to a human individual but to an omnipresent reality. I believe that Jesus Christ has equals and that we are all potentially his equal. That's where I diverge from what some Christian churches teach. Paramahansa Yogananda(1893-1952) wrote commentaries on both the New Testament and the Bhagavad-Gita and taught that their teachings are compatible. I believe he was one of those rare equals of Christ.

---

I did say most religions would fail. I was born and raised catholic but no longer believe in the church.

The thing is though, and I've always been curious about this - what do you 'believers' think of other religions? Do you think that Vishnu and all the other religion's gods dont exist and you just happen to have found the 'real' god that is worth following? Doesnt the fact that so many different religions exist make you think that some, if not all, of them must be a load of nonsense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeanMc

I also think this is a weak argument for the simple reason that you are talking rubbish. It's your belief and that's cool but its not a tangible argument. Saying that Allah wrote the Koran is tangible. Saying that god made evidence to counter his followers evidence is just waffle. The funny thing is the first scientific prove of a god (if it happens) will be advocated by the very people that claim science is rubbish.

---

Well, That's a great argument: "I think you are talking rubbish, therefore you are wrong." The scientific reasoning knows no bounds. :rolleyes:

Simply, you want tangible proof. Without said proof, God does not exist? Is that what you are trying to argue?

There's a reason the words 'theory' and 'belief' are used in these circumstances. Unfortunately, based on the nature of belief and God, there is no scientific theory to either disprove or prove His existence (and associated creationist beliefs).

So, how can you 'prove' that God did not make the world in 7 days? You can't. From a scientific standpoint, you do not have access to the 'tools' that God has to perform such a test, to demonstrate one way or other the possibility of doing so. Hence, it's a belief.

Because there is no scientific test, it's generally referred to as a belief and not a theory.

A lot of scientist and 'technically' minded people are very threatened by such beliefs because they cannot handle the dichotomy of holding two opposite 'beliefs' resulting in cognitive dissonance. Just because some cannot reconcile it [belief in god and scientific principles] does not mean it's irreconcilable.

The conflict, while it has always existed, is a more prominent issue because creationists want to replace (to a greater or lesser extent) the study of science and evolution with creationism, which is patently absurd.

Yogananda taught that the days that are spoken of in Genesis refer not to 24 hour days but to cycles that might consist of an enormous number of years each. I believe that God is the cause of this universe but I don't believe He created this world in 7 days. I think this earth is billions of years old. That doesn't conflict with believing that God is the creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Yogananda taught that the days that are spoken of in Genesis refer not to 24 hour days but to cycles that might consist of an enormous number of years each. I believe that God is the cause of this universe but I don't believe He created this world in 7 days. I think this earth is billions of years old. That doesn't conflict with believing that God is the creator.

---

See this makes more sense. I don't mind people who believe this because it takes into account that we don't have the full picture and could be through but to say that god lied about the age of rocks is just rubbish sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Yogananda taught that the days that are spoken of in Genesis refer not to 24 hour days but to cycles that might consist of an enormous number of years each. I believe that God is the cause of this universe but I don't believe He created this world in 7 days. I think this earth is billions of years old. That doesn't conflict with believing that God is the creator.

---

I think the problem is some people take the bible literally meaning that 7 days is seven earth days. They seem to be forgetting or ignoring what the bible is telling them that this god is NOT of this world. That being said 7 days on other planets/world could vary in the amount of time.

For example a year on Mercury is 88 (of our) days or something like that! Now not having studied life, etc on another planet I can't be sure that the seasons, etc are different from our own here on earth. However, I reckon they could be.

Believing in god is one thing, and everyone is entitled to there beliefs. What i object to is when people try and fit something written in a very very old book around scientific theory.

Explaining Creationism by saying that maybe God made the rock old to begin with is a poor argument as is the fact the God didn't mean 7 earth days. Who Wrote the Bible god himself or Men ?? did these Men have any other concept of a day other than an Earth day ?

We have to remember the Bible and the Koran and other Holy books are just that books Written by Man, and as such are fallible just as Man is.

It is much more credible to say that at the time these books were written peoples understanding of the universe around them was limited and this will have coloured the way they depicted things. (even if they received messages from god surely there own experiences will form part of what they write)

These books shouldn't have to be an absolute accurate depiction of the creation of the universe or anything else, in my understanding much of it is supposed to be teaching about God and morality as much about anything else.

We wouldn't look to a book written over 2000 years ago to explain how to build a space rocket so why do we insist on using one to try to explain the origins of the universe.

Science has not disproved the existence of god, but what it has shown is that Man has a propensity to believe an awful lot of rubbish over the years and that as our scientific knowledge has increased our understanding of the world around has also increased.

Around 400 years ago people were still certain, and i mean CERTAIN that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. We wouldn't believe that today though as we have Scientific proof that it is not.

Quote:

---

What i object to is when people try and fit something written in a very very old book around scientific theory.

---

I agree but the problem is that theists are constantly challenged to do just that. Look at any discussion about religion (this one included) and you'll find lots of atheists demanding "prove it!" and, as often as not, demanding that that proof be scientific. It not surprising that theists from time to time try to play the game they're being challenged to play and, usually, lose in spectacular fashion.

Quote:

---

I agree but the problem is that theists are constantly challenged to do just that

---

I don't see this as a problem arguments are generally a good healthy thing, at least most of us here live in places were we have the right to question things in public.

I still stick to my point though, everyone has the right to believe what they want but it does get my goat when Theists will use Science on the 1 hand to try and prove there point and on the other say that no Scientific argument can be used against my belief as it is a belief and you cannot apply scientific theory to a belief.

Well this is just plain wrong, of course you can apply Scientific theory to a Belief. You may not be able to prove all beliefs are wrong with Science, but there are some that you can.

For Instance Gallileo was able to eventually prove that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around despite the Catholic Church and many many other people Believing that the Sun Revolved around the Earth.

This is now accepted as a fact (well by most of us sane people anyway)

Anyway saying something cannot be scientificaly challenged because it is a belief just makes no sense, or does this just apply to certain special beliefs and not to others ?

I don't believe in God for the simple reason that there's no reason to believe in him. God, unicorns, leprichauns, genies and all the rest just don't have any evidence to back up the claims people make about their existence.

Current scientific knowledge does have a lot of holes in our understanding of things, but that's no reason to randomly insert some deity in those holes for the sake of filling them with something instead of just admitting that we don't know what the answers are.

Here's a pie chart that breaks down the percentages for different believers.

Attachment 72365
Atheists are only at 2.5%.
Obtained from this site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Here's a similar site.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

It does seem that a lot of VBF members does not believe in God's existence and I am curious why.

---

New York Rangers fan. 'nough said...

Quote:

---

New York Rangers fan. 'nough said...

---

Lol.

NSA, you're still falling into the same trap. Your challenging a theist to give you a scientific/logical response to the question "Why do you believe in God" but you're missing the point that, for them, the answer to that question is neither logical nor scientific; it's fundamental. The answer is "Because I do".

Equally, incidentally, the answer to the question "Why are you not a believer of the existence of God" is "Because I'm not".

Any debate beyond those two responses really isn't an attempt to understand, it's an attempt to prove the other side wrong. It always is really. I don't think I've ever some across a discussion of this nature where either side is really interested in why the other side believes or doesn't. Instead these discussions always boil down to both sides trying to get the other to back down and abandon their beliefs. It never goes anywhere because someone who holds a fundamental belief (or knowledge if you prefer) cannot be dissabused of that with logic, the belief isn't logical in the first place. Conversly, someone asking for a logical proof of something is never going to be satisfied with "Because that's the way it is" response which is the only one a believer can ever give to a question they believe to be fundamental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Lol.

NSA, you're still falling into the same trap. Your challenging a theist to give you a scientific/logical response to the question "Why do you believe in God" but you're missing the point that, for them, the answer to that question is neither logical nor scientific; it's fundamental. The answer is "Because I do".

Equally, incidentally, the answer to the question "Why are you not a believer of the existence of God" is "Because I'm not".

Any debate beyond those two responses really isn't an attempt to understand, it's an attempt to prove the other side wrong. It always is really. I don't think I've ever some across a discussion of this nature where either side is really interested in why the other side believes or doesn't. Instead these discussions always boil down to both sides trying to get the other to back down and abandon their beliefs. It never goes anywhere because someone who holds a fundamental belief (or knowledge if you prefer) cannot be dissabused of that with logic, the belief isn't logical in the first place. Conversly, someone asking for a logical proof of something is never going to be satisfied with "Because that's the way it is" response which is the only one a believer can ever give to a question they believe to be fundamental.

---

Truly, 'nuff said :)

Personally, if one believes in God (or Gods, or Whomever that may be) has nothing to do with logic or a higher level of reason. I'll also add that using the 'people believed that the earth was flat' as an argument against a belief in God is a straw man argument. It's unrelated to a belief in God, even though 'the church' may have adopted it as a theological position.

It's a no-win situation; and even if it was a 'winnable' situation, what have you won? Does that change how one lives their life (the practical aspect)? You still have to pick up your clothes and put them in the hamper; neither logic and science, nor God will miraculously (sic) to this for you.

It's like a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist arguing who is smarter by performing tests in their own field of expertise - the brain surgeon will attest that they are smarter because the rocket scientist cannot do brain surgery, using brain surgery as a test of 'smartness'. Likewise for the rocket scientist. Unless a common ground can be found to perform the test, neither can demonstrate the superiority of their stance.

Quote:

---

I'll also add that using the 'people believed that the earth was flat' as an argument against a belief in God is a straw man argument.

---

It's not really pertinent to the current discussion but the Church has never decreed the earth was flat - we've known it was round since ancient times and Pythagoras even managed to measure it's curcumference. There are no historical sources that claim 'the earth is flat' but there are plenty that say 'we used to think the earth was flat'. The whole 'we used to believe the earth was flat' thing is really just a myth that grew up in the last couple of centuries but it's become so embedded that we tend to take it as fact.

I'm not sure whether we ever believed the sun and planets orbited the earth either but I doubt it because, again, the Ancient Greeks had a full understanding of the orbits of various planets and there are even surviving models from the time. It's possible that the knowledge was lost and recovered but I think it's far more likely that it's another myth that's become accepted as truth. Again, you'll easily find sources saying 'we used to think the earth was the centre of the universe' but it's very hard to find any that say 'the earth is the centre of the universe.

The information age makes it very easy to perpetuate knowledge, but it also makes it very easyto perpetuate mistakes and rumour.



ps, Before anyone gets clever, the flat earth society do not count as a credible source:p

yes they do..... *runs*

Don't get me wrong, they're a fun source and many a happy hour has been spent goading them. :bigyello:

I wrote a paper on this very subject once and I will spare you the details but the conclusion I was able to draw was this:

The main reason people choose to subscribe to any particular religion is because they are afraid of death. The idea that death is the end of your life and there is nothing else is very scary and harder for some to grasp than the idea of a mystical deity.

When you are at a relatives funeral and a small child looks up at you and asks "is mommy in heaven?" would you find it easier to say "yes she is up in heaven and very happy" or to respond "mommy is dead and gone and there is no spirit world, she's just dead" So I think that religion was largely created as a way to cope with these types of questions and thousands of years ago when science itself was a new idea that most people did not know about it was very easy to spread religious beliefs.

Incidentally I was raised in a very strict Catholic family and if I still subscribed to the beliefs of the Catholic church I would have to stop reading VBForums altogether because it contains posts like this.

I think life is much more meaning full when you believe that this is all you have. If I were to consider this to be some BS staging ground for eternal bliss, then I would not look at life very positively, I would want to hurry up and get it over with to start the real show.

Likewise if we are here on earth for some "trial by god" to see if we live by gods rules so we can die and then go to heaven, then god sounds like an evil bastard to me... what kind of all powerful infallible being runs some sort of sick sea monkey experiment with a planet?

Ok so maybe some of you feel that if God exists He isn't very nice. This is from a lecture given by Paramahansa Yogananda: "He(God) has created each one of you, and He is throbbing in you, crying to enter your consciousness so that He may release you. I am sure He feels guilty for having created us! Every day I ask Him why He did it. (I talk to Him about anything that comes to my mind. He likes it, that I am "after" Him; He knows His creation is anything but perfect.) The Lord replies that you cannot make steel until you have made the iron white-hot in fire. It is not meant for harm. Trouble and disease have a lesson for us. Our painful experiences are not meant to destroy us, but to burn out our dross, to hurry us back Home. No one is more anxious for our release than God."

Earlier in the same lecture : "His whole creation is intended to disillusion you and thus cause you to draw back to Him."

Taken from Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yogananda, chapter Making Religion Scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Ok so maybe some of you feel that if God exists He isn't very nice. This is from a lecture given by Paramahansa Yogananda: "He(God) has created each one of you, and He is throbbing in you, crying to enter your consciousness so that He may release you. I am sure He feels guilty for having created us! Every day I ask Him why He did it. (I talk to Him about anything that comes to my mind. He likes it, that I am "after" Him; He knows His creation is anything but perfect.) The Lord replies that you cannot make steel until you have made the iron white-hot in fire. It is not meant for harm. Trouble and disease have a lesson for us. Our painful experiences are not meant to destroy us, but to burn out our dross, to hurry us back Home. No one is more anxious for our release than God."

Earlier in the same lecture : "His whole creation is intended to disillusion you and thus cause you to draw back to Him."

Taken from Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yogananda, chapter Making Religion Scientific.

---

wow, now i believe because this guy makes odd ball analogies about hot iron and steel. Thanks god for all the death and disease, its been a great lesson.

Yeah, that totally explains why we 3 people got shot to death by a complete stranger for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time yesterday
"god is inside of you throbbing to get out"

well I guess he is not in the 3 dead people anymore.