Why dont YOU believe in God?

Rehashing the same arguements that go no where make you all idiots. Why even bother. This was always going to end this way. The question was why you don't believe in God. Not defend God agaisnt the none believers who say why they don't then argue about the same thing again. He wanted to know why. We said why. I don't know why we go in circles evey time and it goes nowhere. Whats next? Burn our pixels? Go to war? Your not going to change anyones mind on a forum.

Long before even the first monotheistic religion that is Judaism. Israelites were polytheistic; just like every religion at the time. They believed in a number of gods. One of those gods was Yahweh; the god of war. Yahweh is one of the names of god in the Hebrew Bible. That would certainly explain why god was so sickly violent and evil in the old testament.

Pikdum

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Long before even the first monotheistic religion that is Judaism. Israelites were polytheistic; just like every religion at the time. They believed in a number of gods. One of those gods was Yahweh; the god of war. Yahweh is one of the names of god in the Hebrew Bible. That would certainly explain why god was so sickly violent and evil in the old testament.

alexside1

I read some of it at the library awhile ago actually. Its a really fascinating book. There is also a documentary based of the book that History channel did.

Have been reading "The History of God" book huh? I need to read that. But I do not have a source of income. So no book for me.... *sad-face*.alexside1

The magnitude of the world and the universe leads me to think there is a Creator. And, with the use of cause and effect...kingkong0124

Cause and effect are a rather childish way of thinking about the universe. And quantum mechanics does away with the classical idea of cause and effect.

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

But I do agree with you if you say that we don't yet have a theory of everything (TOE).

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

In my opinion, there is no reason why you should or shouldn't believe in a deity. There are many things that point to it being improbable, sure, but that doesn't necessarily imply that there is any one thing to believe/not believe. Come to your own conclusions. That's why I'm an atheist, because I reasoned it out on my own.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lack of sufficient evidence is why I'm an atheisttheone86

How can you be a Cubs fan and not have faith? You must be some kind of masochist or fatalist or something.

I don't believe in the so called "God" in the religious terms. I am open to the idea that the universe has a creator but really, who knows.

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among them preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among the preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

HAMMERCLAW

Maybe not....thanks to technology.

Immortality in 20 years

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among them preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

HAMMERCLAW

Is that fear mongering? That's pretty low, even for a bigoted religitard.

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among them preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

HAMMERCLAW

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

[QUOTE="I"]

How is it you define "evidence"?

EDIT: As you claim to be a rational person, I assume there is some rational process that you use to determine whether a piece of evidence is valid or not. Is this the case or not? From what you just said, it would appear that you have none. That doesn't make any sense, so hence my question.

Palantas

Evidence is *something* that gives validity to a thesis. If it extinguishes any objection or doubt regarding the thesis then it's proof.

Are you going to answer the edit?

What's there to answer? There's no single rational process to determine whether proof is valid or not, beyond checking its own validity (source, ways it was obtained, if talking about statistics then also what sample was studied). I thought this was common knowledge, if there was we would have computers do it.

What's there to answer? There's no single rational process to determine whether proof is valid or not, beyond checking its own validity (source, ways it was obtained, if talking about statistics then also what sample was studied). I thought this was common knowledge, if there was we would have computers do it.

N30F3N1X

Hmm, I'll put everything into one neat post. You said there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. How did you determine this? What evidence did you examine and find invalid? I asked what criteria you used to judge this evidence, and you responded that there is no criteria for evidence, which is when things stopped making sense. If there is no criteria of any sort for evidence, how do you make decisions about anything?

Hmm, I'll put everything into one neat post. You said there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. How did you determine this? What evidence did you examine and find invalid? I asked what criteria you used to judge this evidence, and you responded that there is no criteria for evidence, which is when things stopped making sense. If there is no criteria of any sort for evidence, how do you make decisions about anything?

Palantas

I already answered this - watching the environment and reasoning on what I see.

There is no "see" part in God. He doesn't interact with us. And his existence is not expected from any physical theory either. It's not that "there's not enough evidence", it's that there's no evidence at all.

I already answered this - watching the environment and reasoning on what I see.

N30F3N1X

Claiming to be rational, versus actually writing your argument down, are not the same thing. No, you didn't answer it already, unless I missed it in a different part of the thread, in which case point me to it.

There is no "see" part in God. He doesn't interact with us. And his existence is not expected from any physical theory either. It's not that "there's not enough evidence", it's that there's no evidence at all.

N30F3N1X

Is there anything further?

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among them preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

HAMMERCLAW

This sounds like a trolling post to me. Believing in God or not doesn't change the fact that we all eventually are going to die. And both believers and non-believers alike will suffer the same fate.

Because he doesn't exist

BPoole96

Nailed it.

Some of you take way too much pride in being atheists.Zariano

Well religion is a crutch, to be able to do without it is an achievement. Facing up to your own mortality is important.

Why did you create an alt to create this thread?

[QUOTE="Zariano"]Some of you take way too much pride in being atheists.tenaka2

Well religion is a crutch, to be able to do without it is an achievement. Facing up to your own mortality is important.

Why did you create an alt to create this thread?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Zariano"]Some of you take way too much pride in being atheists.Zariano

Well religion is a crutch, to be able to do without it is an achievement. Facing up to your own mortality is important.

Why did you create an alt to create this thread?

I have no interest of convincing you of anything, more then likely you created this alt in order to make religious people look bad.

[QUOTE="Zariano"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well religion is a crutch, to be able to do without it is an achievement. Facing up to your own mortality is important.

Why did you create an alt to create this thread?

tenaka2

I have no interest of convincing you of anything, more then likely you created this alt in order to make religious people look bad.

[QUOTE="Zariano"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well religion is a crutch, to be able to do without it is an achievement. Facing up to your own mortality is important.

Why did you create an alt to create this thread?

tenaka2

I have no interest of convincing you of anything, more then likely you created this alt in order to make religious people look bad.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Zariano"] 21st century Westerner who probably had a lot handed to him and not much in the way of tragedy (in the grand scheme of things). Now try to convince me otherwise... You're still a lot better off than at least 90% of the world and 99.99% of all humanity ever. At least. Do you really feel accomplished? You're intelligent for denying a god... Congratulations. I didn't make this thread.Zariano

I have no interest of convincing you of anything, more then likely you created this alt in order to make religious people look bad.

MMmmm absolut.

But seriously, I am certain of few things, don't make assumptions about people.

One of the few things I am certain about is that you are an idiot.

How many different religions are there in the world?

How many of them claim to be the "right" religion?

How many people have died and will continue to die from religion?

I asked myself these questions a few years ago. I decided that logically, it didn't seem sound to believe in any religion with points like these constantly coming up in conversation and through my own personal reflection. I don't like feeling ignorant to simple reason and religion is about as far from anything concrete or truthful as you can get. I simply don't put stock into things that cannot be backed with something above faith.

The logic behind proof of a god is questionable, there is nothing that supports the need of a god and the fact that god was not always around for people to be known etc... God just isn't plausable.

Because I question everything.

Simply because it's questionable.

Claiming to be rational, versus actually writing your argument down, are not the same thing. No, you didn't answer it already, unless I missed it in a different part of the thread, in which case point me to it.

Is there anything further?

Palantas

No, if you just want to b!tch semantics there's no reason to say anything else.

No, if you just want to b!tch semantics there's no reason to say anything else.

N30F3N1X

Please identify where I've been b!tching about semantics.

There is no "see" part in God. He doesn't interact with us. And his existence is not expected from any physical theory either. It's not that "there's not enough evidence", it's that there's no evidence at all.

N30F3N1X

Your reasoning here also precludes believing in the existence of most any historical figure. Since you're a rational person, perhaps you should refine your definition.

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

No, if you just want to b!tch semantics there's no reason to say anything else.

Palantas

Please identify where I've been b!tching about semantics.

There is no "see" part in God. He doesn't interact with us. And his existence is not expected from any physical theory either. It's not that "there's not enough evidence", it's that there's no evidence at all.

N30F3N1X

Your reasoning here also precludes believing in the existence of most any historical figure. Since you're a rational person, perhaps you should refine your definition.

We know historical people exist because we exist, it is an observable fact.

There are no observable facts with regards gods.

Considerign that there have been tens of thousands of gods, all of different sources you would think at least one of them would make themselves known.

We know historical people exist because we exist, it is an observable fact.

tenaka2

Really? Historical figures are observable? Please go out and observe Alexander III for me. Report on your findings. :roll:

And as I just discussed with someone in another thread, I'm sure N30 is quite capable of writing his own definition for himself. He clearly does not need your help.

Your reasoning here also precludes believing in the existence of most any historical figure. Since you're a rational person, perhaps you should refine your definition.

Palantas

No, I don't have to. What you quoted from me covers this completely. It'd be a correct conclusion at a superficial analysis, however disbelief of history would mean accepting that things *came into being* all of sudden, which is ludicrous.

...disbelief of history would mean accepting that things *came into being* all of sudden, which is ludicrous.

N30F3N1X

Okay, you didn't write that down before. I'm not going to write your argument for you. In any case, non-belief in historical accounts does not necessitate that reality came into being all of the sudden. It would simply indicate that the cause of the present state of things is unknown. Do you have all of recorded history memorized? Are you versed on the history of, we'll say, Sri Lanka? Do you therefore assume that Sri Lanka must have come into being all of the sudden, or that you simply are not aware of where it came from?

Okay, you didn't write that down before. I'm not going to write your argument for you. In any case, non-belief in historical accounts does not necessitate that reality came into being all of the sudden. It would simply indicate that the cause of the present state of things is unknown. Do you have all of recorded history memorized? Are you versed on the history of, we'll say, Sri Lanka? Do you therefore assume that Sri Lanka must have come into being all of the sudden, or that you simply are not aware of where it came from?

Palantas

If I were interested in Sri Lanka I could go there, talk to its citizens, read from history books in a library, do an internet research. Plenty of material can be found.

I know that it didn't just "came into being" because that would violate a notable number of laws of physics, and being a physics student I'd rather avoid seeing that happen even before being introduced to quantum mechanics :P

And pardon me, but I explained the logic behind this thoroughly enough (imo, apparently) on page 14

The things I "believe" as opposed to "know" come from watching my environment and reasoning on what I see. Patterns, repetition of coincidences, probability and statistics, expectations from deduction.

Pizza huts will get the highest number of customers during lunch time - I cannot prove it to you in a mathematical way but statistical evidence shows the pattern repeats day after day so it's safe to say it will keep happening for a long time.

I believe political correctness is bullsh!t, that the oligarchies we have in the western world are the worst kind of government after terroristic and military dictatorship, and that betrayal and excessive greed should be punishable as capital offenses. I cannot prove in any way that any of this is true or would be better for us, but I can tell you the reasoning I did to get to them.

I believe black holes exist - their existence is foreseen by general relativity, but because of their very nature and our limited instruments they are out of our sight's reach and *we don't know for sure*.

"I believe in God" - none of the above applies. No reasoning, no numbers, no expectations, no nothing. You believe because you are told to.

N30F3N1X

If I were interested in Sri Lanka I could go there, talk to its citizens, read from history books in a library, do an internet research. Plenty of material can be found.

N30F3N1X

Okay, so you're admitting this is not a valid objection:

No, I don't have to. What you quoted from me covers this completely. It'd be a correct conclusion at a superficial analysis, however disbelief of history would mean accepting that things *came into being* all of sudden, which is ludicrous.

N30F3N1X

So you can answer this:

Your reasoning here also precludes believing in the existence of most any historical figure. Since you're a rational person, perhaps you should refine your definition.

I

Moving on...

And pardon me, but I explained the logic behind this thoroughly enough (imo, apparently) on page 14

N30F3N1X

I asked you earlier if there was anything further.

The things I "believe" as opposed to "know" come from watching my environment and reasoning on what I see. Patterns, repetition of coincidences, probability and statistics, expectations from deduction.

N30F3N1X

No you didn't explain it thoroughly enough, as you never define your terms. What's the difference between "believe" and "know"? Can you know something without believing in it?

reason

because there isn't even a hint of evidence of his existence.

reason

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

reason

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

reason

wis3boi

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

reason

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

reason

SaintWalrus

It's a silly question, and all it will evoke is silly answers. Most of the people reading this thread are YOUNG and as yet, can not conceive their own demise. They have yet to feel the cold hand of their own mortality grasp them by the throat with it's bony hand. Some of them, intellectually, know they are going to die, but on a personal level, still find the concept impossible to entertain. The Secular Humanists among them preen themselves for their slavish devotion to the "Scientific Method" when, in fact, they are nothing more than arrogant specks of protoplasm, crawling about in the slime of a cosmic mud-ball, puffed up with pride because their species became adept at chipping flint. Everyone reading this thread id going to die, and many of you, when you face that cold hard fact, are going to want believe in God. I pray you find Him.

HAMMERCLAW