Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[pgrmdave]

There's still usually that time, for about an hour at 3:00 a.m. East coast time.

[pgrmdave]

In fact, I did it today, at 1:24 a.m. (I have no classes tomorrow)

[OpenMind5]

Sorry to change teh name subject, but I believe in (a) God. All i have to support my belife is the Bible. Its what i have grown up thinking, worshipping, and accepting. I have devoted my life to my god. I understand now more than i did before why people don't believe. Why i remember being the first person Freethinker proclaimed his belife of non-belife to. The lack of evidence is there, but peopel still choose to belive.

 

I remeber once hearing it put to me in terms of cups, and i wanna share it with everyone here.

 

Everyone has a personal cup from the day they are born to teh dy they die. This cup is filled with ideas and belife. At a young age, the cup is small, and eay to fill with ideas about god and others. We don't ask questions. As we grow, so does the cup, and sooner or later the same ideas that once illed teh cup, doesn't quite fill it even a half the way up. So we don't agree or belive.

 

Op5

[pgrmdave]

Is that idea from the movie Dogma? I seem to remember a scene in it where they talk about that. Great movie, by the way, I recommend that anybody see it.

[OpenMind5]

Acctually i think it might be...that is a great movie, definetly a MUST SEE to all hypographers!

 

op5

[Noodle]

Still, I am surprised too. I figured the ratio would be different. But 7 is too small a figure out of 500 members (out of whom I guess some 25-30 are monthly visitors and less than 10 are here every day).

 

 

And then there are those of us who are outer planets and revolve annually around Hypography.

 

Count my poll vote as NO. Like Freethinker pointed out, the choices of the poll are limited. I am not a "non-believer" as I don't play in the "believer" game: I am not a warmonger.

[bumab]

Count my poll vote as NO. Like Freethinker pointed out, the choices of the poll are limited. I am not a "non-believer" as I don't play in the "believer" game: I am not a warmonger.

 

Ouch. I'm hope you didn't quite mean that as harshly as it sounded. I'm definitally a believer, but i also lean towards socialism and am a strong proponent of evolution. Please don't judge the majority by the vocal minority.

 

It's interesting to me that most people who don't believe in God have never read the Bible, or Koran, or whatever you are choosing not to believe in. The "believer game" is certainly not what many people (christians and non-christians) think it is. Besides the obvious idiocy of the Bush administration, and the horrible things he claims are "justified," what are your problems with God?

 

Just curious! :hyper:

[Fishteacher73]

It's interesting to me that most people who don't believe in God have never read the Bible, or Koran, or whatever you are choosing not to believe in. The "believer game" is certainly not what many people (christians and non-christians) think it is. Besides the obvious idiocy of the Bush administration, and the horrible things he claims are "justified," what are your problems with God?

 

I actually have found the converse. I will admit that I am no expert, but have investigated many various religions. I am an athiest, but tend to find I have a better understanding of "the big picture" involved in many religions than the believers do. I may be the exception, but my experience with other athiests is that they have done their homework and made a decision. Many of the faithful have just been brought up under a doctrine and have not fully examined or questioned it.

[bumab]

I certainly hear that... most believers were just "brought up" in it, and do not question things the way they should. I think the biggest problem is a misunderstanding of faith- faith does not mean the absence of doubt at all. In fact, reading the Bible, Jesus doubted the plans on several occasions. I understand your position...

 

As to atheism, I'm curious as to what evidence you feel has justified your position. To me, from a scientific viewpoint, I cannot find any evidence against anything less the deism, using God as the primary cause for the universe. Again- I do not mean we should stop investigating, as many would have scientists do. So what is that evidence you feel is strong enough to become an atheist? (or continue to be one, or whatever :hyper: )

[Tormod]

Which god is it you think we should believe in, then? Atheism is not a "position". This has been discussed so many times now. Atheism is not a belief, it is rather a term denoting the absense of belief in a god (a-theism).

 

An atheist does not need evidence to be an atheist. Rather, an atheist would need evidence to no longer be one.

[bumab]

Sorry, I don't mean to rehash old arguments!

 

Perhaps I was getting mixed up in semantics. When I mentioned deism, it was with the impression of a position whereas the ultimate cause of the universe was a God (not any particular one at this point). As far as I know, that's still a viable position- it's got as much evidence for it as any other. Is it testable? As much as any competing theory for the ultimate cause of the universe, i.e. not really.

 

Perhaps I should have said agnostic. But I don't think lack of evidence for a God is a good reason to conclude there is no God at all. That would be akin to saying, 200 years ago, the lack of evidence for black holes meant there was no black holes. At it's root, atheism is just as much a position taken on faith as God is, just a less speculative one. To claim atheism is the proper position for someone based on a LACK of evidence is very unscientific, and closeminded, really. (please don't take that offensivly :hyper: )

 

Secondly, you must discount the millions of people throughout history who claim to have had direct contact with a God. While I don't really want to bring that up as evidence in a discussion about God's existance (because it's certainly not "hard," quantitative evidence), it does exist as qualitative evidence of God's existance.

[Fishteacher73]

I can possibly grant the diest ideal, but to that just seems to be lip service to the masses to keep them from burning many of the early thinkers and scientists at the stake.

 

I feel thare is no complelling evidence for a god. I feel very strongly that there is no evidence for an intersted god. The concepts of supreme being put forth in many religions portrays a kind gentle god (Often contradictory in many religions by vengeful or spiteful actions by this "kind" god). To witness innocent children starving in a famine and to be all powerful and to do nothing is abhorant to me. If there is an interested god, I want nothing to do with it.

 

When speaking about faith I think it is personal and discussions are just that; discussions. I do not intend to try to convert nor belittle others' faith.

[bumab]

I feel thare is no complelling evidence for a god. I feel very strongly that there is no evidence for an intersted god. The concepts of supreme being put forth in many religions portrays a kind gentle god (Often contradictory in many religions by vengeful or spiteful actions by this "kind" god). To witness innocent children starving in a famine and to be all powerful and to do nothing is abhorant to me. If there is an interested god, I want nothing to do with it.

 

When speaking about faith I think it is personal and discussions are just that; discussions. I do not intend to try to convert nor belittle others' faith.

 

Definatly, that's the hardest thing for me too, often times. Especially living in America (or any rich country), religious folk often lose sight of the fact that the world can be a horrible place. From my religious beliefs, it is for that reason that believers should feel all the more convicted and use such situations to show our "virtues," as it were :hyper: . Sadly, it's often when we show just how much we lack.

 

Have you read the Brother's Karamozov? Well, specifically the Grand Inquistor section, although I would recommend reading the whole thing.

[bumab]

When speaking about faith I think it is personal and discussions are just that; discussions. I do not intend to try to convert nor belittle others' faith.

 

Oh, and hear hear. Me too.

[pgrmdave]

But I don't think lack of evidence for a God is a good reason to conclude there is no God at all. That would be akin to saying, 200 years ago, the lack of evidence for black holes meant there was no black holes. At it's root, atheism is just as much a position taken on faith as God is, just a less speculative one. To claim atheism is the proper position for someone based on a LACK of evidence is very unscientific, and closeminded, really.

 

The fact that there is no evidence for a god can be taken to mean that it is a possibility, but not that it is true. You can't disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that does not mean that it exists. Atheism is not always an active disbelief in god, it can also be apathy, in which case it is not akin to a faith. Accepting that atheism is the proper choice for those who need proof is scientific. Science is constantly changing it's ideas, and each idea needs to be proven, not merely not unproven.

[pgrmdave]

I cannot find any evidence against anything less the deism, using God as the primary cause for the universe.

 

Maybe your views would be better summed up as - an outside force was necessary for the existance of our universe, not necessarily a god - a god is usually understood to be conscious - do your ideas require that?

[Tormod]

Perhaps I should have said agnostic. But I don't think lack of evidence for a God is a good reason to conclude there is no God at all.

 

This is bad logic. It is equally valid to say the exact opposite: lack of evidence for a god is good reason to conclude there is no god. But science does not work that way. It works by making assumptions, develop theories, then finding ways yo test those assumptions, then find evidence to support or falsify the theories. This is the scientific method.

 

Religion is based on faith and as such does not need scientific evidence to prove a god. In fact, the Christian faith requires believers to *believe*, not to prove.

 

That would be akin to saying, 200 years ago, the lack of evidence for black holes meant there was no black holes.

 

Again, this shows a lack of understanding as to how logic works.

 

At it's root, atheism is just as much a position taken on faith as God is, just a less speculative one. To claim atheism is the proper position for someone based on a LACK of evidence is very unscientific, and closeminded, really. (please don't take that offensivly :hyper: )

 

How is it NOT offensive to claim that atheism is based on closemindedness?

 

You also seem unaware of what atheism really is. It is not a faith, it is not a philosophy, it is not a scientific state of mind. It is simply (like I pointed out above) the lack of faith in a god. It has *nothing* to do with evidence. If you read my previous post again, you will see that evidence FOR a god would perhaps change the mind of an atheist. *Lack* of evidence wouldn't mean a thing to an atheist, as an atheist has no faith to disprove.

 

Who has claimed that atheism is based on the lack of evidence? Not me.

 

Secondly, you must discount the millions of people throughout history who claim to have had direct contact with a God. While I don't really want to bring that up as evidence in a discussion about God's existance (because it's certainly not "hard," quantitative evidence), it does exist as qualitative evidence of God's existance.

 

1) you really don't want to bring it up as evidence

2) you bring it up as evidence

 

...but sadly, it is not *scientific* evidence, no matter how you define it.

 

Using the same argument as with the black holes: That people believe in something is not evidence. That they have no proof of something, does not count as evidence. That they claim to have been in contact with their god, is not evidence (if so, then aliens also exist simply because a lot of people claim to have been in contact with them).

 

Otherwise, it would be perfectly logical to say that since everyone thought action at a distance was instantaneous until the end of the 1800s, then it was so until it was discovered that forces needed time to interact.

 

Don't forget that this is a science forum. It is not a forum about religion. Religion tends to seep into a lot of our discussions but usually because someone unwittingly uses a creationist argument or an atheist attacks something that appears to be one.

 

I suggest checking out our FAQ, especially the part abuot "How to behave in a science forum", and checking out the links in that article about how to avoid common logical fallacies.