Why do/don't you believe in God (page 7)

kazar

I don't believe in God. Evolution did it for me.

lonelysheep

I can hear and I do accept other peoples choices but I follow my heart.

Despite the fact we are on opposite ends of the spectrum in this matter, this is exactly how I feel as well.

talesin

JamesThomas

Yes, I'm kinda getting what you are saying. That's how I feel about the song ,,, 'me' is just the focus by which we get there. hmmm, more food for thought, though. Thanks.

t

Tigerman

When unbeliever's find themselves surrounded by the possibility of death they cry from their souls for God to save them.

Daunt

That's a pretty bold statement Tigerman, if not outright lieing. Try to contribute something beneficial to the conversation without spreading baseless claims.

RichieRich

I do not believe in god, because he is not real. And if he is, by some off chance, real, he must be hella busy because he ain't doing sqaut for a lotta people I know...

But I would like to meet him. Because if he's done half the things he takes credit for, he's one hardcore mofo!!

tetrapod.sapien

there is no evidence for anything supernatural, and this includes any gods.

there is such a thing, however, as magical thinking, as documented by psychology. the large, large majority of humanity suffer from some form of magical thinking or another. is it because reality is just too much to take? is it because of a lack of imagination? not sure myself, but there are a lot of magical thinkers out there. and, until the magic actually works, and god's existence is positively proven in a credible manner, i will remain an atheist. anything else really belabours credulity.

and, also, to say that you believe that god exists because of all the wonderful creation around you, does not, even in the very slightest sense, prove that god exists.

really though. for as inspiring and wonderful as nature really is, it does not need any magic to explain it's existence and function. for one to say that nature is wonderful because it was created, really equals ignorance at how nature works. from DNA to the Cosmos at large, there is nothing that even hints at god in the slightest sense. as a matter of fact, this universe is pretty much exactly as we could expect a universe with no god at the helm to be like. and to say that god exists because of how complex nature is, is to really be woefully unaware of the tiny gaps that he actually fills, after what science has illuminated for us. (see God of the Gaps). if one chooses not to study natural science, then what can i say? or if one does study natural science, but still sees god everywhere, i only have two words: mental discontinuity.

LT,

Ermmm... no it hasn't.

ermm, yes it has.

extrapolation on scientific knowledge via parsimony, shows us why we are here, and where we are going, in the most natural sense. if it's blind and pitiless, then perhaps it's because that's what nature is.

Dustin

I am still deciding. I need to do some looking in different directions to find some of the answers I seek. I am desiring to explore the dark side of the religious spectrum to see if some answers exist. I certainly have found no proof or answers in exploring Christianity or Eastern religions. So before I decide one way or the other I need to search out answers from other sources. If I find nothing then I will be done with God and religion for good.

googlemagoogle

I know there is a God.

huh? you KNOW it? i understand that some BELIEVE in some invisible friends... but KNOWING it? are you sure?

Pole

LittleToe,

In fact the kind of metaphors we find in this book prove that the Bible is only a work of men.

"Prove" is kinda a strong word, doncha think?

That depends. The burden of proof is with those who claim extraordinary things. And claiming you have a piece of writing inspired by Almighty God is an extraordinary claim indeed. So imagine this situation:

A friend of mine comes up to me with a book which he says was written under the direction of aliens. The book contains some nice stories about how aliens communicated with humans in the past. It also contains some alien revelations - mostly unintelligible rants about human whores riding mutated aliens from the planet of Pathmox and ending up in their toxic stomachs. I read the book and say to him there's nothing unusual about those stories and each and everyone of them must have been made up by a slightly delusional writer. Therefore, I say my analysis "proves" that this book has no supernatural value. Then he goes: ""Prove" is kinda a strong word, doncha think? ".

Is he right? Perhaps. But why does he make me fulfill such strong criteria of good reasoning while he's disrespecting even the most basic criteria of making a coherent and verifiable argument in that he takes for granted some of the stuff from his little book?

The only way the Bible is different from the imaginary book about aliens is that it has got a tremendous amount of spin and marketing and that millions of people have actually believed in mutually exclusive interpretations of it. Oh, and it has some really good apologists - mostly what I call intellectual obfuscators who specialize in picking holes in most other explanations.

Or am I wrong?

Pole

Why do/don't you believe in God

Share this