Do You Believe In God?

[balder]

Something I felt like passing along (not directed at anyone in particular, just something I felt was relevant to this topic):

Why I'm quitting the online atheism community

I agree with him, faith is not based on logic, so there's no point trying to change people' minds with arguments. I learned long ago that most of things we do in life are not based on logic, we only rationalize things to explain why we behave like that. It's something like "I'm not talking to that girl because she is too arrogant" when we actually would like to talk to her, but are afraid. Most of our decisions are purely sentimental, we do what our instincts and fears tell us to do and when we think about it later, we find excuses to why we did or didn't something: "I was tired", "I didn't want to hurt you", "That was the only way".

That's the same with religion, people feel good about it and will try to find excuses to explain why they keep believing. It's not about arguments, it's about how they feel about it, and there's nothing anyone can do to make them stop believing if they don't doubt for themselves. People don't want to feel like they've been wrong all the time, and that's why they often find excuses not to change.

 

[Divrom]

I'm more interested in whether "God" believes in me!

 

[apt-get]

There is no evidence for the existence of any God, nor is the concept of God even coherently defined. I do not believe in God(s).

 

[Tarragon]

Systems may evolve, but Darwinism, as an ideological belief-system, is not only not true but patently absurd, offensive, and based upon obvious lies (ex. that people are mere 'machines', or 'apes', 'animals', there is no free will etc.).

Err, Dawrin didn't set up an ideological belief system. He based his writings in the real world observation of real animals. No invisible creatures were created in order for him to rationalise his argument. If you actually read "Origin of the Species" (freely available on the net), you will find him writing about his observations.

So,sorry to have to point this out, but your argument is totally invalid and not based on the truth of what Dawrin wrote and thought. You jumped to a few conclusions of your own based on something you didn't fully investigate. Which is fine, as you seem to believe in God which does require that type of ability to not rationally think using logic and proper logical, scientific thinking and processes.

Not trying to pick an argument with you personally, just standing up for Mr Dawrin who you have misrepresented in order to validate your own beliefs.

 

[Peter A.]

Err, Dawrin didn't set up an ideological belief system.

Yes, I know, but many of his past and modern-day devotees (like the 'New Atheist Brigade') seem to believe that he was so much more than someone who simply drew people's attention to processes within the natural world that could account for the observations he made. For example, many during the latter 19th century used the ideas he came up with to justify racism, eugenics and the class system in England.

By the way, his name was Mr. Darwin, not Dawrin.

 

[Peter A.]

There is no evidence for the existence of any God, nor is the concept of God even coherently defined. I do not believe in God(s).

Actually, I can both define the concept and provide evidence that any reasonable person would at least accept as being valid, but I won't bother, because the last time I attempted to do so I just ended up 'offending' people and getting into trouble for it.

 

[Tarragon]

Yes, I know, but many of his past and modern-day devotees (like the 'New Atheist Brigade') seem to believe that he was so much more than someone who simply drew people's attention to processes within the natural world that could account for the observations he made. For example, many during the latter 19th century used the ideas he came up with to justify racism, eugenics and the class system in England.

By the way, his name was Mr. Darwin, not Dawrin.

I how to spell. Typing on a touchscreen is another matter!

It wasn't Darwins fault other people jumped on their own personal bandwagon using his name but not what he actually said. I mean, how many religions were probably started by someone just thinking how nice it would be if everyone behaved nicer to each other, only to be twisted and manipulated into something else? (answer, probably all of them!)

Darwins work on "Origin of the Species" doesn't have devotees, wrong word. It has people who have read the work and considered whether or not it made any logical sense and stood up to rigourous scientific testing. If people are enthusiastic about a piece of proven scientific reasoning, then that is great. No harm in that.

It's when people don't dare question something in case it is proven false, that is when something looses validity. Science is about finding out questions about the nature of reality. Religion is all about providing people answers about the nature of a fantasy.

 

[Tarragon]

Actually, I can both define the concept and provide evidence that any reasonable person would at least accept as being valid, but I won't bother, because the last time I attempted to do so I just ended up 'offending' people and getting into trouble for it.

Err, seriously dude - if you can provide evidence that God exists, wouldn't that make you rather famous!? Certainly you would hae a duty to mankind to share this evidence...

We are talking rational, scientific (aka independently verifiable fact based observational proof) here?

Images in burnt toast don't really count I'm afraid!

 

[Ste11aeres]

Err, seriously dude - if you can provide evidence that God exists, wouldn't that make you rather famous!? Certainly you would hae a duty to mankind to share this evidence...

We are talking rational, scientific (aka independently verifiable fact based observational proof) here?

Images in burnt toast don't really count I'm afraid!

A.Scientific stuff, by definition, has to do with the physical universe.God is immaterial, infinite, and transcendant. By definition, He is beyond the reach of science. Nto contradictory to science, just on a different level, entirely.
B. Guess what, the people who have provided arguments for the existence of God have become famous. One of them is Thomas Aquinas.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Home

Although my question is: when you ask that evidence be based on scientific observational proof, what type of observational proof would you want? A nebula that spells out the words "I am God and I made this." ???

Taking a very different approach to Thomas's arguments, let's not forget that the Catholic Church has a thorough process for determingin whether something can be classed as a mirace.The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides If They're Real | LiveScience

P.S. I don't think that reading those arguments will change your mind on the existence of God. I think that you might or might not read them, might or might not understand them, probaly won't have the philosoohical background to appreciate them, and will remain atheist. But don't be so quick to dismiss all religious thought as if it were at the level of images in burnt toast.

 

[Tarragon]

A.Scientific stuff, by definition, has to do with the physical universe.God is immaterial, infinite, and transcendant. By definition, He is beyond the reach of science. Nto contradictory to science, just on a different level, entirely.
B. Guess what, the people who have provided arguments for the existence of God have become famous. One of them is Thomas Aquinas.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Home

Although my question is: when you ask that evidence be based on scientific observational proof, what type of observational proof would you want? A nebula that spells out the words "I am God and I made this." ???

Taking a very different approach to Thomas's arguments, let's not forget that the Catholic Church has a thorough process for determingin whether something can be classed as a mirace.The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides If They're Real | LiveScience

P.S. I don't think that reading those arguments will change your mind on the existence of God. I think that you might or might not read them, might or might not understand them, probaly won't have the philosoohical background to appreciate them, and will remain atheist. But don't be so quick to dismiss all religious thought as if it were at the level of images in burnt toast.

With the same reasoning, then I can choose to believe in Santa and he Tooth Fairy! Sorry, but I suppose the clue is in the question - the thread is titled "Do you Believe in God". The important word is believe. You can choose to Believe anything, but it doesn't make it real just cause you wish it were so.

that's me done for this thread. Ive said my bit and don't want to carry on repeating myself.

 

[balder]

It wasn't Darwins fault other people jumped on their own personal bandwagon using his name but not what he actually said. I mean, how many religions were probably started by someone just thinking how nice it would be if everyone behaved nicer to each other, only to be twisted and manipulated into something else? (answer, probably all of them!)

It's a pity that most people never try to understand evolution, instead they just judge "it's not in the bible and that's it". When I was a child and people told me about how God created things from nothing, I used to think that maybe people just didn't know how. I used to spend a lot of time in my childhood playing with insects in my backyard, and it aways made sense to me that their similarities indicated that some time in the past they might have been separated just like languages that evolve. I think Darwin was brilliant for devoting his life trying to understand that.

 

[Ste11aeres]

It's a pity that most people never try to understand evolution, instead they just judge "it's not in the bible and that's it". When I was a child and people told me about how God created things from nothing, I used to think that maybe people just didn't know how. I used to spend a lot of time in my childhood playing with insects in my backyard, and it aways made sense to me that their similarities indicated that some time in the past they might have been separated just like languages that evolve. I think Darwin was brilliant for devoting his life trying to understand that.

I see no contradiction between God as Creator and evolution, and, actually, no contradiction between the Bible and evolution. The story of the creation in the beginning of the bible seems poetic, it seems that the part that is meant to be taken literally is that God created everything, and the part that is poetic is the six days stuff. As a Catholic, it's pretty easy to have a relaxed or favorable view of evolution considering the attitude taken by our popes Pope: Creation vs. evolution an

Pope Benedict 'believes in evolution' | Mail Online

 

[apt-get]

Actually, I can both define the concept and provide evidence that any reasonable person would at least accept as being valid, but I won't bother, because the last time I attempted to do so I just ended up 'offending' people and getting into trouble for it.

You can send me a private message if you would like.

 

[Warwick C]

I myself do not believe in god, but I do think some people need some thing to believe in. Then you have the issue of which god, into throw into the mix. I at times feel things get twisted to suit who ever it suits.

 

[Sparticus]

I believe women are the center of the Universe. I saw the Universe in a woman's eyes. As for G-d I believe in MotherNature, am Spiritual and do not want to take away hope from those who believe in a religion/God.

 

[Rob]

Just to back up some of the material from my last post, here it is:

p. 148

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981), Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff.

"Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were . '10 to the power of 40,000.'"

Here are two advocates of evolution, and yet their own words indicate their lack of faith in the evolutionary theory. In the same interview in London Daily Express, Wickramasinghe stated:

"We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling."

Given the above, I cannot prove the existence of God or the non-existence of God. All I can do is offer the reason for my faith.
Thanks for the great topic.
Rob

 

[Rob]

I believe in God because there is too much complexity and order on this planet and in the universe, to have it all come by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, renowned mathematician and astronomer partnered with Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe to calculate the probability of a single living cell arriving by chance. That number came to be
1 chance in 10^40,000. That is one chance in 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. This is beyond astronomical as far as odds against are concerned. The number of observable stars is 10^22, while the estimated number of electrons in the universe is somewhere in the order of 10^80.

I do not know what happened to the original post I made, so I had to re-write and paraphrase it. So if you read this first it would make more sense.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I was brought up Catholic (non-practicing now), so I've always "believed". However, I have LOTS of questions when I get up there. I believe what really convinced me was when I took Anatomy class and did autopsies on human bodies. After that, I just don't know how some people can think they are "better" than others - we are all really just pieces of meat, everyone physically identical (which is a miracle how we are all the same with organs all in the same place). What really is a miracle, though, is that I held a human brain in my hand that had once had a personality, thoughts and memories - like yourself. A persons liver is also just a piece of meat, but when it fails it's a horrible thing to watch as it's connected to every other organ in the body. How the human body functions is a miracle in itself as I've seen the lengths a body will go to in order to keep an equilibrium when even one system fails. In order for all of that to function like it does in harmony tells me there is a God.

 

[Warwick C]

I just had a weird though as to a family tree. On the female side Mother superior, Gia and on the male side God and jesus. In this I am probably closer to Sparticus, as a lot of cristian holidays were originally pagan celebrations ie winter soltice.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

I'd say that I'm non-religious but not a hardcore atheist. This has always kind of summed up my view of religion:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations