Howcome so many people still believe in God?

[speed]

Obviously God excists, its obvious init....but he or it isnt a Muslim fella or he or it isnt a Christian geezer...more likely he or it is some form of jellyfish? If you live in a gold fish bowl you only understand what you see from within your goldfish bowl....hense god must be in the form of say water or bubbles or a little plastic bridge! we aint none of us seen the other side of the universe so we dont know what it looks like....maybe its all a big con and we are all little gooks in a computa game somewhere in the future..............

Ah, its kind of fun--I say it stays. I love the Cockney accent.

 

[Under The Oak]

There is proof for the big bang - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence - it is the best model that can explain everything we see, so the lack of knowledge of the exact process, or predecessors (which was a singularity, it is thought, not "reactants combining) doesn't change the fact that it is still the most reliable, and scientifically valid, theory. And your duck-billed platypus analogy is flawed. Just as I have been saying for the last two pages that you can't use science to disprove religion, by the same token you also can't use it (or your misunderstandings of it) to try and prove god.

Ok, I've read over that article before and several others that provide evidence for the Big Bang, and I gather that these are the main arguments for the theory: 1) The universe is observed to be expanding. 2) The leftover radiation from the explosion. This does not seem to prove anything about the Big Bang, although it does offer compelling support for the expansion of the universe and background radiation. Scientists even admit that the evolution of the earliest universe is not well understood because it is not clear exactly what laws were at work back then.

And I didn't try and use the duckbilled platypus analogy to prove God - only to illustrate the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea. People ask why we should believe in something without evidence. I personally believe there is plenty of evidence for God in the world, but even if there is none, personal interpretation doesn't count as truth. If you say "I have never seen it, so it must not exist", then that's just ignorant. Maybe you're looking for evidence in the wrong places.

This logic, used by most creationists is flawed on several levels - as I have said elsewhere "it is faulty logic to look at something after the event and talk about the chances/statistics involved in what has come to be and then expanding these slim chances to envoke a creator. It's the same as me commenting that "oh my god, what were the chances of me seeing the car with a numberplate F156 DEW today in the street?" I know it has happened, and thus cannot use that to analyse the probability of an event. The chances of life developing through 'mere chance' may be slim (or otherwise), but the very fact we are here to see that means it has occured, and then using an argument based on the 'chances' of this happening is not valid." In addition to that, we have evidence for the 'accidental explosion'existing. We have a simple heirarchically nested pattern of development of life, with a well documented process by which it developed. There is ample proof for evolution, and it is by no means a far-fetched belief.

I understand what you mean, although that is very convient for evolutionists. Just like you look at the expansion of the universe and background radiation as solid signs of the Big Bang, I look at nature and it's complexity as signs of God. Show me the difference. Both require belief in something that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"I think man has bigger problems to face up to than arguing over whose fairytale is better, or how much superior those without a fairytale are. Bottom line, you will never be able to rid the Earth of religions, too many people rely on them for whatever reasons. So what other options are there? If people - atheists included - would just be a little more tolerant, and a little less dogmatic, the world would be a far better place."

I completely agree with you. Whatever we believe should be a personal thing. I don't go around preaching to anyone, but I feel this forum has a severely unbalanced viewpoint, and I certainly like to learn whatever I can in my discussions with people of other beliefs.

Oddly enough, I've often said something similar for years - only I've replaced the word 'faith' with 'science' and/or 'logic'.

I don't fear science, I only fear that people will continue to buy into it's misuse for supporting their personal worldview. Science is neutral. And to answer your other question about what suggests a God, I've already said it multiple times. I believe there is strong evidence for a creator, by the complexity of nature and intimate detail and beauty in all of life, added to my own personal experiences. I may get ridiculed for including "subjective" experience, but rationalism is a purely dead-end way of thinking. You can't look at everything with total logic or else life is utterly devoid of enjoyment. I've never said that this proves there is a God, merely that those things are what make me believe there is one.

Nobody even mentions the Big Bang before you did... This tread is not Evolutionist vs Christians creationism and Inteliigent design.

"Absence of Evidence" should in fact be circonstensial evidence of non existence. Until proven otherwise that is. I mean why act like it exist if there is a total absence of evidence it does? I'm not saying to stop searching for the truth, what ever it is, but what do we do in the mean time? Get on our knees and pray? No, act as if it does not exist! How come so many people don't feel that way? I mean, fine, you believe it might exist, that's ok with me. But if you act on this belief, this faith, by praying, going to churches (or temples or mecca), wage wars to infidels, etc ... I mean I just can't begin to understand this total lack of logic. Science is not perfect and can't explain everything, but it does explain a lot of things...

Act like it doesn't exist? That IS stopping the search for truth, or else you'd act like it might exist with an interest to find out whether or not it exists! If people everywhere just started ignoring what they felt didn't have enough "facts" to satisfy their views, then we would be stuck in phase one of life and going absolutely nowhere. For that matter, how is acting like it doesn't exist any better than acting as if it does? Both views assume something that may or may not be true, therefore it's always a 50/50 chance that either of us could be right.

And no, science is not perfect, nor will it ever be. It's not supposed to explain everything, and it probably has far more theories than it has absolute explanations. Haven't you ever heard that there are at least 3 sides to every story?

 

[Russell]

Ok, I've read over that article before and several others that provide evidence for the Big Bang, and I gather that these are the main arguments for the theory: 1) The universe is observed to be expanding. 2) The leftover radiation from the explosion. This does not seem to prove anything about the Big Bang, although it does offer compelling support for the expansion of the universe and background radiation. Scientists even admit that the evolution of the earliest universe is not well understood because it is not clear exactly what laws were at work back then.

That and the abundance of primordial element, yes. But these three pieces of evidence point together towards a big bang theory - they are what you would expect and predict if a big bang had occured, as we understand it, and that is just how science works. I wouldn't claim it is perfect, but at the moment that is by far the most realistic theory. The fact that it is not totally perfect is just science, and you can't use any uncertainties to call on God as an explanation.

As I said in my first post in this thread, God and science are completely different arenas - if you think it was God on faith, then there is absolutely no argument, but you can't then say "this theory doesn't explain every detail hence god must have done it", because that is trying to use god in scientific terms and when it comes down to it - purely scientifically - there is a hell of a lot more reliable evidence to support the big bang than there is to support a Creator.

And I didn't try and use the duckbilled platypus analogy to prove God - only to illustrate the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea. People ask why we should believe in something without evidence. I personally believe there is plenty of evidence for God in the world, but even if there is none, personal interpretation doesn't count as truth. If you say "I have never seen it, so it must not exist", then that's just ignorant. Maybe you're looking for evidence in the wrong places.

This was addressed a few pages back (not by me)

Also, surely if you have evidence (in scientific terms), then you don't have faith, you have knowledge? Faith relies in believing in things which can neither be proven or disproven, if you have evidence then your religion is no longer faith. What you say can be evidence for you on a personal level, but it can't be used as a rational scientific argument, and there is no need to do so if you understand that science and religion are just completely different. Neither can influence each other.

I understand what you mean, although that is very convient for evolutionists. Just like you look at the expansion of the universe and background radiation as solid signs of the Big Bang, I look at nature and it's complexity as signs of God. Show me the difference. Both require belief in something that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There is nothing convenient about it - it wasn't invented just to piss off creationists. That is just how science and logic has worked since they were first developed. The difference is one provides a theory with supporting evidence that explains what we are seeing; the big bang is the only logical, scientific conclusion from the evidence we have. The complexity of nature is easily explainable with a scientific process with an abundance of evidence. No problems there - again one is the only logical, scientific conclusion from the evidence we have. By all means take it to be 'evidence' of God if you like, but understand that there are scientific explanations, so what you see as 'proof' does not have to act as so for everyone else in the world, and one view has a lot more supporting evidence than the other.

 

[SoundMaster]

I don't fear science, I only fear that people will continue to buy into it's misuse for supporting their personal worldview.

And, again, the same can clearly be said of the many religionists and their misuse of their faiths to support worldviews (which are often destructive in nature). In fact, based on current world events, this holds even more relevance.

Science is neutral.

I agree 100%. It really irks me when religionists claim otherwise. I'm tired of the irrational claim that atheists, etc., hold science as their 'religion'. Folks who make such claims clearly miss the point.

You can't look at everything with total logic or else life is utterly devoid of enjoyment. I've never said that this proves there is a God, merely that those things are what make me believe there is one.

But this, too, is simply a point of view. Perhaps you find a view based on
'total logic' devoid of enjoyment, but millions of others may not. It's all relative. And let's face it: enjoyment, or the lack of, doesn't factor into the equation. Whether we enjoy X or Y, or don't at all, 2+2 will still always equal 4.

 

[Mikobass]

Act like it doesn't exist? That IS stopping the search for truth, or else you'd act like it might exist with an interest to find out whether or not it exists! If people everywhere just started ignoring what they felt didn't have enough "facts" to satisfy their views, then we would be stuck in phase one of life and going absolutely nowhere. For that matter, how is acting like it doesn't exist any better than acting as if it does? Both views assume something that may or may not be true, therefore it's always a 50/50 chance that either of us could be right.

And no, science is not perfect, nor will it ever be. It's not supposed to explain everything, and it probably has far more theories than it has absolute explanations. Haven't you ever heard that there are at least 3 sides to every story?

Please tell me how going to church, getting on your knees, praying, waging war against other religion is any help to getting closer to the truth?? If you do all that, you do not care about the truth because somehow you think you already know the truth, other wise you would'nt be doing all that!

Scientist did not have "faith" in electro-magnetism, electricity or nuclear reaction. Yet, they were able to continue their research and find the truth and prove those did exist. Why can't theist do the same? You think they had all the tools back in time to see the atoms? No, but they found ways to achieve their goals and overcome the diffiulties. Of course it helps when what you are trying to prove really does exists!!!

There might be "3 (or even 50!) sides to every story" but only one truth, one reality... And no not every hypothesis have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong, actually most don't.

 

[Under The Oak]

By all means take it to be 'evidence' of God if you like, but understand that there are scientific explanations, so what you see as 'proof' does not have to act as so for everyone else in the world, and one view has a lot more supporting evidence than the other.

That line right there is what I've been arguing for the duration of my discussion in this thread. I don't know beyond reasonable doubt whether I've found the truth or not, and I am still very much searching for it. Just because I believe that there is a God does not mean I have to stop looking at other truth claims. I also agree that there has to be one view that has more supporting evidence than the others, because there can only be one true explanation for our origins.

I understand that there are scientific explanations, but I believe there is "evidence" to back up whatever people want to believe or else they wouldn't believe in it. That evidence can be vague sometimes, but that's where we all differ in the faith we put into whatever truth claim we follow. By your same argument then, what you see as 'proof' of evolution does not have to act as so for everyone else in the world.

 

[EGOR]

A Christian Guy will approach you the street with his bible and try to make you see the light of Jesus..when he says to you... "you too can see the light and live (forever) ....Reply to him or her.."I dont want to live forever".....85 years will do me fine, thank you! this for some reason always draws a frustrated look on the face of the interrogator. Then mention the fact that science is on the verge of creating body parts for each and everyone of us as well as the book of man, genetics..blah, blah, blah....and then say "Hey Mr Religeous guy or gal, It looks as if in the future we may live forever anyway like.....without the help of God!!!! so really I can be a bad, bad boy??? If I want"..... www.Agankast.com

 

[Tongue_Ring]

oh fucking crap
this thread is turning into one of those threads where every post contains a quote from a previous post
and (in so far as what i've seen) this means that this thread is going to turn into crap if the moderators don't start editing/deleting some of the posts

 

[EGOR]

I agree, but dont quote me on that!!!

 

[Tongue_Ring]

You know what? Somehow, I ended up realizing that I do believe in God, but I just think that God sucks ass at his job. I don't really know why, but I can't get around the idea that without God, mankind would be a hell of a lot better off. Mankind is as persistent and stubborn as they are, because religion is a crutch that people use to continue standing strong in debates that they know they should've lost a very long long time ago.

yes
"God" really does suck at his job
i believe in the idea of "inteligent design" but not any of the "organized" religions because (to me at least) the "God" of "the old testament" and the "God" of "the new testament" are clearly 2 seperate entities and they both suck at their jobs
the example that's in my head right now
hurricanes Katrina and Rita seemd to be the Old Testament's God killing evil people like "Soddom and Gamorra" (in Genisis), if he was going to destroy a USA city (as opposed to one in another country) then surely he should have destroyed Las Vegas instead of New Orleans, right?

 

[Silver Incubus]

yes
"God" really does suck at his job
i believe in the idea of "inteligent design" but not any of the "organized" religions because (to me at least) the "God" of "the old testament" and the "God" of "the new testament" are clearly 2 seperate entities and they both suck at their jobs
the example that's in my head right now
hurricanes Katrina and Rita seemd to be the Old Testament's God killing evil people like "Soddom and Gamorra" (in Genisis), if he was going to destroy a USA city (as opposed to one in another country) then surely he should have destroyed Las Vegas instead of New Orleans, right?

you know, I think the rational explaination of Sodom and Gamorra is that they were hit by a meteror shower, and then said to be destroyed because it was wicked.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

you know, I think the rational explaination of Sodom and Gamorra is that they were hit by a meteror shower, and then said to be destroyed because it was wicked.

okay that explination makes a hell of a lot more fucking sense than the stupid crap i posted
i'm just posting a few posts of crap that i wouldn't normally post because i've got a lot of shit going on in my life today

 

[Thoth-Amon]

okay that explination makes a hell of a lot more fucking sense than the stupid crap i posted
i'm just posting a few posts of crap that i wouldn't normally post because i've got a lot of shit going on in my life today

Or how about they never existed at all! Or if they did the Jews simply made up a myth about how the cities were destroyed years after they actually were?

 

[Travis]

I'm not going to read through all of this thread. I skimmed over the first few responses, and that's enough for me.

To have faith is to trust. Someone tells you to fall backwards and they will catch you before you hit the ground. Will that person catch you? Will they let you fall and hit the ground? You don't know. The choice to, or not to trust them is yours. Such is faith in a god.
-Travis

 

[Horus]

Today, I bought a copy of The Inferno, by Dante Alighierti, and I must say, it is one hell of a good book. But at alot of parts, it leaves you wondering "Would God really be that intense in his punnishments? Can a person really be trapped in torture for Eternity?" And all those fun questions. And I've come to realize that that book is what happens when people overuse the words Forever, Eternity, Eternal, and all those synonims. Having to put up with an eternity of torture, you'd think that souls would eventually just learn to put up with it after a few thousand years, and the torture would just kindof be something that's just there on a daily basis... even though in Hell, there is no day or night. But you know what I mean.
Then, that got me thinking about the idea of Eternal Paradise. And I thought about what it would be like to get whatever I wanted, and for everything to go my way forever. That would get really realy boring after a while. You can't have good without bad, and you can't taste joy if you've never felt sadness.

 

[EGOR]

Today, I bought a copy of The Inferno, by Dante Alighierti, and I must say, it is one hell of a good book. But at alot of parts, it leaves you wondering "Would God really be that intense in his punnishments? Can a person really be trapped in torture for Eternity?" And all those fun questions. And I've come to realize that that book is what happens when people overuse the words Forever, Eternity, Eternal, and all those synonims. Having to put up with an eternity of torture, you'd think that souls would eventually just learn to put up with it after a few thousand years, and the torture would just kindof be something that's just there on a daily basis... even though in Hell, there is no day or night. But you know what I mean.
Then, that got me thinking about the idea of Eternal Paradise. And I thought about what it would be like to get whatever I wanted, and for everything to go my way forever. That would get really realy boring after a while. You can't have good without bad, and you can't taste joy if you've never felt sadness.

Wots erteral and wots paradise hmm, who wants everything they want, and everything to go their way forever....All books are fiction, not one book tells the truth...its all storys....If I was given the opportunity to live forever I reckon i would take it.....just incase this is it.....I reckon everyone would. I wouldnt get bored...how could you get bored with life, lifes great...I would have my little spaceship and explore the universes......get outta this goldfish bowl, theres lots to do and see and i reckon if the truth is out there then why not go and find it....Space is big, big, big....and if you cant stand it.......write a book. :zombie: www.Agankast.com

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Someone tells you to fall backwards and they will catch you before you hit the ground. Will that person catch you? Will they let you fall and hit the ground? You don't know. The choice to, or not to trust them is yours. Such is faith in a god.
-Travis

what if the person behind you maliciously lets you fall onto sharp, jagged ground that injures you or ground that's covered in mud that ruins your brand new dry-clean-only clothes?

what if the person behind you doesn't catch you because he's too busy catching the other people that are falling backward?

what if the person behind you can't catch you because he has no arms?

what if the person behind you isn't really there because he is merely part of your imagination?

wouldn't it be better to just not fall backwards at all?

religion is the wheelchair for the crippled mind

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Or how about they never existed at all! Or if they did the Jews simply made up a myth about how the cities were destroyed years after they actually were?

yeah, that makes the most sense, i don't know what the hell i was smoking yesterday

 

[Doll]

This is such a common question; I think this is how it went.. people believe because they're scared that if they don't, they'll go to hell. But in reality, they're not sure which is a sin too. Nobody is really sure but everybody 'believes' because of the term, 'better to be safe than sorry.' Even then, if there really is a God, he would obviously know our faith on the whole question, 'Is he real?'

Some people say they believe because - well if you don't, then you're an outcast in some old fashioned towns. I know, in one town.. you cannot get away with saying God Isn't Real. It could easily bring your social status down by not going to Church, etc. Obviously religion is one of the biggest things in the world. I think the question shouldn't be.. How come so many people still believe in God? But - Do people really believe in God or are they scared shitless of admitting that they're unsure?

So, some people may not believe but say so because of their family, social status, whether or not he is real or not.. um. And some might whole heartedly believe because of an experience and a 'white light', my whole opinion on it is really.. I believe that it was just a way to gain power. Oh, not to mention people were scared into believing it because of the ages of when people would get set on fire because they didn't believe, 'witches', so those people went in with the whole 'faith', and sent it down to their grandchild out of fright for their lives.

So really, the question is, 'Do people really believe' rather than 'Why do they believe?'

-Doll

 

[Nemesis_lxix]

Fear is no longer a motivation to believe in a religion and when we mention “god” we don’t necessarily mean the Christian god.
There are so many religions based on true faith out there that its not right judge them like so.Most of the stupid acts to provoke fear and turn people to believers were made but the roman-catholic church in dark ages with only cause to raise money by selling out god.
I will once more say that the church is no the religion.
Just because some people who formed a church are stupid it doesn’t mean te realigion is stupid too.
I don’t think that there is mentioned in Christianity that if you don’t worship Christ you will suffer hell.Only that we will all be judged by our acts and according to that we will get what we deserve.And once more, hell is not a pit of fire with little demons pitching you with forks ! it is more of a state of mind that indicates the life you have lived.