Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Howcome so many people still believe in God?
- Thread starter Mikobass
- Start date
Russell
__
Silver Incubus said:
I'll check out that essay as soon as I have a chance, thanks! Nope, no idea who that guys is
He must have found here using the stats on his website, and then emailed me by registering the on the forums. Very good of him to go to all that effort just to email me that link, so i thought the least I could do was share!Silver Incubus said:
My bad, you're correct with that one, but I do feel this guys research crosses the boundary of psychology into a lot of other fields he doesn't seem to have any formal qualifications in. That doesn't necessarily undermine his work, but in conjunction with my other criticisms, it doesn't look entirely reputable to me.
Under The Oak
Ens Causa Sui
And science is the wheelchair for the arrogant mind.
I think an equally valid question next to "how come so many people still believe in God" would be to ask "why do so many people act like science is there to prove what did or didn't happen at the beginning of time?" Science explains the function of our world, and everything about it's origins is merely speculation. People don't seem to understand how ridiculous it is to think that science can perfectly explain it's own formation.
And to respond to the original post, there are plenty of things that are accepted without proof, like the Big Bang. Can any of you prove what reactants combined to cause a massive explosion that created all life as we know it? Where did those reactants come from if there was nothing in existence before the Big Bang? Scientists initially thought the duck-billed platypus was a hoax and that it wasn't real. Just because we don't have evidence for something or solid proof at the time doesn't mean it can't really exist.
I think an equally valid question next to "how come so many people still believe in God" would be to ask "why do so many people act like science is there to prove what did or didn't happen at the beginning of time?" Science explains the function of our world, and everything about it's origins is merely speculation. People don't seem to understand how ridiculous it is to think that science can perfectly explain it's own formation.
And to respond to the original post, there are plenty of things that are accepted without proof, like the Big Bang. Can any of you prove what reactants combined to cause a massive explosion that created all life as we know it? Where did those reactants come from if there was nothing in existence before the Big Bang? Scientists initially thought the duck-billed platypus was a hoax and that it wasn't real. Just because we don't have evidence for something or solid proof at the time doesn't mean it can't really exist.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
TaylorC said:
That's a good point however some would respond with "well why don't you just believe in fairies or gremlins".
Under The Oak
Ens Causa Sui
What people want to believe should be their own business. I don't care if others want to believe in fairies, gremlins, vampires, or whatever. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however I think now that we've been to just about every remote corner of the Earth, it's totally logical to say that those creatures don't exist... on this planet anyway, lol.
Seriously though, putting fairies and gremlins on the same level of belief with a creator God? There is far more that suggests a God than there is that suggests fairies or gremlins. The intricacy of nature, for example, which makes a strong argument for intelligent design to me. Saying that an accidental explosion could cause the development of organisms with irreducible complexity - I think that's a bit more far-fetched than belief in a God.
Seriously though, putting fairies and gremlins on the same level of belief with a creator God? There is far more that suggests a God than there is that suggests fairies or gremlins. The intricacy of nature, for example, which makes a strong argument for intelligent design to me. Saying that an accidental explosion could cause the development of organisms with irreducible complexity - I think that's a bit more far-fetched than belief in a God.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
it is with in the realm of possibility that "God" exists, but he's not getting himself involved in the lives of people anymore, I'd prolly be willing to talk to this "God" person or ask him to do something if i could get any kind of clear response from him
Under The Oak
Ens Causa Sui
I don't understand why people have this feeling that if there is a God, he would owe them something like a revelation or some kind of undoubtable response. Faith is not such a bad thing that you need to fear it.
Russell
__
TaylorC said:
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.
TaylorC said:
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.
Russell
__
Tongue_Ring said:
TaylorC said:
Ample evidence if I ever saw it that this kind of attitude only leads to problems. As I said before:
"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."
TaylorC said:
Please show us how belief in fairies differs from belief in god(s)? Or, do people generally accept belief in god because so many before them have, while shunning fairies?
And what "suggests a god? I'm not breaking balls, but am simply curius.
TaylorC said:
Oddly enough, I've often said something similar for years - only I've replaced the word 'faith' with 'science' and/or 'logic'.
Scapegoat said:
Actually, we don't!!! As far as facts are concerned, there is no "God", no "Supernatural", no "Outside the natural realm". Unless you consider imagination as being out of the natural realm!! What is this argumentation using unproven premise to validate the conclusion you decided was true?
People get all upset because we are questionning their beliefs, but if the question was "Does Santa Claus exist" I'm sure we would all agree that he does not. Yet, we don't have anymore proof of it's (non) existence then we do wih God!!
TaylorC said:
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...
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.
EGOR
Member
- Jun 14, 2006
- 150
- 0
- 16
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..............
LuminousAether
My name is Distance
The reason why so many people believe in God is exactly the same reason as to why people have always believed in God: fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of insignificance, fear of being alone: just fear. Religion, instead of becoming a catalyst for a greater sense of humanity, becomes a crutch.
In this day and age, it would seem absurd to worship specific deities, deities which were devised and created by ancient peoples to keep the ancient populations in check. If the age of a religion lends validity to your impressionable mind, then why don't more people worship the pantheon of Sumerian deities? Those are assuredly the root of almost every deity seen since in Western civilization. The most popular deity, YHWH (or Jehovah, Allah, or whatever you want to call him), would seem to be different from this idea, but in reality, is only a conglomeration or bastardization of the enriched pantheon of eld.
Speaking for myself, I do find it absurd to worship the deity of a fiercely nationalistic tribe of Middle Easterners (the Hebrews). Why would their religion be true? If it were true, at the conception of this faith, it would have been worldwide. It wasn't. Therefore to me, it is false.
But fear can outweigh reason, and therein lies the problem. People are ignorant and superstitious.
In this day and age, it would seem absurd to worship specific deities, deities which were devised and created by ancient peoples to keep the ancient populations in check. If the age of a religion lends validity to your impressionable mind, then why don't more people worship the pantheon of Sumerian deities? Those are assuredly the root of almost every deity seen since in Western civilization. The most popular deity, YHWH (or Jehovah, Allah, or whatever you want to call him), would seem to be different from this idea, but in reality, is only a conglomeration or bastardization of the enriched pantheon of eld.
Speaking for myself, I do find it absurd to worship the deity of a fiercely nationalistic tribe of Middle Easterners (the Hebrews). Why would their religion be true? If it were true, at the conception of this faith, it would have been worldwide. It wasn't. Therefore to me, it is false.
But fear can outweigh reason, and therein lies the problem. People are ignorant and superstitious.
Similar threads
