who believes in god

[arglebargle]

If I felt like worshipping an evil deity, it'd likely be Kron.

 

[Kronikle66]

If I felt like worshipping an evil deity, it'd likely be Kron.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[Divine Wings Of The Machine]

here is a good article from an atheist perspective. i recommend it for believers and non-believers. for non-believers, it could strengthen your arguments, and for believers, it may allow you to see the problems with theism.

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/two_ways_to_prove_atheism_(1996).htm

 

[Rose Immortal]

I'm curious to know--do atheists actually seek to convert theists? That would be quite strange considering the accusations against theists...

 

[Divine Wings Of The Machine]

well, i think the word convert is a little obfuscatory, but i think religion is unnecessary and causes a lot of problems in our world, so if someone changes their ways because of something i said or posted, so be it. i don't tally how many "souls" i "saved" though.

 

[Rose Immortal]

You say "so be it". I guess what I'm curious on is, is it what you desire?

There are definitely people who cause a lot of problems in this world and claim religion as an excuse.

But, cynic about human nature as I am, I think people would just grab onto another excuse if religion didn't exist, and go right on being just as bad. Plus, I think taking all the good things done in the name of religion would be pretty sad, too.

 

[Fossil Records]

I am an atheist. An atheist, by definition, believes in no deity. I do not need a god to explain things, though I do see the usefulness of it.

I am non-religious (yes, you can be atheist and religious; just like you can be theistic and non-religious). I do not need organized religion, though I do see the usefulness of it.

Typically, atheists do not try to convert theists. However, theists do try to convert atheists and other theists as a part of their "mission".

 

[Beelzebub]

I don't think it's right to actively try to convert peope to atheism. Look at the bad name it gives Jehovah's Witnesses. If someone wants to change the belief system they've had all their life just because they heard me on my soapbox for all of five minutes I think that's pretty dumb. However, if someone asks me about my views on religion or believing in a god, I'm going to tell them my opinions. It's best for someone to educate themselves on the topic and form their own views. Read articles, think about it, but please, please, PLEASE, don't listen to me.

A question for the agnostics: God is supposed to have created everything. The entire universe. If this is true, then it would be an incredible feat. How can you only sort of believe in something that did something so amazing? To me, agnosticism isn't logical, it's just safe. Theism should be absolute.

 

[kazahana]

A question for the agnostics: God is supposed to have created everything. The entire universe. If this is true, then it would be an incredible feat. How can you only sort of believe in something that did something so amazing? To me, agnosticism isn't logical, it's just safe. Theism should be absolute.

I'm not saying God created everything. I'm saying I don't know whether or not he created everything, and that I'm trying to find out. It's not a "safe" belief because it isn't a belief. I'm admitting that I don't know, and none of the arguments for/against are strong enough to hold water in my opinion. That is more logical than arriving at either conclusion without full evidence to support the claim. It's certainly not logical to say there can't be a god because we don't have the means ourselves to create a universe - perhaps some day we will. Perhaps we already do and our universe is in fact a complex computer simulation. Who knows? I'd like to, but until someone can prove or disprove a god, I won't be jumping to conclusions.

I don't see how it could be considered safe anyway - being indecisive would surely anger a god as much as flatly denying its existence as both equally lack faith.

 

[Divine Wings Of The Machine]

here's my two cents. everyone is an agnostic, whether they realize it or not, because no one can prove or disprove god. theists believe in god, atheists don't believe in god, but admit the possibility of it because they can't absolutley disprove it. end of story.

 

[kazahana]

here's my two cents. everyone is an agnostic, whether they realize it or not, because no one can prove or disprove god. theists believe in god, atheists don't believe in god, but admit the possibility of it because they can't absolutley disprove it. end of story.

I dispute this. Theists have faith which is believing without proof, which means they don't need evidence - they just believe. Perhaps they also rely on some degree of evidence in the form of experience of god.

Atheists are convinced by proof that denies the existence of god. Perhaps they also inherently disbelieve in a god in a similar way to religious faith.

I think logic is a pretty good system (I am aware of its flaws), and so I must rule out faith. I have never had an experience of god, so I must rule that out. I have never seen any convincing proof to show a god doesn't exist so I must rule that out.

I'm not saying its impossible to prove or disprove a god, only that I'm not aware of a solid argument yet.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Typically, atheists do not try to convert theists. However, theists do try to convert atheists and other theists as a part of their "mission".

I've definitely had the experience of atheists trying that, though. It seems to me that both ideological extremes share a lot of behavior.

 

[Divine Wings Of The Machine]

i wouldn't say i desire people to be atheists. i don't think religion is absolutley incompatible with a sane world, but many atheists tend to be anti-authoritarian, many of who become that way because of their original questioning of the authority of god(i.e. ME). atheists certainly don't automatically have all the answers, ie. Lenin. maybe that clears up what i think.

 

[Rose Immortal]

LOL, definitely right about Lenin and Stalin! Just goes to prove my point yet again that ANY kind of extremist is dangerous, regardless of what ideological wing the extremism comes from.

 

[Beelzebub]

I know several people who claim to be agnostic and when I ask them why, the general consensus is "I don't know if there's a god or not but if there is then I don't want to go to hell." Yes, people actually say that to me, and this gives agnostics a bad name. Fear of going to hell is the only thing that keeps these people from not believing in God. They have this image of a deity that is a merciless tyrant. This is the 6-year-old Catholic primary school mentality that Sister Mary Sledgehammer drills into kids' heads to keep them from misbehaving that people don't seem to want to drill out. It's as if they believe in God at their own convenience just in case judgement day rolls around. This was what I meant as agnosticism being a safety net for people.

 

[Kenneth R.]

logic and faith are both integral parts of reasoning. even science relies on faith, though of a different sort. one does experiments to collect data, and based on the sample results, one assumes (on faith, mind you) that something is either true or not. the same can be said of religion. i disapprove of blind faith, the sort of "somebody told me to believe this so i do" unquestioning mentality. instead i advocate that no matter what you believe, question it. if it truly merits your belief, you will find answers sufficient to affirm your faith is well placed.

no one in their right mind would jump off a cliff. that is what i consider blind faith to be, jumping assuming that somehow you won't die, because your blind faith in not wanting to die says so. if you had a parachute, and have verified its working condition, then putting trust (faith that you won't die) in your parachute would make jumping off that cliff much more reasonable. one does not soundly have faith if it is not based on some sort of compelling evidence leading you to believe its truth. if it can be absolutely verified, then no faith is required. however, many things can only be supposed or found evidence of existance, and not proof. in these cases, one must have faith, but never blind faith.


edit: as for atheists 'converting' people, i have experienced just as many atheists as theists trying to convert me to their religions. the atheists simply try to disprove my own religion such that i would renounce it and become one such as they. i welcome such challenges, as thus far they have not succeeded in providing me sufficient evidence to change my mind on what i have found to be 'truth' as i see it.

 

[progmetalgod]

I honestly expected this to be a thread dedictaed to Sir Russell Allen.

 

[kazahana]

This thread is turning out to be very interesting - thanks to everyone so far for putting forth your viewpoints and arguments.

I know several people who claim to be agnostic and when I ask them why, the general consensus is "I don't know if there's a god or not but if there is then I don't want to go to hell." Yes, people actually say that to me, and this gives agnostics a bad name. Fear of going to hell is the only thing that keeps these people from not believing in God. They have this image of a deity that is a merciless tyrant. This is the 6-year-old Catholic primary school mentality that Sister Mary Sledgehammer drills into kids' heads to keep them from misbehaving that people don't seem to want to drill out. It's as if they believe in God at their own convenience just in case judgement day rolls around. This was what I meant as agnosticism being a safety net for people.

To my mind, those people aren't agnostic; they're theists calling themselves agnostics. If they're afraid of the possibility of hell then they're still theists because being afraid of something means you believe in it, even if it's not material or in this case potentially not material
Being agnostic is not believing at all - whether it's convenient to or otherwise. Once you have a conclusion as to whether or not god (or even a concept like hell) exists then you're not agnostic.

logic and faith are both integral parts of reasoning. even science relies on faith, though of a different sort. one does experiments to collect data, and based on the sample results, one assumes (on faith, mind you) that something is either true or not. the same can be said of religion.

The logical and scientific axioms I accept as truths are indeed taken on faith, but the difference with these fundamental principles and religion is that they are basic observable elements which are provable as far as human senses are concerned and advanced theories are built from these. The concept of God on the other hand seems to have no basis - it's not derived from evidence and relies on ancient texts for proof. You could then argue that proof of God is incomprehensible to our senses, but then why did he talk to people all the time and give people signs in the old testament of the bible? If they got direct proof then, why don't we now? Was Jesus our last chance? Did God change, or did we?

i disapprove of blind faith, the sort of "somebody told me to believe this so i do" unquestioning mentality. instead i advocate that no matter what you believe, question it. if it truly merits your belief, you will find answers sufficient to affirm your faith is well placed.

I agree with you that questioning is something to be advocated - we're an inquisitive species by our very nature. But what if people are brought up religious and never question - perhaps because they're certain God exists because it's always been a constant that their parents unquestioningly gave them, or maybe they don't dare to because they're afraid of going to hell. Probably a fair proportion of religious people in the world don't question their beliefs because they've always held them. If they're happy, I suppose it's not a problem.

edit: as for atheists 'converting' people, i have experienced just as many atheists as theists trying to convert me to their religions. the atheists simply try to disprove my own religion such that i would renounce it and become one such as they. i welcome such challenges, as thus far they have not succeeded in providing me sufficient evidence to change my mind on what i have found to be 'truth' as i see it.

I'm not an atheist, but I'd just like to make it clear don't want to convert people from their religions, or make atheists believe - just to ascertain the truth for myself. I want to arrive at a conclusion I consider logical and so I question arguments for and against god equally. I think conversion is a bad thing because it should be up to the individual to establish their own truth based on what they consider moral and rational.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm not an atheist, but I'd just like to make it clear don't want to convert people from their religions, or make atheists believe - just to ascertain the truth for myself. I want to arrive at a conclusion I consider logical and so I question arguments for and against god equally. I think conversion is a bad thing because it should be up to the individual to establish their own truth based on what they consider moral and rational.

for this i wholly respect and agree with you.

as for the direct proof, perhaps it is because initially one would of course not believe in something unless there was evidence, and so God gave them obvious evidence, considering the meager nature of their scientific method at the time. they had no way to unravel the mysteries of the universe with their technological state at that time, and only believed what they could see and touch. since then, evidence of his works have been more subtle to maintain the necessity of faith, while simultaneously affirming it (at least, to myself and many others). direct interaction is perhaps the most convincing evidence, but not the only source of evidence one may encounter.

 

[Beelzebub]

edit: as for atheists 'converting' people, i have experienced just as many atheists as theists trying to convert me to their religions. the atheists simply try to disprove my own religion such that i would renounce it and become one such as they. i welcome such challenges, as thus far they have not succeeded in providing me sufficient evidence to change my mind on what i have found to be 'truth' as i see it.

Just as I hate it when theists tell me they'll pray for me or that I'm on a straight path to hell because I don't believe in a god, I hate it when atheists try to "challenge" believers by asking them condescending questions they couldn't answer themselves and just saying incredibly ignorant shit. "How do you know Jesus rose from the dead, were you there?" No idiot, and you weren't either. "Islam doesn't believe in God, they worship Allah and can marry four wives, they're so backwards." Allah is the Arabic for God, and is just another term like Jehovah or Yahweh. Muslim men can have four wives, yes, but only if he can provide for the second as much as he does for the first (100-100, not 50-50), and his current wife(ves) have to approve of subsequent ones. People who say such stupidness are insecure about their own beliefs and really need to consider if they're atheists or not.

This thread is fun.