Do you Believe In God

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheHig
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 1K
  • Views Views 63K

What would you Describe your Self As ?

  • Athiest

    Votes: 230 51.7%
  • Religous (what ever Religion that May be)

    Votes: 135 30.3%
  • Agnostic

    Votes: 72 16.2%
  • Thiest

    Votes: 8 1.8%

  • Total voters
    445
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.

Today’s religion will be the future’s mythology. Both believed at one time by many, but proved wrong by the clever.

Goodnight. x
 
I read first few pages in this thread and many of there stated: "prove me how all this happened", prove this, prove that...
Question is: Do you believe in God?
- yes, I believe. You must believe. Just believe. This is point of everything
So simple...

So you're satisfied with not knowing? Why is it socially accepted to believe in God, based on the same evidence of Santa Claus? God represents hope and comfort, and I applaud people where that's all they need. But I struggle to believe in something with no evidence and an illogical thought. I do also believe that the world would be a far better place without religion though.
 
I believe in the forces of nature. The Sun, The Moon and the Milky Way part of a Universe so big it would boggle the mind trying to put a size on it. A Universe that is probably one of trillions of other universes. We are all a spec of insignificant dust in the grand scheme of things, made from the remains of an exploding star billions and billions of years ago. We are not the creation of a mythical being with a white beard.
 
Last edited:
I skipped from page one to page nineteen, so this may already have been stated, but perhaps it's worth noting that God and religion are not synonymous. For example, to not believe in God because of a particular religious teaching attached to God by humans is somewhat foolish.

Additionally, I do not believe in God for reasons that this reply box probably couldn't contain. It's very easy to scrutinise a theistic belief while simply hiding behind the traditional 'there's no evidence' defence employed by the atheist; it seems only fair that the atheist defend his decision equally with the theist.

PS... i h8 god lul
 
I skipped from page one to page nineteen, so this may already have been stated, but perhaps it's worth noting that God and religion are not synonymous. For example, to not believe in God because of a particular religious teaching attached to God by humans is somewhat foolish.

Additionally, I do not believe in God for reasons that this reply box probably couldn't contain. It's very easy to scrutinise a theistic belief while simply hiding behind the traditional 'there's no evidence' defence employed by the atheist; it seems only fair that the atheist defend his decision equally with the theist.

PS... i h8 god lul

The Atheist is defending their decision fairly with the theist. It is only logical to explain the unknown by the known. But to explain the known by the unknown? That's crazy.

But isn't everyone really just atheist? The atheist just believes in one less God. When the Theist understands why he dismissed all other Gods, he will understand why I dismissed his.

Atheists do not need to defend their decision on the same plane as the theist, as they are not voiding all logical explanation. They are not believing in something, just because they do. They are following the Scientific method, they are not believing in something, but abstaining from belief of something. The Atheist is merely following a logical procedure, that is his defence. The Theist is following faith and belief, which is illogical, but it's their defence for such action. You can't use the same argument for two separate quantities.
 
I believe that there is some sort of God however it's becoming increasingly hard for Religion and religious views to keep up due to the rise of modernisation and the fact that people are now willing to take on ideas rather than for example when Religion was just the head of the state in Tudor England. Atheism will continue to spread like wildfire but coming from a Christian Catholic background I believe in faith and such but i'm not able to 100% say I believe in "One God of Heaven almighty"..
 
I don't believe in God, but don't dis Jesus. Jesus was a good bloke.
 
Perhaps I chose the wrong word - when I said 'defend' their decision, what I really meant was validate it. I understand that theists and atheists lay the burden of proof on the other's doorstep, so I was drawing on this when I said I thought both should, in my opinion, validate their claims to the same degree.

Also, I was merely drawing a comparison between 'God's testing us' and 'there's no evidence' being equally employed yet equally useless. You may question this but the divine, by definition, is beyond the realm of traditional human thinking and, coupled with our exceptionally foolish anthropomorphism, would require an extraordinary set of 'proofs' which would be beyond us.

About the 'logical procedure' of the atheist - it's only logical in the way we see it, so perhaps on a broader spectrum which contains something divine and beyond comprehension we are absolutely illogical?
 
as an athiest i obviously don't believe in god. the all to common "have faith" is hilarious.
 
Put it this way, I believe that life is too complicated for us to know everything about, and to be frank, I don't want to know everything about life, as some things I don't want to have to comprehend :) I'm very satisfied with not knowing, there is not a necessity to know everything. For what it's worth, I believe in God, and he provides comfort in the knowledge I'll see the deceased again, and when I myself depart this life, he will welcome me into his kingdom. :)
 
Perhaps I chose the wrong word - when I said 'defend' their decision, what I really meant was validate it. I understand that theists and atheists lay the burden of proof on the other's doorstep, so I was drawing on this when I said I thought both should, in my opinion, validate their claims to the same degree.

Also, I was merely drawing a comparison between 'God's testing us' and 'there's no evidence' being equally employed yet equally useless. You may question this but the divine, by definition, is beyond the realm of traditional human thinking and, coupled with our exceptionally foolish anthropomorphism, would require an extraordinary set of 'proofs' which would be beyond us.

About the 'logical procedure' of the atheist - it's only logical in the way we see it, so perhaps on a broader spectrum which contains something divine and beyond comprehension we are absolutely illogical?

My argument still stands, the atheist lays the burden of proof at the Theists doorstep, because they should surely validate their belief. Newton believed in the laws of gravitation, it would mean nothing if he didn't validate it. And the atheist is validating what exactly? Why they don't believe in something? Lack of evidence. I don't believe many people would stay atheist if their was undeniable proof of a divine being, would there? I guess you could say that atheism should be disproving God, but is that not why we're probing deeper and deeper into the realms of our universe? We may not have the answers now, but what is religion doing to find them?

There's plenty of illogical things that happen in our world, take a look into the weird and wonderful world of quantum mechanics. For example, if you fire a single photon at two slits, you will record data showing a photon goes through two slits. How does a photon become two and separate to go through two things at once? Even stranger, when you put instruments to observe the photons going through two slits, the effect ends. We don't know why this happens, but we know it happens. It is logical to believe in something where there is evidence to support it, no matter how insane the idea is. It is not at all logical to believe in something that has zero evidence and relies on faith.
 
as an athiest i obviously don't believe in god. the all to common "have faith" is hilarious.
That phrase doesn't necessarily refer to god or religion, you can have faith in all sorts of things.
 
Of course you can believe in God and Evolution.
A belief in God dosen't mean a belief in the bible.
 
Of course you can believe in God and Evolution.
A belief in God dosen't mean a belief in the bible.

Thought so, but my knowledge has a tendency to desert me at moments like this, just making sure they didn't not go together or anything :)
 
Im catholic but I also see science's theory as valid:P
I was raised as a catholic and i think god is real but some stories in the bible aren't true, but based on other stories to make it easier for people reading it:P
 
That phrase doesn't necessarily refer to god or religion, you can have faith in all sorts of things.

i wasn't clear enough. what i meant was when i'm also told by people to have faith in a higher power, which i find hilarious. i'll try to expand on this after, if you still find this phrase weird.
 
Back
Top