How can someone believe there is a God?

[Subdivisions]

I've been watching this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2806414&mesg_id=2806414

This poll would indicates that roughly 20% more DUers do not believe there is a God (or require some sort of proof) than those that believe in some sort of religion/deity.

I began life as a Catholic. During my early childhood I was Baptist. When I became a teenager, I decided I wanted to experiment and after trying Presbyterian and especially after trying Pentecostal, I settle into Methodist for most of my teenage years and was even a youth counselor at one point.

I left organized religion when I found drugs in my 20s. My 20s taught me that there was no such thing as God but I chose to fight back those thoughts. Turning 30, strangely, caused me to start considering my mortality, having basically wasted my 20s and the horrifying thought of having a 3 as the first number in my age for the first time in 27 years. I spent my 30s contemplating life and death, as I still do.

Now, here in the dawn of my 40s, I've come to the conclusion that it is just absolutely absurd to believe that we're all going to be saved by some all-powerful being and will live in Heaven for eternity if we will just be good.

Now, though I do believe that Jesus Christ did exist, I believe he was probably a narcissist, a mage and maybe even a bit of a con-man. But because his words seemed to give people comfort and direction and his actions seemed so unselfish and because he was able to manipulate people, which I believe was the result of an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament and a talent with magic, he created for himself a legacy and Christianity was born. And what a truly fascinating story the Bible tells.

And why wouldn't Christianity take off as it did?

After all, what he had to offer he peddled to the poor. He gave them direction and they gave him worship. My doubts, however, lie in the recounted story of his connection to the "one true God". There were many "gods" in those days. Roman. Greek. Norse. Gods were conjured by people who were dumbfounded by their own existance and the world and universe around them. Failing any other explanations, it must have been God.

But to this day, not one piece of evidence exists that there is a God and the whole idea to my 21st Century mind is just plain ridiculous.

And Jesus is supposed to return from the dead to take all the good boy and girls to Heaven? He's DEAD! That's why hasn't returned and he never will. Dead people are just that...DEAD!

Why do people still believe in God?

Edited to add: My account is based on a Christian upbringing. Those of you who espouse the doctrine of other religions, insert your deity in place of God and your prophet in place of Jesus.

[WindRavenX]

1. because people need religion

It's a comfort thing, entirely in my own opinion.

[Skittles]

3. I agree

people need it; it doesn't matter at all if it is real or not - they simply need it. Not me, but most people. :)

[WindRavenX]

6. yup, and I have no problem with that need

I just get extraordinarily livid when I am approached by people who think I am lacking in something for not having it.

[Skittles]

54. THAT'S ME, TOO WINDRAVENX !!!

I can tolerate people and their delusions but not when they try to inflict them on me, either directly or via the law or WHATEVER - JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES PLEASE.

[Bluebear]

76. Count me in. Whatever gets you through the night.

Just leave me out of it!

[caledesi]

87. Totally agree. God? Is God that egotistical and needy that he actually

needs us? I don't think so.

Pet God Peeves:

Spectator sports where the winner thanks God. Like God actually cares who won the game?

Any "organized" religion. (money; war; elitist; et al)

'The Bible says..." Hello? The Bible is based of faith not fact. If you want to believe it's the word of God, that's ok, but don't preach like it's a fact bec it's in the Bible.

Assuming that one believes in God, period. How many atheists are in jail? How many atheists rammed jets into buildings? How many atheists shoot abortion doctors? How many atheists blew up the OK City building. You get the point?

Never understood "God-fearing"...if God is so kind and good, why would you fear him?
Why are "religious" people afraid to die.

Funny story: A Jewish friend of mine was approached by a fundie downtown and the fundie asked him whether he would like to know Jesus. His response: 'Know Him, we are related.' Isn't that great?

BTW, I consider myself a pantheist (God is nature; nature is God)

BTWW, I think the original post is excellent.

Edit: forgot stuff

[rug]

144. God will kick your ass.

[Blackthorn]

9. Control disguised as comfort. People are trained to want religion. No one "needs" it.

[WindRavenX]

18. Some people do need it

And while I agree organized religion is absolutely a method of control, some people do need having faith in some intangible thing as a way to rationalize the world. It's not my bag, but I understand it.

[Erika]

22. Yeah, placebos are great

LOL

[Blackthorn]

28. NO ONE needs the bullshit that is organised religion

I understand the need of trying to explain the world as you see it, but if you end up at Christianity, Islam or Judaism at the end of your search then you didn't look hard enough.

I make no apologies for any Christians, Muslims or Jews offended by the above remark. If you're offended, then you do not have enough faith to ignore the rantings of a stranger on the internet.

[hang a left]

41. I agree and I have reached for it in times of crisis my own self.

Everyone is looking for something. Something to hold on to, something to believe in, something to rely on, something to have faith in. I think it is a natural yearning of the human soul. Hope I find my "truth" someday.

[Skittles]

57. see, I don't see it that way

I find that people just need SOME kind of answer to the age-old question WHY ARE WE HERE? They cannot simply accept WHAT IS - they think there simply has to be MORE so they make stuff up. That's the way I see it - they NEED it.

[Realityhack]

139. Could be...

that some people have a pathological need to be controlled. Many people don’t like thinking for themselves. They prefer to hand over power to someone else.

[shadowknows69]

11. I don't actively practice any religion

but I still believe in God. Its just something you know for yourself or you don't. Not sure what my definition of God is exactly and I think that is as it's supposed to be but I believe in something. I'm not killing anyone is his/her/it's name so I see no harm in it.

[immoderate]

15. Yeah, soft comfort usually beats hard truth.

--IMM

[WindRavenX]

19. no argument from me

NT

[and-justice-for-all]

113. No, they want an easy answer....

...You dont need religion, people are just conditioned to think they do.

The religion mind set has no place in the 21st Century or any other future for that matter.

[Ravy]

2. It is called faith. If you promise not to criticize mine, I promise not to criticize your lack

of it.

[WindRavenX]

5. I have faith

Just not in a god.

I agree-- leave me alone, I leave you alone.

[Subdivisions]

7. I'm actually not trying to be critical of your beliefs though I

know my comments include what could be construed as criticism of faith.

This is a serious issue for me and I don't mean to demean anyone's beliefs.

[BlooInBloo]

8. LOL! If *irrationality* isn't susceptible of rational criticism, then nothing is.

[Ravy]

148. I know. But the irrationality of the belief that God can be proven not to exist is

something I have promised not to criticize anyone over, so I will not start.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Funny, I didn't see Bloo claim such a thing could be proven.

You're building straw men so you can knock them down.

Do you even know the difference between implicit and explicit atheism?

I wouldn't try to tell you what you believe or don't, it's rude.

I don't mock your beliefs but I don't have to let you redefine my lack of them.

[Ravy]

151. There are also implied statements...

And when I say I don't want to be criticized for my beliefs, and someone replies with saying if I should be able to be criticized for an *irrational* belief, then I think I am as right about thinking that his statement applied to me, as you are about thinking that my statement applied to him.

If you or he cannot prove that my belief is wrong, then I should be feel to believe what I do without being labeled *irrational*.

[beam me up scottie]

153. sigh... here we go again. Nobody is calling YOU anything.

You started this by claiming our lack of belief was less scientifically valid than your belief, remember?

When you pick a fight with an atheist, we usually fight back with reason.

And faith, by its very definition, is not rational.

faith (fāth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[Ravy]

157. No, I started this by saying I don't like to be criticized for my beliefs.

You continued it by defending someone who implied that my belief was irrational, and defending another poster who claimed that my belief was not the truth and that my refusal to debate what neither of us could scientifically prove was somehow the wrong way to leave it.

I don't think there is any possible statement you could make (by fighting back with what you call *reason*) that would convince me that what either poster you are defending was correct.

[beam me up scottie]

159. I defended no one, and made no judgments about who was "correct".

I made a few observations.

Again, I fight emotion with reason.

You've got nothing to use against me, I neither seek to prove or disprove your god or any other.

I have no beliefs about him/her/it at all.

[Ravy]

163. People reading your post above would reasonibly think you

were defending Bloo, particularly since you mentioned him/her by name in the subject line.

You are certainly not using your "reason" with Bloo's post above to argue that labeling a belief in God as *irrational* is in itself irrational with an absense of proof either way.

Perhaps you have some emotion tied up in this despite claims to the contrary.

[beam me up scottie]

165. Oh! Nice try, but you're not even close.

Faith as defined is irrational.

You don't have to like it, but that won't change the definition.

There is an absence of proof that a dragon lives in my garage.

Do you believe in him?

[Ravy]

168. Depends.

What color is the dragon?

*grin*

Funny, the definition you posted of faith didn't mention that it was an irrational belief. You would have thought they would have put that in there somewhere.

I would consider the belief (or non-belief) in something dispite proof to the contrary to be irrational. I consider any beliefs (or non-beliefs) where there is no evidence to the contrary to be rational.

If by asking me if I believe in a dragon in your garage because there is an absence of proof of it you are insisting that belief in something in the absense of proof is by definition irrational, then all thought on the subject of the existance of God is irrational (by that definition) since there is no proof one way or another.

I am not saying, and have never said, that the fact that someone doesn't believe in God is irrational. I tried to point out that the poster should not be calling my beliefs irrational unless he/she was prepared to prove that my beliefs are wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

170. I think we're using the word "rational" in different ways.

I'm not dismissing your beliefs when I call faith in gods irrational.

I have irrational beliefs too, just not about gods.

None of us has the market cornered when it comes to being rational, but when it comes to proof, the onus is usually on the person making the positive claim.

I'm not claiming there is no god, so I have nothing to prove (or disprove).

Some atheists DO make that claim, however, and I agree that's also a faith based belief.

Most of us take the former position.

Show us the goods, we'll reconsider.

Really.


And btw, I don't usually start conversations by calling religious beliefs irrational.

It's one of those subjects we try not to get into too often in here, because it usually upsets someone or everyone.

I was tiptoeing through this land mine laden thread and just picked on you because of the misuse of science.


And I wanted you to know that there are just as many different kinds of atheists as there are believers.

Sorry if I made you think I was passing judgment on your faith.

[Ravy]

172. Where did I misuse science?

And this sub-thread didn't start because you called religious beliefs irrational. It was started because I basically said "You believe your way, I will believe mine, and let't not criticize each other"

Yet, someone decided that my statement deserved a laugh, and essentially said it was okay to criticize my beliefs because they were *irrational* (asterisks were also in the post I took exception to).

I alluded in my reply to that that if it was irrational to believe in a God, it is also irrational not to believe in a God. No proof exists either way. But I really believe that it is rational to believe either way.

Sometimes I try to make light of things in my posts, particularly in more heavy subjects, and I tried to turn the poster's "irrationality" claim away from me, much the same as Reagan did when asked about age in the Mondale debate. I was unsuccessful in the humorous aspect this time, but I do think that if there is irrationality or rationality applied to any position in this argument, in the absense of proof it should be applied to all.

On the second post (not yours, but the second subthread we are trading replies in, I tried to say that if WMD are found in Iraq tomorrow and it was proven that they where there at the time of the statements, then we probably would all agree that the WMD statements were true.

However, if we *don't find WMD there tomorrow, or even 10 years from now, it will never prove that they weren't there when the statements were made.

That is why I say that given time, science *may* prove the existance of God, but will probably never be able to prove that God doesn't exist. I don't think that line of thinking is a misuse or mischaracterization of science by any degree.

Was there some aspect of science I misused?

[beam me up scottie]

173. Any time people try to use science to support their religious belief, it's misused.

there is a far greater chance of science proving the existance of a spiritual supreme being than there is for it ever proving that there is no such thing.

That's just IMO, of course.

And I love the WMD/god analogy.

[Ravy]

175. I didn't use science to support my belief.

I meant that that science may be able to someday prove the existance of God, but never being able to prove that there is no God.

I didn't mean to imply that our current knowledge or science would support my beliefs. *That* would be a misuse of science.

[beam me up scottie]

177. Well, when we start talking about science revealing gods, I become an explicit atheist.

I think that's what Realityhack was alluding to.

There's a lot to discuss for what some consider to be a black and white issue, eh? :)

[Ravy]

180. Yes, there is.

And to clarify, I don't believe that proving the existence of God should even be a goal of science. I can just rationalize (if I am allowed to use that term in this context) that God *could* do something in the future that scientists may use to prove His existence. Rapture, seas of fire, horsemen flying in the air could do it, although I would prefer the babies being born with the ten commandments tattooed on their butts to the devastation of the Earth amd all mankind.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. but isn't it important to know the truth?

Some people think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Other people don't think he had them. Should the two sides just promise not to criticize each other?

My point is, if there are two opposing statements, one is right and the other is wrong. Gods either exist, or they don't exist. Just like statements about WMDs or any other matter, we should be able to evaluate the evidence and decide which statement is correct.

Agreeing to disagree doesn't get us anywhere.

[Erika]

25. I'm not willing to fight a God based war

I'll leave that for the fundies and the Islam fundies.

[Bill McBlueState]

56. yeah, I'm about sick of that crap

I'm looking for more of a peaceful, rational debate about whether gods exist. Unfortunately, the more popular side of the debate has a piss-poor track record when it comes to peace.

[Ravy]

147. You can search Iraq and not find WMD...

but you would have to search far more than Iraq to prove there is no God.

I think there is a far greater chance of science proving the existance of a spiritual supreme being than there is for it ever proving that there is no such thing. You *believe* that God either exists or doesn't. There is no scientific proof one way or another. I would bet that more scientists believe in God than don't, although I would guess that the numbers found there are probably in a smaller percentage than non-scientists.

But until it is completely disproven, I have faith.

[beam me up scottie]

149. You have faith. I have reason.

Faith is belief in something not proven to exist.

It is not more logical to believe in supernatural beings without a shred of evidence to prove, or even hint at, their existence.

I don't "believe" that God doesn't exist.

I have never seen any evidence that he/she/it does.

It is therefore, not logical to believe in he/she/it.

Show me some evidence and I'll reconsider.



Oh, and science doesn't try to prove or disprove deities.

It's not a God-o-meter.

And you should Google those studies, you'd be surprised at the results.

[Ravy]

152. I have both faith and reason.

And it is not logical to believe that something doesn't exist simply because you know of no evidence that it does.

[beam me up scottie]

154. When did I claim to believe "something doesn't exist" ?

I think you'd better re-read my post.

Or if you don't understand something, ask.

Telling people what they believe is arrogant.

[Ravy]

161. Where did I say you did?

You stated that it was illogical to believe in something that couldn't be proven to exist.
And I *added* that it was likewise illogical to believe that something doesn't exist because it cannot be proven that it does. Faith in God in absense of proof either way cannot be described as logical or illogical.

This particular sub-thread that we are posting in was from someone wanting to debate *truth* and stated that God either does exist, or does not and that we should be able to evaluate the evidence and make a decision (as simple as we can decide if there were WMDs in Iraq was the example he used).

I replied that there is a far greater chance of proving the existance of God, than disproving it. My statement is true. Just like in Iraq, if WMD are ever discovered buried deep in the sand that we have just not come across, it can be proven that they existed. We will never be able to prove that there are not WMDs there. You cannot prove a negative. You can explain everything in the known universe, including things that are currently attributed to some as an act of God, but that would still not prove there is no God.

However, if starting tomorrow every baby born from now on was born with the Ten Commandments tattoed on their backside, most of us would accept that as proof that God exists.

I am not saying that will happen, just giving an example of how you can prove that God does exist and while the absense of such an event does not prove that He doesn't.

Lacking proof that God does or doesn't exist, we cannot find the "truth" as the sub-topic thread poster is proposing.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Wow, that's quite the pseudo-scientific tangent.

But you still haven't explained where you got your definition of atheism.

Or why you think your one-size-fits-all straw man is anything like me.

[Ravy]

166. I haven't used the term "athiesm" previously in this thread.

So I am at a loss why you would expect me to define it.

As far as the straw man thing, my sole purpose in bringing up the fact that one cannot prove that there is not a God no more than I can prove that there is a God. It is why I have consistently maintained that in the lack of evidence either way, debating faiths and truths is not going to get us anywhere, so we should leave each other to our beliefs.

My beliefs are not irrational, and I refuse to let them be categorized that way (not by you, by Bloo) as I believe he/she implied in replying to my post.

As far as you, I think that you and I agree that there is no proof either way, and you choose to not believe there is a God based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. I choose to believe based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, just like you.

[beam me up scottie]

167. What, exactly, are you describing here?:

it is not logical to believe that something doesn't exist simply because you know of no evidence that it does.

Who takes that position?

[Ravy]

169. I take that position.

It was in my post, I will stand by my words.

[beam me up scottie]

171. So you're not claiming that atheists

believe that something doesn't exist simply because (we) know of no evidence that it does.

?

[Ravy]

174. I imagine that some of them do, but I have not claimed that.

Please don't misread that to say I am claiming that all athiests do, or any a particular individual does. People can have many reasons for believing as they do, and since they have a reason for beliving they do, I consider it to be a rational position.

After all, the OP said:

"But to this day, not one piece of evidence exists that there is a God and the whole idea to my 21st Century mind is just plain ridiculous."

Just because the whole idea to my 21st century mind does not find it ridiculous shouldn't subject me to ridicule.

[beam me up scottie]

176. Of course you shouldn't be subject to ridicule.

I don't think the op meant to do that.

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I felt otherwise.


Check out my post 140 if you think I'm not being sincere.

I posted that before I even noticed your posts.

[Ravy]

178. I don't think the OP did.

I think two of the posters who replied to my first post did.

You don't owe me an apology. We were mostly debating whether faith is rational or not, and if the existance of God could someday possibly be proven by science. There was nothing offensive there (at least to me) and I likewise am sorry if I offended you in some way.

[beam me up scottie]

179. Not at all.

I meet the most interesting people in here. :D

Check out RA's Tell Us About Your Beliefs thread if you want a look at some of the best this forum has to offer.

We're not always like this.

A lot of the really knock-down drag-out threads get heaved in here from GD.

[Ravy]

181. I enjoyed meeting you, too.

But I will probably go back to GD to debate something less controversial like whether we should impeach Bush or not. I may check out the thread you recommended before I go. Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

160. Still waiting for your answer.

You misrepresented my post, I would appreciate an explanation why you thought that was necessary.

[Realityhack]

155. Not necisarily

You can't disprove the concept that there is A God.
But you can disprove a Specific God.

BTW. Why do you chose to have faith untill it is disproven? It seems to me that one would lack faith untill there is at least some evidence. I mean you can't disprove all sorts of things right?

[Ravy]

158. I don't know how you can prove that there is not a specific God.

And I think that if you could, people would eventually disprove the existance of all gods. But, believe what you will.

As far as your BTW, I don't honestly know. I do know I believe it, perhaps there is evidence of events that I have felt/seen/heard about that has reinforced it, but nothing specific comes to mind. Is what my family told me evidence? People who I admire? I don't know that it is or isn't, I can just tell you I do believe but I would not have the evidence to prove it.

I can tell you of some questions I have of things that don't seem exactly right, holes in my understanding of things, at least. I do believe in evolution. I cannot get my mind around the argument that it is all always done by random chance. I mean, it our journey from a single cell organism to mammals, at some point there was just some sort of random chance that species was divided into a male and female, and by random chance both of the mutations happened at the same time (a male and a female mammal was created in some physical proximity to each other, so that they could reproduce and continue their species). In the lack of of some evidence to the contrary (since I know it happened), getting some help from a deity to make it happen is not outside of my realm of possibility.

There are countless other holes in my understanding of events that I know to have happened, so perhaps the belief in lack of specific evidence to explain such paths from a to b is best explained by this.

Still, do I think of this as "evidence"? No, but I believe in God.

[Realityhack]

164. Huh?

Disproving a specific god is fairly strait forward. Like anything else you just have to disprove one aspect.

God is a pink elephant on your head.
There is no pink elephant on my head.
- god one disproven
Well um... he's invisible.
But he still weighs something, I am not crushed.
- god two disproven

Not every god can be disproven. And 'disproven' might be too strong a term as it isn't realy a particularly scientific term. But you can easily translate this into a less silly example.

YEC: my god rained down a flood that covered the earth
Scientist: Evedence indicates no such flood occured.

They YEC would now have to chainge their deffinition of god or (more commonly) just deny science.

[Seen the light]

4. Don't confuse Christianity with a belief in God

Two different things.

[U4ikLefty]

10. Give me your definition of God & I'll tell you whether I belive or not. n/t

[Subdivisions]

16. Princeton's definition will suffice:

God: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

[Erika]

20. Yeah, He's going to greet and judge each of us on our demise

OK.

[U4ikLefty]

23. Sorry, I reject the "supernatural" part of the definiton... n/t

[Realityhack]

141. So other than that...

you agree or not?

[hfojvt]

69. that goes a little bit too far

God does not have to be perfect, omnipotent, or omniscient. All he is required to do is
a) have existed forever
b) have created the universe

Even the first part is perhaps not necessary, although both concepts kinda boggle my mind. Supposedly "time" was created with the Big Bang, which seems kinda ridiculous to me. Logically something must have come before the Big Bang.

[jgraz]

104. "Logically something must have come before the Big Bang"

Nope, just like nothing is north of the North Pole. If time starts at the Big Bang, "before" has no meaning.

[hfojvt]

117. there are many trillions of miles of space to the north of the north pole

It is illogical for time to begin with the big bang. How can time have a beginning? That does not fit my conception of time, which conception may or may not have a connection to reality. It's quite hard to conceptualize, that's for sure.

[jgraz]

143. Not illogical, just not intuitive

And not surprising -- our learned concepts of time, space and many physical laws make no sense when applied to the very large and the very very small. Our stupid little monkey brains just can't absorb all the crazy shit that goes on in the universe.

And those trillions of miles of space are not "north", they're "up". North has no conceptual relation to up. Different frames of reference.

[shadowknows69]

127. Our concept of time now starts at the big bang

Whoever set that bang off probably reckons time a bit differently and who knows how many universes came and went before ours?

[EST]

108. The problem is the languaging of it all.

Time was not born or created with the big bang.
The concept that you have created and which you call "time" was created when you developed a languaging for it--to describe it for yourself.

Just as we, particularly scientists, are only now becoming clear that definitions of time, matter, and space are too self-limited to accurately describe reality, we also realize that time is another unwieldy concept we use to describe the aspects of a phenomenon that we see only dimly or not at all.

That concept is strictly a construct that is no more than an arbitrary, imaginary, imperfect description of a wholly internalized experience of its effects on other internal experiences of things we call matter, again arbitrary, and only as accurate as the notions invented and languaged by oneself or others seem to more perfectly fit our experience.

God is language that we fit into the holes that still remain in the satisfaction that we experience when we language our experience. The bigger the holes, the more god you need to make you satisfied (happy) with your experience.

Just like elections, most people vote with their hearts, rather than their heads.

[hfojvt]

119. I'm not anticipating alot of satisfaction

for my inevitable experience of death.

There's no good way to language that.

Definitions of time, space, and matter are too self-limiting. Pretty sure that is beyond me. I never understood waves, except when I waved :hi: good-bye to my physics major.

Not sure that physicists know what they are talking about either, but I eagerly await their creation of a quark-bomb, matter-disruptor, or super-flu to prove me wrong.

[EST]

137. Satisfaction shows up when one chooses what he chose.

Sounds a little complicated, I know, but it lays out thusly:
We people have experiences. We also have option of making up a storyline about those experiences, often refusing to treat an experience for what it is: rather than simply experiencing it we live the storyline.

When one dies, the storyline stops; the experience has only one option to chose from. That choice-to experience that happening-is all there is and embracing that experience will produce satisfaction but not necessarily happiness.

As far as the definitions of time, space, and matter being too self-limiting, we keep finding that we have those limits because we don't know as much about them as we will know.

Albert Einstein, to his horror if he were still around to appreciate it, actually brought inexactness of quantum theory to the macro universe-the cosmos.
We don't know how fast anything is going, the direction it's going, etc, except in relation to something else. We have even postulated some sort of matter/energy that we can't detect, can't see and can only theorize about by an apparent effect that occurs, for instance, across great distances.

It, whatever it is, has no apparent local effect, but there it is. One of those effects is that the speeds of stars around a galactic center does not fall off the way Newton's laws say they should; they go way too fast at the outer reaches of the galaxies to stay in orbit around their respective galactic centers.

This is one example of the definitions we use not being adequate to explain the observations. Too self limited.

[nosmokes]

105. i like albert einstein's definition

or what was credited to him, at any rate - the totality of all the laws of science and nature combined. sounds like goddess to me...:*

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

12. Still trying to talk about something

Unspeakable.

[Erika]

13. I asked a logistics question about Jesus cradling each dead person

in his arms on their demise. It's absurd but so many believe.

I had a talk with a good friend about the existence of God. I told her I had my doubts. She said that she could not make it through life unless there was a God at the end. I responded that was the only appeal I found to believing in God. The fear factor.

Some cannot believe we simply die and are no more.

[shadowknows69]

17. Didn't you see this thread?

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2802734&mesg_id=2802734>

If Jesus can play all those sports simultaneously then cradling the dead would be a piece of cake. B-)

[The Straight Story]

55. Actually, he could do it quite easily :) (nt)

[gkdmaths]

21. Because it helps Joe explain the

day when Joe woke up and Bob just was not the same. I mean, he's still Bob - He looks like Bob - but he doesnt move like Bob, even when Joe kicks him.

Bob? Wake up, Bob.

[mykpart]

24. I think that from the beginning of time people have sought to

find order and a reason for their lives. Belief in a deity helps people cope. Whether we created God or God created the world can be argued forever. As someone once said, "For those who believe in God, no proof is necessary, and for those who do not believe, no proof is possible." I choose to believe in a deity because the alternative is unacceptable to me. And if I'm wrong I'll never know it.

[Erika]

26. As my friend said, she could not endure life

without a Xtian belief in the afterlife.

[QuestionAll...]

27. god is misrepresented. It is us. collective us.

we are the creators of all good and evil.

[Erika]

31. And when we die, we are dead.

It is what we do when we are alive that is important.

[lvx35]

34. and after we are alive it all doesn't matter...

So lets burn us some fossil fuels, and have us some wars! We'll never see the effects of global warming in a lethal way! :sarcasm:

I will never understand why atheists act suprised that people percieve them as immoral.

edit: not saying that you are immoral...but I don't see why not.

[Erika]

35. When we die, we die

that can be seen as immoral?

[lvx35]

38. It gives not purpose for moral behavior.

If my conciousness ceased for ever at death, than all these children walking around wouldn't exist for me. So why bother about things like pollution, global warming, etc? Why wory about anything? Why be moral?

[Erika]

66. Huh? Religion does not equate morality

If you look at slavery, war, etc., religion is a detriment to morality.

[lvx35]

67. I don't subscribe to the view that if you took away religion

war, slavery, etc. would go away. That view goes against my experience of people without religious values, and my biological understaning of the world.

[Erika]

68. Good Xtians owned slaves and killed native Americans

for profit and greed. All done with religious values in hand. Don't expect us to buy that BS.

[lvx35]

70. Good atheists killed lots of people too.

Its BS that if you took away religion all this would end. But lets back up from words like BS and talk with reason not emotion. I saw this cool show on the discovery channel today that looked at the australian aboriginal people. Really neat folks, with rich traditions involving lots of spirituality and magic. I saw them living this wonderful, sustainable lifestyle...then I thought about things like global warming, things caused by technology created by science that they pay the price for but had nothing to do with. Now who am I to look at them and say they are wrong, and my european scientific understanding is vastly superior? The actions stemming from my scientific worldview threated the world, while their views threaten nothing. Why claim superiority?

[Erika]

73. Why did you choose to take the defensive?

Says a lot.

[lvx35]

75. because your post said: "Don't expect us to buy that BS."

which some would take as an implication that what I am saying is BS.

G'night!

[and-justice-for-all]

187. "Good Atheist killed lots of People too".....

Your perspective on Technology is right in its thinking, Technology is harmful but its also benefical. If it was not for Technology you would not be Posting on DU or even know what the internet is or own a microwave. What exactly does being an Atheist have to do with Technology and environemental issues?

Even if one has belief, they can and do, contribute to the same environmental problems. Yes, aboriginal peoples live a isolated life away from moderenization (not cut-off), at the sametime their ideology is not invasive or intruding into others lives in a demanding and controlling manner. When society does get religion out of its sytem (and it will) the aborignal types, being isolated, will more then likely be the only ones left with superstition and magic.

Unlike religious people, science will acknowledge its errors and correct them given substancel evidence to make changes to any scientific principle. But people of faith, when given the facts and overwhelming evidence still believe jeebus will return in 50years to usher all the believers to heaven and that G-d is real when they can not in anyway prove of its existence. Knowing there is no evidence to back the claim of jeebus/G-d, a believer will in turn state that I can not disprove its existence either, this might be because the omniescent/omipresent, all-powerful being in the sky left us nothing tangable to know that it is real. Why? because g-d is not real at all and taking things on "faith" is just like taking my word that their is a teapot orbiting between Neptune and Jupitor, you can not see it with a telescope because its to small, you just have to take it on faith thats it is there.

When an ideology such as Christianity begins to take its myths and pass them off as fact, with no tangable or testable evidence and that we should just take it all on "faith", then there is serious problem. That mind set of "acient myth is scientific fact" is dangerous to everyone. Faith, is just believeing what you know is not true, "Faith" and Make-believe are the same to me, pretending as kids do. Santa Clause, g-d, jesus and all deities are all PRETEND.

The reference to Hitler and Stalin being Atheist is rather tiersome. First, Hitler was not a Atheist, he was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church and the Church its self never to this day denounced his actions. The Popes visit to Alschwitz does not count as acknowledgement of Hitlers atrocities as being wrong in the eyes of the church. Stalin, was raised a devote Orthodox Catholic and even went to Catholic School. If their actions show us anything, its that their religious upbringing was a motivator in their agendas, I might goes as far to say that with or without a belief system; Hitler and Stalin would more then likely have done what they did regardless.

As Steven Weinberg states:

"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

More people have been killed in the name of g-d(s) and the only argument against that fact is ones own ignorance and mental block from the truth of the matter.

Being an Atheist(which I am) does not make or break your moral structure, it does not take religion to know that murder, rape, stealing..etc is wrong. It would be rather concerning to know that someone would act in such a barbaric way if they didnt have g-d in their life, what kind of person is that? That person obviously has some moral issues and quite possibly a mental illness.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
"The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious."

I come to all these conclusions long before I knew of Dawkins, Harris or Dennett. With observations into the undelying reasons as to why the world is in the state that it is in, dont look too Atheist to blame, look at organized religions.

[Odin2005]

96. Because us atheists want future generations to have happy lives.

Belief in an afterlife can be used as a tool by the powerful to get people not to care about being opressed, to not to care about enviromental destruction, because people think they will go to a "better place" if they suck up to The Man and so they don't care for other people the planet. The fundies don't care about the enviroment because they assume Jesus is gonna come rapture them tommorow.

[lvx35]

115. The rapture ideology is a cancer.

It could destroy us.

But I also think you make a mistake in being unable to imagine faiths which do not have these destructive traits. There's a lot of good people in this here world. :)

[gtar100]

107. How about because you care?

And caring about something makes one happy? Being immoral may be a thrill in the moment, but its consequences are in disease and always have bad endings. Caring may not have that thrill aspect but it sure lays a firm foundation, builds sturdy floors and walls, braces sturdy beams to hold a roof over one's head, keeps things clean and provides good meals. A religion's God doesn't need to be part of that to make it work.

[lvx35]

114. I agree that caring is good for society, but...

to tell you the absolute naked truth, the idea that immoral deeds "always have bad endings" is not supported in my experience, and resembles a faith based belief. I have never recieved worldy reprimand for the seriously bad things I have done, unless I confessed. This is supported by many statistics...10% of sex offenses being convicted, etc.

I agree that good deeds are necessary to hold our civilization together, but doing them with no belief in a higher purpose amounts to completely irrational altruism in my personal opinion; I fear God, not the law.

[gtar100]

183. I think we're approaching the same thing in different ways

I "believe" in a higher purpose because I "Know" by fact that I (this life I call "I") can work towards a greater good, towards any goal. By extension, groups of people can create even greater good. I as one could not create a university or a devise healing systems. But groups have, even over courses of generations. Collectively or individually these are deemed higher purposes, or certainly better than a poke in the eye. But in any event, life itself is moving in a direction and we can either work with it and build upon it or not.

I too fear the decay of selfish, immoral acts because they lead to hate, violence and misery. My own meditations have shown to me that though I go unpunished by others because I didn't get "caught" doing something "immoral" (before anyone starts conjuring up suspicions of murder and rape...I'm referring to laziness, selfishness, gluttony, vindictiveness, vanity, blaming, jealousy, self-righteousness - in short, sins), any actions such as these, especially the ones I justify, lower my level of being to a greater or lesser degree. Or in other words, corrupt my soul, my being. Others may not notice and may be content or even gleeful in their "getting away with it", but I notice in me first and foremost, and by extension in others. Each act of selfishness makes the next one easier if gone unchecked.

I would hypothesize that the punishment of sin is a natural consequence. We punish others as a collective to protect the collective but there is no escaping natural consequences whether we fooled others or not.

[ima_sinnic]

124. why bother? because I have a CONSCIENCE

I don't have to believe in some myth to have a conscience. Believing in the validity of the Golden Rule doesn't make me religious, either.

Yap all you want about "heaven" and "god" and all that crap, but don't insinuate that people who don't believe in those myths "don't care" about children starving, people suffering, or any of the other horrors inflicted on humanity and the planet by fake "religious" people who have no conscience and care only about money and themselves.

[lvx35]

125. You put the word "religious" in quotes.

Which shows you have some real understanding of how the world goes round.

So what prevents you from calling this thing you call "truth" as divine? What prevents you from finding something higher in the very principles you are upset that these false "religious people" violate? What prevents you from having your own faith?

[ima_sinnic]

126. nothing "prevents" me from "having my own faith"

--I have complete faith that the world, the universe, is an illusory ball of atoms and subatomic forces in infinitessimal tensions of approach-avoidance, and that life and everything on the planet are simply manifestations of these forces. I also believe in "karma": i.e., what goes around comes around. But anyone is free to believe in "a man in the sky" if they are so moved.

[Nobody]

132. Because you have the knowledge of good and evil

and because you use that knowledge to do good.

Because you're a self-actualized human person with empathy and compassion

Bacause you don't need threats and fear of punishment to behave.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Because given a choice between misery and happiness, without harming another, you choose happiness and allow others to do the same.

Because you are a good person.

[QuestionAll...]

42. not to me. it's very moral to believe what you choose

as long as it's personal.
but anyways, we are all the same no matter what we choose to believe or not. We are all going to the same living room.

[Erika]

58. No, I'm going to die hoping I helped the world in some small measure

That's it and enough.

Now you believe like Mitt Romney. He's going to die and rule planets. It's all subjective.

[wtmusic]

71. I like that

religion and the concept of an afterlife is born from an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

If I can enter oblivion believing I'm leaving things just a little better, that's all I need (it's harder than I thought).

[Erika]

74. Me too.

The afterlife is something I don't believe in. What we can do while we are here to help humanity is something in which I believe.

[QuestionAll...]

78. I don't think I appreciate that Romney comparison.

that was a cheap shot, actually.
What I believe has nothing to do with Mitt. It's about me, and how I have learned along the way. It was personal and from my heart.

I want an apology.

[Erika]

79. Excuse me?

I don't quite think so. You post like you do, expect the ramifications.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

106. Huh?

The most nihilistic people on Earth are Xtians waiting for the rapture. In case you haven't noticed, it's all the xtians saying that global warming doesn't matter.

[gtar100]

109. Not true

Some Christians are deeply concerned about global warming. I would say that along with the soon-to-be raptured, it's mainly people who's investments are inconvenienced by global warming that are the ones in such denial.

[jgraz]

110. None of the xtians running this country care about global warming

At least, not until the 110th congress convenes.

[Realityhack]

142. lol

to be honest I don't buy that the only reason you act moraly is a fear of god. If it IS than I sincerly request that you please seek out medical attention because you are quite dangerous to yourself and others.

Basicaly if you accept that people can love eachother without beleiving in god then you can understand why they might want to do nice things for others reguardless of their not being around later to watch it.

[QuestionAll...]

37. nope, there is something in us that just does not die.

ever
;)

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

46. Be still and know

You are god.

[QuestionAll...]

52. a particle, yes. nt

[Erika]

53. Perhaps your narcissm

That's about it.

[QuestionAll...]

84. it's too bad you think of yourself so lowly.

Me, I'm not too much on the ego thing either. nor the god thing.
but I know there is a bit more to us than the catalogue illustration.

and of course this makes me narcistic.

yes, we should all want to dry up and disappear forever because you think thats what your worth is.

[Erika]

86. Huh? Where did that come from? n/t

[shadowknows69]

128. I believe God is neutral at best

He/she/it is simply The All. Life, the universe and everything. God is the primordial spark that put everything to motion. I suspect whatever he/she/it is they have a lot less interest in our individual affairs than their believers think.

[kiahzero]

29. Yet another Christian-centric argument against religion in general

:eyes:

[Erika]

30. Huh? I just had a question on the logistics

How is Christ suppose to embrace each one and St.Peter judge each one?

Let's hear some truthiness.

[kiahzero]

61. Huh? indeed

My post was a response to the OP.

[gtar100]

111. The truth is He replicates.

Like that guy in Matrix 3.

[lvx35]

32. Is is an argument against a materialist God...

that most atheists put forward, though such a materialist god is the creation of fundamentalists. I refuse to get in an argument about the existence of God is defined materially like that. Of course there is no man in the clouds, nor was there ever. Its a metaphor.

[Erika]

33. But God spoke to Moses

He's one busy guy.

[lvx35]

48. I reject your support of fundamentalist interpretation of God. nt

[radwriter0555]

36. I figured it out when I was 5, much to the chagrin of my family. We were kicked out

of all the sunday schools in town by the time I was 6.

It all seemed just a little ridiculous to me... but I've always been the boat rocker, the doubter and the skeptic.

And it's still absurd to this day to see people believing in fairy tales; I always say, I ain't all that smart and I figured it out; so how stupid are THESE people?

[Subdivisions]

39. I don't think "stupid' is fair. Fairy tale? To me that's fair.

[Erika]

44. My partner figured it out when he saw the theft from the

collection vessle, when he was 7 in the Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma. He'd see them stick in a one and take out change as if it were a five.

I just never believed. I always thought if people led their lives as Christ taught, this would be a good world. Didn't happen, especially under W.

[gaspee]

40. I find the idea

Of any kind of deity to be absolutely absurd and cannot wrap my mind around the fact that so many people are part of the god delusion.

And I do mean absurd and maybe even a touch crazy. More than a touch if you take a good long look at what people have done over the milennia in the names of their gods.

The few times in my life someone or other has tried to "save" me (I've been pretty lucky up here in New England... not so much when I lived in Florida and Texas) I started laughing real loud and use the line, "you actually believe that crap??? Ahahahahahahahahahah!" Don't forget the really loud laughter at the end. Works real good for getting people to back off from their uninvited proselytizing.

[lvx35]

45. insane?

"More than a touch if you take a good long look at what people have done over the milennia in the names of their gods."

like those crazy people in the Iraq shouting "god is great" and blowing themselves up? Those crazy assholes who pretty much just defeated the world's greatest military power?

The religion meme was selected because it works. The organization or nation-state that does not allow it will fall. History has shown this.

[Erika]

51. Kind of reminds one of the Christian Crusades n/t

[lvx35]

64. Not me.

The crusades were driven by Christian ideology and led the end of the dark ages in Europe when the advanced Muslim culture was encountered and brought back. But no part of the Bible advises people to seek their neighbors oil. The ideology behind this war is greed, not God.

[CJCRANE]

131. Religion is not necessary

to fight occupation.

Look at the Tamil Tigers or the liberation movements in colonial Africa.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Congratulations. You win the boobie prize.

Not only did you insult liberal believers, you also managed to mock people who suffer from mental illness.

Sam Harris shocks people to get them to think, your pathetic attempt is intended to belittle and hurt your fellow liberals.

Whenever I read drivel like your post, I thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that jerks like you don't represent atheism any more than christian jerks represent christianity.

Have a nice day.

[More Than A Feeling]

146. nicely said.

:thumbsup:

[aggiesal]

43. With GOD, anything is possible.

That is why we call it faith.
We have faith that we will go to heaven, if our soul is good.
We don't need concrete proof that GOD exists, because we have faith.

If you don't have faith, I can understand how you would never believe in GOD.
You need concrete proof. Without concrete proof, you can not believe in the impossible.

[Subdivisions]

47. Thank you for understanding. In this season, us adults are often

reminded of the time when we were told, or reasoned, that Santa Claus does not really exist. Or the Easter Bunny. Or the Tooth Fairy. Or the Boogie Man. Why is belief in God (or other deity) any different?

[Erika]

50. Because people are so narcissist they can't face death

They see themselves so far more in the scheme of things than they really are.

I've always been fascinated that the RR are so "death worried". Why? Wouldn't death be something they welcome?

[Erika]

49. Heck with faith. How about simple logistics?

Christ is suppose to welcome and St.Peter to judge each person? All with personal knowledge of every deed and every heart?

[aggiesal]

62. Exactly my point. You have no faith.

You can't believe that anything is possible, so you try to put things into logic you can understand.
With GOD you have to throw out logic, because again, with GOD anything is possible.

[Erika]

65. We also have rational thought

Let's see, how many would Christ have to welcome and St. Peter judge in one hour. Get real.

[aggiesal]

72. Again you have no faith.

You're tryihg to wrap your mind around rational thought with GOD.
You can't do that. If you try, you'll go nuts.
Once again, With GOD anything is possible.

[Erika]

77. No, I don't have that need, thank you

You believe as you wish. One could go on forever as to the social/health inequalities your God allows. That's your thing. Justify it as you may.

[aggiesal]

85. You seem to believe that GOD should allow everyone to live ...

risk free. No deseases or illnesses, and that only the good should happen to everyone.
If that were the case, nobody would die, and nobody would be poor, and
this planet would be overcrowded with rich, health people with no reason
for struggle, ambition, imagination, anger, or anything else that every person
feels. That would be boring.

GOD has a purpose and reason for everything. If you're successful and have
been blessed with lots of money, you'll have to find a way to reconcile that
with why GOD placed you on this earth. It could be to help the needed.
If you're poor, you could be blessed in other ways, but at the same time
you'll still have to find way to reconcile that with why GOD placed you on
this earth.

As I tell anyone who asks me about GOD answering everyones prayers, I always
say, 'Yes, he answers everyones prayers. Sometimes he says NO."

With GOD, anything is possible.
You can't seem to understand, or want to understand that concept.

[Erika]

89. That is your belief and I respect that

As I hope you will respect my belief that it's all a bunch of BS.

[gtar100]

116. Are you sure?

How do you know these things? Faith? Is it okay to question faith? If anything is possible with God, why does so much crap still happen? Weren't the desires for a world of peace strong enough from those in the past? All those prayers, all those supplications, all that heart-felt pain and agony wishing for an end to suffering. Did they fail in that possibility? Or is the answer that it wasn't God's will? His will was to have a few hundred or a few thousand more years of pain and suffering in humanity? More rape? More murder? More diseases and corruption? For me this paradigm just doesn't work or explain enough for me. I must step out of this box.

One could more easily argue that with science anything is possible since at least there is a method for progress and correction. With "God", one is left holding a wish and a preformed excuse for when things fail (ie, "God's will").

[Realityhack]

145. So god is...

http://www.zombo.com/ ;-)

[Subdivisions]

59. Sidebar: The Birth of Christianity on National Geographic right now.

I've actually been watching and the whole evening they have been showing Bible tales.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. yes it's absurd

Read "Religious Faith as an Expression of Neurosis" by Sigmund Freud. He had it figured out.

I quit going to church because the sermons about how sinful and awful we were made me want to go crawl into a hole and die. I told the preacher that to his face once right after church, too. Didn't do any good, of course.

Christianity is emotional and verbal abuse. Also offends my sense of justice.

[Erika]

63. Welcome but Xianity is no better than the other religions

Welcome to DU.

[Subdivisions]

80. Welcome to DU, Perragrande and thanks for your comment.

[The Straight Story]

82. kause we's be stooopid peepule unlick u smurter fulks

I wreckin eye shuld jest toomb stone myself and git-r-done.

[Subdivisions]

88. I'm sorry...did I offend you? I assure you that was not my intention.

This is an important issue to me. The reason I laid out my religious history was to demonstrate that, on a Christian basis, I was found and then became lost. My intention was to have a philosophical discussion as to the reasons people still believe in God (or other deity).

I've never seen so many Atheists in one place and I haven't had the opportunity to participate in a discussion about here on DU and since I respect so many DUers, including you The Straight Story, I thought I could get an intelligent discussion on religion, taboo as discussion of the sort it is.

[The Straight Story]

90. It's all right, was just messing with ya :)

Will compose a real response shortly (visiting with niece right now).

[Erika]

91. You've got a volatile discussion going

and that's OK.

[Subdivisions]

92. You're pitching your share of coal on this fire, Erika ;) Thanks for

your participation.

[Erika]

99. I am simply tired of the poor, the sick, the needy in this

world going without, while W hosts God wars against the Ungodly, decimating countries and populations. The environment is neglected and millions are starving as in Darfur. All the time while we claim to be a Godly country.

It's all a bunch of BS. If we truly cared, we'd straighten up the mess. We need to do it while we are ALIVE. That is the legacy.

Rant off.

[gtar100]

184. Thank you for starting the thread.

It's important to me too and I appreciate hearing the diversity of opinion here.

[Guaranteed]

83. I'm not religious at all, but I do believe in God (capital "G").

Not the Christian "God," or the god of any organized religion. I do not believe in Hell, but I do believe in Heaven. And I believe everybody- yes, I mean everybody- goes to Heaven. We are all so put down and weak. It's okay, though. I don't think that whatever put us here expects anything else from us. If He (She, It- whatever) did, it wouldn't be just. And I believe God to be supremely just.

And, while it's awfully easy to get caught up in the things that go wrong in this world (a phenomenon which I've taken to calling "spoiled brat syndrome"), if you pay close attention, you'll see that our universe is 99.999999% good...

Life is a MIRACLE. The world is a miracle. Literally.

[gtar100]

185. Real understanding leads to compassion, not hate

At least I believe that and am willing to test it out.

[Spinzonner]

93. You haven't really defined Death

or Life for that matter.

So making all kinds of statements and major metaphysical statements about it and based upon it seems premature.

[Subdivisions]

102. Ok, my definition of death is that point at which life no longer

exists. My definition of life is the experience of being alive. I believe that, just as we did not exist minutes (and for eternity) before the moment of our conception, we likewise cease to exist upon our death, the only difference being the fact that when we die, we leave behind the evidence of our having lived.

[The Straight Story]

118. My views on life/death

I actually thought about this a lot the last few days. My brother is really into family tree stuff and we were discussing the family history going back to the 1600's for which he has a lot of records.

There is an amazing history to my family, nothing great, but really neat.

Had ONE little thing changed in all that time...well, would I exist? I know that seems like a real simple thing to answer. But it just isn't for me.

I am here now, thinking, typing, in 2006 - and I would not be doing this if anything at all had not been exactly as it was. Pretty humbling. Which leads me to ponder, what is it to be conscious? What defines me other then something physical in the here and now (ie, active chemicals which came into being because my parents had sex)?

Is there something more to this all we are missing (and it does not have to be god either). My chemicals are here and within me now, so I define my life as based on that time line. But suppose I die and those chemicals cease? New lives are created each day, and how do I know I won't be conscious in one of those? What is it to be 'me'?

You turn off the power to your computer, but the data remains - and the power going through the cord is still there. But a new PC, plug it in, power it up, and transfer some data and you back to using it. Is it the same system? No. But it holds some of the same things the last one did - even though it is 'dead'.

One could ask as well where morals and values come from in life. If there is nothing beyond this time, why 'care' when you can conquer and have a wonderful party life? No karma, no hell, no nothing - so why suffer while others are having fun? Killing them ain't bad cause they are gonna die anyway, they are just a blob of chemicals like those when you get first get pregnant. Sure, they are more complex, but still we are just blobs of cells and nothing more.

Compassion, love, etc come from somewhere. And it ties us together. We often believe to give is better than to receive, to help the needy is a good thing - especially when we give something we have earned to them (money, time).

When I die, I take with me nothing - but I leave behind something. Why should I care what I leave behind? I will be dead, and never to feel or think again. Or so some say.

Perhaps we know that somehow we will feel and see again, that we will reap what we sow in another generation as we again become conscious creatures.

I don't know the answers, but if this limited time is all we will ever have in this entire universe then let's damn the torpedos, fuck em all, and party and get what we want no matter what. Why suffer so others can enjoy their life, what does it profit me and my only turn here?

I am not that pessimistic of course :) But I wonder back at you - how can anyone believe that this is all there is?

[Subdivisions]

121. But this is not all there is...

as an Atheist I am more willing to believe in evolution, in fact I do. And, if evolution can happen here as a fact of nature, it can happen elsewhere, where the conditions are right.

The Universe is Heaven and we're already in it. But we don't have eternity to enjoy it and make the most of it! We only have our time. That's it.

Why can't the physical Universe be as or more miraculous than God?

[The Straight Story]

122. It can be, but

This IS all there is as far as you are concerned.

Why should you bother to care what is after or before your time?

[The Straight Story]

123. Sent you a PM, let me know what ya think :) (nt)

[gtar100]

186. Except that we are all part and parcel of the same thing

Recycling seems to be a natural phenomenon of the universe and in particular of life. You may define yourself by your own identifications, but fundamentally, we are all the same energy arrayed in one particular order at this time. All this energy continually reassembles and transforms. You are me experiencing you. The separations are only temporary and the wild creativity of the universe by whatever mechanism it does it will realign things again and again. Yet it is still fundamentally the same energy. Maybe one day in some universe we'll figure out how to put the pieces together in a way that lasts longer than a family tree, or by means of a specific culture and identity of a people. Even these larger pieces come and go. But many are interested in eternity and what it means to live and die - which only says that the fundamental energy of the universe is interested as well. Neither you nor I as individuals created that interest - we partake in it.

[Spinzonner]

182. Circular definitions

You haven't really defined anything yet.

[NuttyFluffers]

94. because they see with different eyes?

reality can be seen from different viewpoints and still be the same event. often what one would cite as the disproval of god can be seen as another as further proof. beware the man who declares they are the sole arbiter of truth -- but this applies to all positions of power, from the politician, to the religious leader, to the fashionable, to the jaded cynic. such mysteries can be contemplated in a far higher level than the simplistic arguments we've seen, particularly of this competing faith issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Not my place to tell other people what to do with their heads.

And even if I was inclined to do so, I question the value of proselytizing or arguing to change other people's Belief Systems (or B.S. for short)

I'm not on your path and you're not on mine. I don't tell you what to think, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

And guess what? I'm a lifelong atheist.

Also, as long as someone isn't trying to take irrational lunacy like a 6,000 year old Earth or dinosaurs on "Noah's Ark" and pass it off as "science" which should be taught in my kids' public schools, what is the value in my ridiculing their belief system? I'm not them. I don't want to be them. I don't NEED them to think like me. All I need (and this is where I have a problem with some religious people) is for them to STOP trying to use government to foist their religion onto me and mine, STOP taking their religious faith as an excuse to interfere with MY right to control my own body and destiny, or to interfere with the reproductive or lifestyle choices of people I care about, or to to interfere with the rights of consenting adults in my country to make their own damn decisions about their own damn lives.

In short, I don't have a problem with religion or belief in "God" (or "Gods"). I have a problem with people needing to foist their beliefs on others. Look, if the scientific facts continue to disprove thousands of years of religious dogmas, as I believe they have and will continue to do, then it's up to the individuals who still subscribe to those dogmas to weigh the facts versus their own interpretation of their faith. That's not my job. My job is to interpret the universe- for me.

I don't shout the endings of movies to people- why should I try to tell them what (I think) the answers to life are? Let 'em do it themselves. That's how it works.

[OneBlueSky]

97. God . . . The Universe . . . Creation . . . all the same to me . . . n/t

.

[phylny]

98. I believe in God and I'm a Christian. Either you're right or I'm right.

I guess we'll find out when we're dead :)

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Would you also say that, either you're "right", or Jews are right? Either you're "right", or Muslims

are? Worshippers of Zeus? Buddhists? Zoroastrians?

If there are inhabitants, say, of a planet around the star Sirius, what do you suppose they worship? Maybe they have had as many religions, throughout history, as we have- possibly with each of them believing that they, alone, were "right" and everyone else was wrong.

I'm not trying to be cute, here- but have you ever considered that the odds might be kind of slim that your belief system happens to be the one particular right one in the History of not just the Earth, but the immense universe that surrounds it?

[phylny]

134. Absolutely.

I was confronted by a friend a few months ago, and she said (in a slightly drunk state), "YOU BELIEVE THAT I'M GOING TO HELL BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS, RIGHT????" I said, "I believe no such thing. I believe that I'm going to heaven because I believe in Jesus. I also believe that there may be many such ways to get there, or many other possibilities and I don't pretend to be smart enough to tell someone else that what they believe is wrong. I can only say what I believe for myself."

As I said, either I'm right and there's a God or the OP is right and there isn't, and we'll find out when we die. That doesn't mean that there are only two views, it only means that I was talking to someone who had the view that God doesn't exist.

[TRYPHO]

189. Sorry, but your friend IS hell bound

According to Christian rules, the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, EVERYONE else is hell bound.

Thank the early Christians for making the afterlife so painful for everyone else.

TRYPHO

[Erika]

103. You have higher expectations from a corpse than I do

When I was a child, I buried a squirrel. Six months later we decided to dig it up and study it. Guess what? It was still dead and going from dust to dust.

A rebirth of that squirrel might take place in the environment and it could live forever. Humans, however, for whatever reasons are often vaulted in their internment.

[phylny]

135. Fine with me. I don't have to convince you of anything. Sorry that

the squirrel's body wasn't left buried, though. I had my dog cremated last month because I didn't want animals getting to the body in my back yard. Guess I was on the right track with that thinking ;)

[Odin2005]

101. The notion of "god" is totally illogical, an anthropomorphization of the Universe.

Religion is basically a case of anthropomorphization, a common human failing. What is being anthropomorphized in the case of religion is the whole universe.

[shadowknows69]

129. As you said a common human failing

and the only way we can really comprehend nature. In our own terms of understanding. That's where faith comes in. Despite the fact we know now, I think most christians would agree, that the mighty orbs in our sky in the dawn of man (sun, moon)we're not the Gods themselves watching over us. The continued belief in deities in societies that have (mostly) embraced science, suggests to me anyway that there is something that works on certain people on a level that is currently unquantifiable to our level of technology.

[The Straight Story]

112. Ok, here is my more serious response (now that I have a few minutes)

I will try to keep it short, but not always easy on such a subject.

A synopsis. My story was similar to yours in some ways, I was christian, then atheist, buddhist, agnostic, etc and so on over my 41 years.

One thing I kept coming back to in all my studies in life (from math and science to theology and philosophy) was that no matter how much we know now, there is a lot we don't know. IE - the more I learned the more I realized how little I truly knew.

For me personally it was arrogance on my part to assume I knew there was nothing more then I could see and measure, obviously there is more as we discover new things all the time.

So I then asked myself - if there were a 'god' what then, and what do we know about god?

Is he a programmer and we are all AI he/she wrote (and I will use 'he' here as it is shorter and easier to type, not being sexist, just damned lazy). So I once wrote a story about that idea - god was not constrained my our laws, but could interact with us here and do things we see as 'miracles'. Ghosts and such might be little glitches in the program, or more likely intentionally there for some other AI bits of code for some reason. Etc and so on.

My personal moral code and that of probably most atheists are not that far apart - and we both want people to have the freedom to make their own choices and to keep religion out of government (and government out of religion).

As far as the bible - I see it more as a collection of works by people using their limited language to describe their interaction with god then being hand written by god and perfect.

In regards to other faiths I see them as having valid ideals as well, all being part of a bigger puzzle to be put together - god even noted that there were 'heathens' out there that had shown him more respect than the jews had done in the OT. So it is safe to say there was an interaction. And an interpretation of such.

I could on and on and discuss theology, etc. But I don't want to run too far off topic.

People often bitch about the evils religion has done, because we love the negative (just watch the news, in a nation of 300 million we hear about the few who do bad, and we remember them). Humans, as a whole, have been downright evil to one another - and always will be. Religion won't cure it, because people often associate with a faith by proxy (well, my subjects are christian so I will call myself one too).

Those true to their ideals have done a lot for the poor and sick in this world. But they won't get the time of day in the press or anywhere else. Then it becomes, similar to your OP, if I don't see it, it does not exist.

I see pedo priests, war mongering people who call themselves christians, islamic whack jobs doing some crappy things, etc and so on.

The good exist, but if we are too lazy or uncaring to look for it we will only see the things which feed our biases. Then to make it worse, we end up blaming an ideal in toto for something that such ideal does not stand for at all. Intellectual fraud to prop up a position.

"well yeah, some do good, but..." and they proceed to name the few who do bad.

Sounds a lot like the RW and Islam. Reminds me how folks on the left were telling people not to get all crazy because some ME islamic folks flew planes into buildings "don't judge all by the few". Unless it helps in arguing against people of faith.

Why do I believe in God? Because I look back at history and see how little even our most bright people knew and it was squat compared to what we know now. And as people are fond of saying, history repeats itself.

No, I don't know. That is why they call it faith.

If I am wrong, it won't affect you. And as long as I am not pushing my stuff on you and degrading you for feeling your way, and you do the same for me, then it really don't matter.

To those who do push, the problem is the pusher, not the belief behind them. Everyone wants to sell their way as the best way - including liberals and dems who were calling my house urging me to vote for the one true party.

[NMMNG]

120. I was an atheist from birth until about age 8

Then my Mom got the religion bug and began taking me and my sisters to church. It was then that I discovered that God was not just a television character on Davey and Goliath. I came to believe in God because I was taught to. Flash forward a little over two decades and I was still a believer but I was struggling with doubts because things just didn't seem to add up. The more I studied the Bible and read religious books, the less the currently existing "evidence" for God's existence made sense. Despite my attempts to convince myself that my doubts were unfounded, I could no longer ignore them. I lost my faith and stopped believing, somewhere in my 30th year of life.

[H2O Man]

130. Maybe

you shouldn't have done so many drugs.

[zeemike]

133. As always these topics become an exercise in futility

In where the ones on the NO God side tell us how ridicules it is to believe in something unseen.
There is almost never any serious discussion of the science of it but tuns of things that always start with "well if there is a god why.... or Yes it is just a Santa Clause for the adults"

Just once I would like to have a serious discussion that did not involve all the cheep shots and the cheep questions but did cover the science of it all.
Then maybe I could tell you why I believe and just what it is that I believe without having to wade through all the hostile and insulting comments, to which I could never have enough time to answer.
Yes in this I am apparently in the minority here but I do not bend to the minority just because one might assume the majority is right. I have good and logical reasons why I believe what I do but cannot share them in a hostile atmosphere, much like a blue person in a red state.

[WinkyDink]

136. Jesus didn't ask to be worshipped, and was not, in His time.

That was all Saul/Paul's doing. And wasn't it a good thing, to help the poor, the infirm, the outcast, the lame?

I've read enough about Christ, Egyptians, aliens, ancient mythologies, magic mushrooms, etc., to beat the band, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your basic premise.

[bryant69]

138. Why isn't this in the Religion Forum

There's no political content here- this is just a guy bitching about how stupid his fellow DUers are.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lydia Leftcoast]

156. It's experiential, like appreciation of the arts or like love, not

intellectual, like math or history.

That's all I can say.

And I know all about textual criticism of the Bible and parallels in other ancient religions.

I still KNOW somehow (the same way that I intuit a lot of things) that there is a force behind the universe. I believe that religions are like the classic story of the blind men and the elephant, attempts by people with incomplete information trying to fathom something unimaginable.

I choose to be an Episcopalian, because it fits me culturally and because it declares itself based on the "three-legged stool" of scripture, tradition, and reason. All that stuff about textual criticism of the Bible and parallels in other religions? I'm studying it in an Episcopal church-sponsored study course for lay people.

Nor do I believe that non-believers go to hell. My belief about that is like what Paul says in Romans 2:12-16, namely, that there are "righteous pagans" who have the law engraved on their hearts. In other words, people of good will, no matter what their worldview, are home free.

The passages in which Jesus supposedly refers to himself as the only way to God were written long after his time.

[Az]

188. Its human nature

Our mind does not form fully aware of self. Self is not even a concept in our brains at first. It takes time, experience, and evidence to begin to introduce the idea of self. A baby's business is that of figuring out where it ends and the universe begins. First thing it has to learn is that it is not the universe. That is the first step to discovering self.

It learns about self by figuring out the things it can and cannot move and control. Arms? Check. Legs? Check. Lamp on the other side of the room? Negative. Eventually it figures out its limits and abilities. Then it moves on to figuring out these things around it that are not self.

Amongst these things it encounters are these mobile things which seem to bear some resemblance to self. Eventually after a lot of figuring out other things the baby comes to the realization that these things have a self as well. But because we can't experience other's sense of self we project our own sense of self onto them. This is an internal process. We build models of these other self's based on our understanding our own self and these other's behaviour.

We actually have brain cells that lend themself to this process quite readily. The recently discovered Mirror Neurons seem to be part of what lead higher order mammals to adopt the flexibility of learning and social behaviour over relying on pure instinct for survival.

So as the baby figures out this notion of identity in these other humans running around it they also begin to see other things that exhibit behaviour and patterns. As their awareness expands the apply this tool of projection to more and more things. They place identity on weather and fire and kitty cats and trees and nearly anything that exhibits behaviour it can detect patterns in.

We as a species have figured out that some of these things do not actually have personalities or sense of self such as we do. But the brain is more interested in finding useful information than accurate information. Thus it continues using this sense of identity with any objects that exhibit behaviour. Eventually we are taught that some of these things do not have identities and we pave over these notions in our mind. We still think of such things as having identities (anyone that has chewed out their computer is aware of this). But we rationally understand that there is no one there.

But some things that exhibit behaviour remain outside our ability to explain sufficiently to pave over these internal constructs people build of identities. The universe is a tough nut to crack. And even if we did have all the evidence and all the theories in the world it may not be enough to overcome someone's internalized sense of identity concerning the universe (ie God). Our mind relates to experience far stronger that it does to reason. And unfortunately the brain is not the best adjudicator of determining what it's own expriences may have actually been. The brain is more interested in what is useful than what is accurate. And thats just simple evolution at work.