Jump to content

Why don't you believe in God?


mollypolly190

Religion  

324 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe that people who are more educated are less likely to have religious beliefs?

    • Yes
      205
    • No
      119


Recommended Posts

I believe that God does exist. But not in the traditional theist manner, but in a deist manner. God created the world like an engineer created pin ball machine, he created the game and its rules but is not the player. The player is the person, like I am a player. I play with my life, the ball, but can only control the two nobs at the bottom. The rules, the ways the ball moves, are predetermined by God. Not by me, not by you.

I also believe that, like Kant believed, that God is outside of reason. We can reason for His existance and non-existance, and this creates a contradiction. If there's a contradiction in reason, and there is no fault in either reasoning's form or content, then the reasoning is below God. Philosophy, science, all that is below Him.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I believe in the universe- that it can take care of its self without needing an imaginary man/woman/whoever to control it- its self sustaining. I place my belief in science, rather than somebody in the sky. To me, faith is anything that reassures you, gives you inner peace, and pushes you to be nice to yourself and others around you. So , if your religion, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Squirrel Lord, whatever reassures you and makes you a better person, please, by all means follow it. After all, you do have a right to choose your own faith and opinions. But I hate the people who insist that their religion is better or that somebody else is going to hell for following another religion. I look at religion as a worldwide discussion. I mean truth is, one day, we're all going to die. It's inevitable, so it's kind of like going "Hey look buddy. We're going to die anyways. So what do you think? Is there a reason we're here? What happens to us after we die?" It's just a mix of different ideas. If you don't agree with someone, relax. Nobody knows what happens anyways. Respect the fact that that person spent time thinking about the universe and came up with a conclusion they saw fit, no matter how silly it may seem to you. If that person starts to get offensive (e.g. they believe that homosexuality or whatever you believe is a sin, crime, whatever) take pity on them that they are so pathetic and close-minded that their world will never be as colorful and broad as yours. However, if they start getting physical (as idiots who are confronted with ideas their puny minds won't ever get often do) then take the appropriate measures.

Also, tomorrow we could die and wake up and realize that you just get reincarnated in a different dimension of the universe each time you die, so instead of fighting, live and let live, and appreciate the world around you. That's what I think anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I never believed and will never believe in god because:

1. I never needed to or will need

2. I never wanted to or will want

3. I didn't grow up in a religious family

I think religious people are putting needless restrictions on their lives to feel safe. It is hard to understand them and I pity them sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that faith has nothing to do with how educated "one" is. However, one may be able to reason to some extent due to the education one has received but that doesn't mean that the illiterate people are more likely to be religious because they can't reason? Well i think education is just part of all this: Reason, faith etc.

I don't believe in god for one simple reason: I don't need to.

Also, religions seem quite imaginary and fanciful (and life-conditioning) to me. But hey, the Universe itself is quite strange! So I'm cool with people having beliefs of their own, because frankly, anything could happen and we just don't know anything for certain :)

PD: I just used Google to translate 'fantasioso' into 'fanciful' because I couldn't think up a word for it, so I'm sorry if it doesn't mean what I wanted to say

Ouch. What can i say. Arrogant? There are other things that you do not need to do yet you choose to do them. I believe i don't have to give examples here.

EDIT: Sure you people study about the theory of relativity and quantum physics, thanks to Einstein, but did you really try to think about what he thinks about the existence of God and why he thinks that way?

Quotes by Albert Einstein:

  • When the solution is simple, God is answering.
  • God does not play dice with the universe.
  • God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. What can i say. Arrogant? There are other things that you do not need to do yet you choose to do them. I believe i don't have to give examples here.

EDIT: Sure you people study about the theory of relativity and quantum physics, thanks to Einstein, but did you really try to think about what he thinks about the existence of God and why he thinks that way?

Quotes by Albert Einstein:

  • When the solution is simple, God is answering.

  • God does not play dice with the universe.

  • God is subtle but he is not malicious.

The theory of relativity and so on is a sound mathematical theory that explains a lot. The personal opinions of the guy who invented it are entirely irrelevant to the theory itself. God knows enough weirdos have come up with stuff. As it happens, on these websites where random unsubstantiated quotes like to float around, Einstein apparently also said:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

But you honestly can't form an argument or any kind of point by taking random quotes from someone and then using one good thing they did to somehow validate everything else they said, like everything should be held in equal esteem. Many great thinkers were also Nazis -- but that doesn't mean that you have to agree with all their Nazi beliefs in order to believe their other ideas. It's massively irrelevant and bad logic. I don't care what Einstein's personal opinions were, it doesn't make a rat's arse worth of difference to the concepts he contributed to Physics, unless he proposed replacing E=mc2 with "God did it", in which case it might be relevant. As it is, his opinions on this matter have nothing to do with his theories.

Also re: your first point, some examples would actually be helpful as I can't work out what you're referring to. Nor do I think the member posting was behaving arrogantly, they're just giving their opinion in to be honest a quite non-offensive way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens, on these websites where random unsubstantiated quotes like to float around, Einstein apparently also said:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/einstein.jpg

:lmao: just sayin, sandwich's above point is totally right.

Personally, I don't know whether I do or don't. It's a nice idea but I'd need convincing is probably the best way of summarising my view. I'd like to see some evidence. Some solid evidence for God's existence. (here comes the wave of 'then it isn't faith it's knowledge' protests) :P

I find the burden of proof interesting though. Should atheists prove to theists that God doesn't exist, and until then accept he does? Or should theists succumb to atheists until proving he does? Most people would probably argue that the burden should lie with the theists, as they are proving something that is there. However I will also point out the legal 'innocent until proven guilty' shows burden of proof to lie with the prosecutors - in God's case would be the atheists.

Edited by TykeDragon
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be the first in this tidal wave you speak of... Don't worry I will refrain from bible thumping and other assorted evangelical goodies.

The first issue at hand is that you require "solid" evidence, this makes lots of sense to us, but only because we live in a post-enlightenment world in which empiricism and science reign. This isn't a bad thing per say, but we've allowed it into streams of though in which it doesn't necessarily belong, simply for the sake of convenience and comfort. For example there is an economic school of thought named the "Austrian school." In a nut shell, this school of though limits its reliance on complex calculations, graphs and other mathematical things. this is because it believes, it being a study of human behaviour that it is impossible to predict and calculate human thoughts, motives and actions, they refer to this as the "animal spirits." Although this school isn't particularly popular compared to the Kensyian and classical schools, I thin it brings up a great point. Numbers, statistics and "proof" are simply comforting to us and we'll accept them because of our feeling that they are true (people are more likely to believe a fact if you include a statistic or other number). So those who put down the social sciences and place the hard sciences on a pedestal are in a way rejecting the fascinating abyss of humanity simply because you can't always count it. I think that applies here too. And now for a supporting quote...

The death of the old god and the failure of science and materialism to give any satisfactory new one for surviving primitive religious instinct. To find meaning in life and confront its fears of death...

~ Eugene O'Neill (playwright)

Edited by Luka Petrovic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. What can i say. Arrogant? There are other things that you do not need to do yet you choose to do them. I believe i don't have to give examples here.

EDIT: Sure you people study about the theory of relativity and quantum physics, thanks to Einstein, but did you really try to think about what he thinks about the existence of God and why he thinks that way?

Quotes by Albert Einstein:

  • When the solution is simple, God is answering.

  • God does not play dice with the universe.

  • God is subtle but he is not malicious.

The theory of relativity and so on is a sound mathematical theory that explains a lot. The personal opinions of the guy who invented it are entirely irrelevant to the theory itself. God knows enough weirdos have come up with stuff. As it happens, on these websites where random unsubstantiated quotes like to float around, Einstein apparently also said:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

But you honestly can't form an argument or any kind of point by taking random quotes from someone and then using one good thing they did to somehow validate everything else they said, like everything should be held in equal esteem. Many great thinkers were also Nazis -- but that doesn't mean that you have to agree with all their Nazi beliefs in order to believe their other ideas. It's massively irrelevant and bad logic. I don't care what Einstein's personal opinions were, it doesn't make a rat's arse worth of difference to the concepts he contributed to Physics, unless he proposed replacing E=mc2 with "God did it", in which case it might be relevant. As it is, his opinions on this matter have nothing to do with his theories.

Also re: your first point, some examples would actually be helpful as I can't work out what you're referring to. Nor do I think the member posting was behaving arrogantly, they're just giving their opinion in to be honest a quite non-offensive way.

Example: You're in the bus sitting on your chair, an old lady comes in who nearly falls every time the bus makes a turn. You decide to give your seat to the old lady. You didn't have to do it but you chose to do it.

Maybe this might not make sense to you but for the sake of an argument, i gave you an example.

This might be correct but it still doesn't deny the existence of God: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings

Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: You're in the bus sitting on your chair, an old lady comes in who nearly falls every time the bus makes a turn. You decide to give your seat to the old lady. You didn't have to do it but you chose to do it.

Maybe this might not make sense to you but for the sake of an argument, i gave you an example.

This might be correct but it still doesn't deny the existence of God: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings

So what - I feel compassion for another human being, so I give her my seat because I don't need it? All that demonstrates is that I am, at least apparently, a nice person who cares about others. Maybe I'm even a nasty person who just feels like standing up because they've been sitting down all day. Maybe I have no human compassion or love for others whatsoever, but I'm giving her my seat because otherwise the bible and my faith have told me I'm heading off to hell if I don't, so the motivation is 100% selfish. I don't see how this point is relevant. The only one of these scenarios in which you can say that god 'chose' for that to happen or has some influence is the one where the person standing up believes in god and therefore thinks that these things are what god wants him to do, or because otherwise he's scared that he's not going to go to heaven and instead burn in the eternal fiery pit.

In a way, I find it more right that somebody has done it out of their own sense of love and compassion than because they have been ordered to do it by a book or unseeable being. To me, that person is a 'better' person, because love and compassion are their own natural qualities, not qualities forced on them or from an external source. I'm not saying that people who believe in god don't also do it out of love and compassion, but I guess I'm trying to say that love and compassion are not related to god - and if you think that they are intrinsically linked, one implication is that you have to follow somebody else's orders, example and directions in order to be a nice person - and without this influence you'd behave like a bit of a bastard!

Re: the second quote, my whole point was more or less that quotes are utterly meaningless contributions to a debate. Essentially Einstein is saying that the structure of the world is beautiful and that he feels towards it as people feel towards a personal god. Read it however you want, it still makes zero difference to a god's existence whether or not Einstein believed in one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: You're in the bus sitting on your chair, an old lady comes in who nearly falls every time the bus makes a turn. You decide to give your seat to the old lady. You didn't have to do it but you chose to do it.

Maybe this might not make sense to you but for the sake of an argument, i gave you an example.

This might be correct but it still doesn't deny the existence of God: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings

So what - I feel compassion for another human being, so I give her my seat because I don't need it? All that demonstrates is that I am, at least apparently, a nice person who cares about others. Maybe I'm even a nasty person who just feels like standing up because they've been sitting down all day. Maybe I have no human compassion or love for others whatsoever, but I'm giving her my seat because otherwise the bible and my faith have told me I'm heading off to hell if I don't, so the motivation is 100% selfish. I don't see how this point is relevant. The only one of these scenarios in which you can say that god 'chose' for that to happen or has some influence is the one where the person standing up believes in god and therefore thinks that these things are what god wants him to do, or because otherwise he's scared that he's not going to go to heaven and instead burn in the eternal fiery pit.

In a way, I find it more right that somebody has done it out of their own sense of love and compassion than because they have been ordered to do it by a book or unseeable being. To me, that person is a 'better' person, because love and compassion are their own natural qualities, not qualities forced on them or from an external source. I'm not saying that people who believe in god don't also do it out of love and compassion, but I guess I'm trying to say that love and compassion are not related to god - and if you think that they are intrinsically linked, one implication is that you have to follow somebody else's orders, example and directions in order to be a nice person - and without this influence you'd behave like a bit of a bastard!

Re: the second quote, my whole point was more or less that quotes are utterly meaningless contributions to a debate. Essentially Einstein is saying that the structure of the world is beautiful and that he feels towards it as people feel towards a personal god. Read it however you want, it still makes zero difference to a god's existence whether or not Einstein believed in one.

After all neither i can prove the existence of God through rationally nor you can deny the existence however.

My whole point for the argument which enables me to investigate more into this. It is evident that people weren't dumb in the past (construction of pyramids etc) yet most of the civilizations had faith, either monotheistic or polytheistic. It forces me to investigate, why has it always been esserted with no conceivable evidence to it.

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the burden of proof interesting though. Should atheists prove to theists that God doesn't exist, and until then accept he does? Or should theists succumb to atheists until proving he does? Most people would probably argue that the burden should lie with the theists, as they are proving something that is there. However I will also point out the legal 'innocent until proven guilty' shows burden of proof to lie with the prosecutors - in God's case would be the atheists.

This analogy doesn't make sense. The reason why they're innocent is because they aren't claiming anything. It is the prosecutors that are making a positive claim i.e x did y. The burden of proof would still lie with the theist because they are saying God does exist whereas an atheist doesn't say anything about his existence (at least, the modern use of the word atheism implies this).

How can you prove the non existence of something that you can't falsify anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof that God exists (you can't state that he doesn't as well). That's why discussing: "God exists vs. he doesn't" doesn't make any sense. Why don't I believe in God?

Well... I don't believe in God because there's no evidence (pretty original, huh?) and I just don't feel him in my heart / life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in God because there's no evidence

you probably haven't done TOK essay #5. You wouldn't have said that if you had done it.

EDIT: It's actually easier to deny the existence of God than to prove that God exists, meaning that you're just being "lazy" lol. If you're being lazy, then you're probably wrong (fallacy).

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

you probably haven't done TOK essay #5. You wouldn't have said that if you had done it.

well this isn't necessarily true. I did #5 and that is still a reason for withholding belief in God.

Then you should know that in some AoKs you don't need evidence for an assertion...

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

you probably haven't done TOK essay #5. You wouldn't have said that if you had done it.

well this isn't necessarily true. I did #5 and that is still a reason for withholding belief in God.

Then you should know that in some AoKs you don't need evidence for an assertion...

And why is religious belief one of them?

Uhm, what? Ask the person who invented TOK lol. Not only religion but Mathematics falls under that category as well.

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, what? Ask the person who invented TOK lol. Not only religion but Mathematics falls under that category as well.

So you have no real reason for contesting my original point? Throwing ToK words at me doesn't support your argument. Religion and maths are completely different areas of knowledge anyway so they don't really have a link. Maths doesn't require evidence because it's fundamentally based on reason. While religion is based on... what? You haven't exactly said. I don't agree with the idea that religious assertions don't need evidence or justified arguments just because they're religious assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, what? Ask the person who invented TOK lol. Not only religion but Mathematics falls under that category as well.

So you have no real reason for contesting my original point? Throwing ToK words at me doesn't support your argument. Religion and maths are completely different areas of knowledge anyway so they don't really have a link. Maths doesn't require evidence because it's fundamentally based on reason. While religion is based on... what? You haven't exactly said. I don't agree with the idea that religious assertions don't need evidence or justified arguments just because they're religious assertions.

I'm not throwing TOK words at you. Don't go on saying that "You're just throwing language at me" because we "need" language to make an argument, share ideas etc,

The point i was making is that "evidence" isn't needed everywhere for everything. Agreed? "Evidence" is something that "we" have invented to help understand different ideas and help us agree on something. It's like saying that "I will use e=mc^2 in order to find the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle" really.

But really, this may go on forever and we may not be able to come to an agreement. This is the very thing which forces me to think more and more about this.

Let me pose a question. You said "I don't agree with the idea that religious assertions don't need evidence or justified arguments just because they're religious assertions." Why don't you agree and why do you think that only evidence can satisfy you, when surely in mathematics you are satisfied with reasoning and so you use theorems based on reasoning solely?

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...