Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

[Michael Archer]

I haven't been reading this thread, but because I see that we're well into five pages, I think there's a person who thinks there's a god on this thread. To the atheists: I've learned that it's useless to argue with religious people--you're not going to win.

 

You're probably citing evidence by biologists and scientists to refute the religious people, yes? That's like trying to argue with someone who doesn't believe he's conscious. Religion is a faith-based i.e. there's zero evidence for it and it's to be taken without question, where science is reason-based. These two fields are epistemological conflicting.

 

In conclusion, atheists, you're trying use reason to defend your position against people who think reason is impotent. You're making an argument about the importance of logic, to people who don't believe in logic. You're not going to win.

[Axeldeath]

In conclusion, atheists, you're trying use reason to defend your position against people who think reason is impotent. You're making an argument about the importance of logic, to people who don't believe in logic. You're not going to win.

 

We're not arguing for once, people are actually having a conversation.

[Pinkie Pie]

I remember reading somewhere of a pastor saying you can't argue with science because it uses 'logic and reason', only he meant it in a negative way.

[Kirkreng]

Well I believe in logic and reason. But without questioning there is no reason or logic. Which is why I question religion. I want to know why there is such faith and how people defend it, why there are more than one religion, why religions have changed over time why one religion is bigger than the other ect.. It's easy to slap the crazy tag on religious people because their believes aren't based on reason or logic, but that would be the same as slapping the crazy tag on Bronies because they watch a show about colorful ponies, it would be downright hypocritical.

[BrutalOrange]

In conclusion, atheists, you're trying use reason to defend your position against people who think reason is impotent. You're making an argument about the importance of logic, to people who don't believe in logic. You're not going to win.

 

Hmm, I find your post kinda offensive. I strongly believe in logic and reason and I strongly believe in God. You're saying that all people who believe in the idea of God don't believe in logic, or basically un-intelligent people. Which is totally false.

 

Religion is important. You don't know what kind of crap I could do if I was an atheist. I can simply buy a balaclava and a gun any day and go rob a store. If I plan myself good enough, nothing is gonna stop me and the police won't be able to catch me if I get away quick enough. But why don't I do it? Seems like a very good way to get some quick cash. I don't because I have something that keeps me in tow, religion. Explain to me why is the crime rate in stable religious countries such as the ones in the middle-east so low (when the police there is really bad) when it is so high in the not very religious western countries (where the police is actually very good).

[BTGBullseye]

Well I believe in logic and reason. But without questioning there is no reason or logic. Which is why I question religion. I want to know why there is such faith and how people defend it, why there are more than one religion, why religions have changed over time why one religion is bigger than the other ect.. It's easy to slap the crazy tag on religious people because their believes aren't based on reason or logic, but that would be the same as slapping the crazy tag on Bronies because they watch a show about colorful ponies, it would be downright hypocritical.

Now why can't all Atheists be like this? For that matter, why can't all people everywhere?

[Axeldeath]

Religion is important. You don't know what kind of crap I could do if I was an atheist. I can simply buy a balaclava and a gun any day and go rob a store. If I plan myself good enough, nothing is gonna stop me and the police won't be able to catch me if I get away quick enough. But why don't I do it? Seems like a very good way to get some quick cash. I don't because I have something that keeps me in tow, religion. Explain to me why is the crime rate in stable religious countries such as the ones in the middle-east so low (when the police there is really bad) when it is so high in the not very religious western countries (where the police is actually very good).

 

If belief in God is the only thing that stops you from being a murderer or a thief or a rapist then you're scum anyway.

[Doom Shepherd]

Religion is important. You don't know what kind of crap I could do if I was an atheist. I can simply buy a balaclava and a gun any day and go rob a store. If I plan myself good enough, nothing is gonna stop me and the police won't be able to catch me if I get away quick enough. But why don't I do it? Seems like a very good way to get some quick cash. I don't because I have something that keeps me in tow, religion. Explain to me why is the crime rate in stable religious countries such as the ones in the middle-east so low (when the police there is really bad) when it is so high in the not very religious western countries (where the police is actually very good).

 

If belief in God is the only thing that stops you from being a murderer or a thief or a rapist then you're scum anyway.

 

^This. The "we would all rampage and kill without God threatening us with Hell" crap argument is an indictment of believers, not the other way around. YOU may be a savage without your God. It doesn't mean anybody ELSE is. Savage.

 

Not to mention how much of the rest of that original statement is not only factually wrong but massively ignorant.

 

There's less (apparent) crime in the middle east because THEY KILL YOU FOR EVERYTHING, AND OPPRESS THE FVCK OUT OF YOU FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. (And they legalize, or don't particularly care to punish, a lot of stuff that we consider crimes. You know, like BEATING WOMEN for driving.)

 

(Or beheading you for practicing a different religion: http://io9.com/5868253/saudi-religious-police-behead-woman-for-witchcraft)

 

Also, the phrases "stable religious countries" and "Middle East" are NEVER to be used in the same sentence by anyone with even a pretense of sanity.

 

In conclusion: BrutalOrange, good job being an excellent example of the very point you're arguing against.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I don't think it's right to judge people or speak for others, regardless of what you believe. And I know a lot of atheists who still have strong moral values and are very ethical. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't automatically make them monsters. Granted I think they are kind of blind, but it's not my place to judge them for that.

[BrutalOrange]

Of course I wouldn't rob a store if I didn't believe in God, I only said that to prove a point: There are many people in this world who would do bad things if they didn't believe in god and I know a bunch of them too. I also didn't mean that all atheists are bad because I know some atheists who are really nice.

[Kirkreng]

The normal human has morals and other emotions that stop you from doing such things.

[Doom Shepherd]

I will now illustrate several non-religious reasons not to do bad things:

 

1. I am aware of the consequences of my actions. I am aware that the consequences of doing most evil things tend to be personally unpleasant, in both the short and long term. I am not willing to gamble my future happiness for short-term gain. I practice impulse control for this reason.

 

2. Another end result of doing bad things to other people is the greatly increased possibility that other people will do bad things to me. Being that I do not desire bad things to happen to me, then avoiding doing bad things to others is merely increasing my odds of favorable outcome.

 

3. I have crappy luck, and am lazy to boot. Because of this, again, the probability of an improperly planned / executed evil act is unfavorably high, a clear disincentive.

 

4. I have pride, and beyond that total certainty of my inherent superiority over others. Doing evil for short-term personal gain is a clear sign of weakness and inferiority.

 

5. I just don't feel like it. Because of my belief in reciprocity, I prefer only to do evil things to evil people.

[Pinkie Pie]

Not sure if I'd agree with 5. I believe you should be the better man and not stoop down to the evil people's level by reciprocating evil onto them.

[BrutalOrange]

Yes, I totally agree, a normal human has his own morals to stop him doing bad things. But there are people in this world who might not have those morals or are cold-hearted or might think good of something bad.

 

EDIT: I now remember a story my school teacher once told me. He said that he lived much of his childhood in England and he says that one day the power went out in the whole town for just one hour. He says that in that one hour (when security cameras weren't working) most stores around town were robbed. Which proves to me that although most people have their own morals that prevent them from doing bad things, some people don't have morals and the only thing stopping them from doing bad things is either the law or religion.

 

There's less (apparent) crime in the middle east because THEY KILL YOU FOR EVERYTHING, AND OPPRESS THE FVCK OUT OF YOU FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. (And they legalize, or don't particularly care to punish, a lot of stuff that we consider crimes. You know, like BEATING WOMEN for driving.)

 

(Or beheading you for practicing a different religion: http://io9.com/5868253/saudi-religious- ... witchcraft)

 

Alright, maybe I picked a bad example, I apologize. But I think you get the point, most religious countries all around the world have lower crime-rates than in the western countries.

[Vapymid]

In my mind you can only be religious or not. How is someone just a little religious? Wouldn't that mean you aren't really religious?

 

I believe "observant" would be a better term. Lots of people (the majority, I would think) subscribe to the general idea and some common customs of a particular religion but don't go too deep into every tradition and prescription. Which is just as well, because most of these rules are there not because they are instrumental to the core message of the underlying religion but for mass behaviour modification and for consolidation of the clergy's authority.

 

I've looked around a bit and found some amazing stuff in the Quran.

 

I would not pay too much attention to that. When you are biased and *want* to find something, you can find it even if it's not there at all. You can take just about any ancient book and find phrases or sentences which can be interpreted as wonderful prophecies. In 200 years you can take any 20th century sci-fi book and find that many predictions made by the authors came true (but even more proved to be completely false). This is a classic mistake of trying to rearrange the facts to fit the theory, rather than the other way round...

 

Religion is a faith-based i.e. there's zero evidence for it and it's to be taken without question, where science is reason-based.

 

But you forget that atheism is also a religion and can only be based on faith. Modern science cannot provide objective answer to the fundamental question of God's existence and many scientists were and are religious.

 

I want to know why there is such faith and how people defend it, why there are more than one religion, why religions have changed over time why one religion is bigger than the other ect.

 

I think there is a combination of factors, such as our need to provide explanation to what we observe and the social organisation, which needs authority, hierarchy, discipline and moral rules.

 

A "higher authority" explains hitherto unexplainable and also is an ideal tool to extend authority of the social leader because he can claim that he speaks for the ultimate boss and therefor he has the final say on all matters. That is, clearly, just too much power concentrated in one point and that's why strict segregation of the secular and ideological authorities is so important for a healthy society.

 

If belief in God is the only thing that stops you from being a murderer or a thief or a rapist then you're scum anyway.

 

I agree with that. But I also think that such person would be a tail case. The majority of people would know basic good from evil on their own, without having to be taught or forced to behave morally. I think that basic morality is objective and fundamental and is a product of evolution of species. There is more and more evidence that apes, for example, have notion of fair play, cetaceans are caring for their old and injured and so on...

 

YOU may be a savage without your God. It doesn't mean anybody ELSE is.

 

But I doubt he will be (see my point above). It's just a bad argument. In fact, usually, the more fundamentally religious a person is, the more brutality he is capable of. One can say that fundamentalists, while being totally convinced that they are serving their god, are in fact acting on behalf of their devil (or whatever equivalent of it existing in their type of religion).

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

Not sure if I'd agree with 5. I believe you should be the better man and not stoop down to the evil people's level by reciprocating evil onto them.

 

It's nicer, but in the long run it's considerably less effective in changing the evil behavior.

 

Or as Confucious (Kung-Tzi) said: "If you repay evil with kindness, with what will you repay kindness?"

 

You should LEAD with kindness. Thereafter, you should reciprocate with what you are shown. Carl Sagan wrote about this in the 16th chapter of Billions and Billions, "The Rules of the Game."

[Doom Shepherd]

EDIT: I now remember a story my school teacher once told me. He said that he lived much of his childhood in England and he says that one day the power went out in the whole town for just one hour. He says that in that one hour (when security cameras weren't working) most stores around town were robbed. Which proves to me that although most people have their own morals that prevent them from doing bad things, some people don't have morals and the only thing stopping them from doing bad things is either the law or religion.

Some people will steal anything that is not nailed down. Humanity's problem is that it has become too "moral" to destroy such animals when identified.

 

Alright, maybe I picked a bad example, I apologize. But I think you get the point, most religious countries all around the world have lower crime-rates than in the western countries.

 

Actually, I'm still pretty sure that's an entirely made-up statistic you have there. Most? Name three. Three where they don't take it to "bad example" extremes, like killing you for being gay or beating you up for dressing differently, or lashing your back to ribbons for dropping you chewing gum in the street.

[Jack Noir]

Also, the Bible wasn't meant to be absolute truth. It was more of a rule book, and the idea of an entity that would punish them for wrongdoing most likely kept people from committing crimes very often.

 

That's why those who believe in it are called "deranged".

 

I haven't been reading this thread, but because I see that we're well into five pages, I think there's a person who thinks there's a god on this thread. To the atheists: I've learned that it's useless to argue with religious people--you're not going to win.

 

You're probably citing evidence by biologists and scientists to refute the religious people, yes? That's like trying to argue with someone who doesn't believe he's conscious. Religion is a faith-based i.e. there's zero evidence for it and it's to be taken without question, where science is reason-based. These two fields are epistemological conflicting.

 

In conclusion, atheists, you're trying use reason to defend your position against people who think reason is impotent. You're making an argument about the importance of logic, to people who don't believe in logic. You're not going to win.

 

Actually, most of the people who "believe in science" are also part of a faith-based religion. The vast majority of people who believe supposedly proven scientific facts are simply taking someone else's word for it.

 

Scientists themselves work with logic/reason, but followers of science deal only in faith, to exactly the same extent as the religious.

 

Different shepherds, same old flock.

[Vapymid]

The vast majority of people who believe supposedly proven scientific facts are simply taking someone else's word for it.

 

This is not strictly correct. Accepting a supposedly-proven scientific fact is not a matter of faith but a matter of trust.

 

You trust the scientific process to weed out the false-positives and to apply certain standards of proof before declaring discovery.

 

In theory, you can dispense with the trust and build or buy the necessary equipment and do the experiments yourself. However, your knowledge of the level scrutiny to which previous experiments were supposed to be subjected allows you to reasonably assume that your results would be no different. Therefore, repeating the experiment would be a waste of time and resources, so you don't do it.

 

With faith, either there is no evidence one way or another or you make a conscious decision to disregard the existing evidence or logical reasoning in favour of your pre-existing opinion.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

With faith, either there is no evidence one way or another or you make a conscious decision to disregard the existing evidence or logical reasoning in favour of your pre-existing opinion.

Or there is evidence that is non-quantifiable, and not explainable... Usually ending, through logic, in a non-preexisting opinion that then is found to match or closely resemble an existing religion.