Why do you believe (or not believe)

sniffy said:
It seems to me that god's goalposts are forever widening....

For every 'yeah but' there's an 'ah but'

Anyway here's my twopennuth:

Because human life is so short and utterly measurable, many humans find it difficult to accept how much 'time' has passed. For a species so time bound it is almost impossible to conceive that the universe has had 'a lot' of time to get where it is now on its own without any help from a diety. Given that microscopes are able to 'see' smaller and smaller particles it is not beyond the realm of possiblity to assume that either fusion/collision (or both) of the smallest possible particles repeated over billions (or more) years might lead to our universe.

I hope in the not too distant future humans will realise that caring for ourselves, others and our habitat is not just the right thing to do because a god says so but because it might just be the right thing to do. ;)
Click to expand...


probably because it saves energy to the universe, less chaos, related to laws entropy of universe. I agree to you...it's just believing in God gives so much hope and thoughts of love.
 
sniffy said:
It seems to me that god's goalposts are forever widening....

For every 'yeah but' there's an 'ah but'
Click to expand...

well he is the localized form of infinity - kind of makes him unique in the universe
;)

Anyway here's my twopennuth:

Because human life is so short and utterly measurable, many humans find it difficult to accept how much 'time' has passed. For a species so time bound it is almost impossible to conceive that the universe has had 'a lot' of time to get where it is now on its own without any help from a diety. Given that microscopes are able to 'see' smaller and smaller particles it is not beyond the realm of possiblity to assume that either fusion/collision (or both) of the smallest possible particles repeated over billions (or more) years might lead to our universe.

I hope in the not too distant future humans will realise that caring for ourselves, others and our habitat is not just the right thing to do because a god says so but because it might just be the right thing to do. ;)
Click to expand...
A lack of evidence for abiogenesis makes it beyond the realm of possibility
 
lightgigantic said:
A lack of evidence for abiogenesis makes it beyond the realm of possibility
Click to expand...

We have evidence for it. Carbon dating. The oldest organisms were simple, and they got for complex as time progressed. This tells us that evolution is real, therefore a creator cannot be real, therefore abiogenesis is the only other thing that I can think of.
 
Oniw17 said:
We have evidence for it. Carbon dating. The oldest organisms were simple, and they got for complex as time progressed. This tells us that evolution is real, therefore a creator cannot be real, therefore abiogenesis is the only other thing that I can think of.
Click to expand...

No - carbon dating does not tell us anything about abiogenesis

In the physical sciences, the question of the origin of life is the study of the nature in which life is theorized to have evolved from non-life sometime between 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago. This topic also includes theories and ideas regarding possible extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial origin of life hypotheses, thought to have possibly occurred over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the known universe since the big bang.

Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
 
draqon said:
probably because it saves energy to the universe, less chaos, related to laws entropy of universe. I agree to you...it's just believing in God gives so much hope and thoughts of love.
Click to expand...

Dragon it is possible to have hope and love without god. However I am in the 'whatever floats your boat' camp.

light:
particle a) + particle b) + particle c) Agitate, heat and let stand for xxxx years...... is as plausible as any other theory and I suspect that our increasingly sophisticated microscopes, telescopes, satellites et al are finding evidence of such activity or similar.:eek:
 
Michelle said:
just because there is no Scientific evidence doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
True, we don't know 100%, but we can say that there is no scientific evidence for a God, therefore it's probably just a figment of your imagination.



michelle said:
.God is real...not everything can be explained by science..not everything have to be necessarily explained in Science...coz God exists whether u believe it or not!! Science vs. God,but see how great God is,that even Science can't explain it!;)
Click to expand...
Your logic is mendacious. I have an invisible rabbit in my pocket, see how great it is that science can't explain it! Grow up.

An atheist and a god believer were arguing.,the believer shouted "Praise the Lord!!!God is great,God is good! God divided the Red Sea so the Israelites could cross and escape from the Egyptians!" the atheist answered, " Screw your God,there is no God...the only reason why they managed to cross the red sea is because it is very shallow,and not because your God divided it,but because the red sea was only an ankle deep!" he convinced.. a few moments later,the believer shouted again " Praise the Lord!!!Hallelujah! " ...the atheist was annoyed and said "Why are you praising your god again?it's only an ankle deep that's why they managed to cross it!" he insisted. The believer answered, " God does exists,God is Good,God is great! Can you imagine how great God is? even if the sea was just an ankle deep,it managed to drown all the Egyptians armies!"
Click to expand...
A true rational person would suggest that the Israelites were never in Egypt, and the whole story is a myth.
 
Oniw17 said:
Hence the word suggests in my post. A theory simply suggests that something isa fact, with some educated reason for doing so.
Click to expand...


but your evidence is theoretical

(as you stated earlier)

We have evidence for it. Carbon dating.


it would be more correct to state "we have a theory for it based on carbon dating"
 
spidergoat said:
True, we don't know 100%, but we can say that there is no scientific evidence for a God, therefore it's probably just a figment of your imagination.




Your logic is mendacious. I have an invisible rabbit in my pocket, see how great it is that science can't explain it! Grow up.


A true rational person would suggest that the Israelites were never in Egypt, and the whole story is a myth.
Click to expand...
LIKE WHAT I SAID...GOD EXISTS..AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT :rolleyes: AND THE STORY IN EXODUS IS NOT A FICTION,IT'S REAL..DIDN'T U SEE THE "EXODUS DECODED" IN HISTORY CHANNEL? :m:
 
I heard about an archeologist that looked for evidence of camping in the desert the many thousands of Israelites are supposed to have crossed.

There is nothing there.

When you understand the psychology of the time, it makes sense that they would create this myth. In those times, it meant nothing to be a native, but everything if you conquered that land by force, which the Israelites did not actually do, being natives of the area.

What you are saying is you don't care about alternative points of view, it doesn't matter how irrational your own views are, they are imbedded in your psyche. That's fine, but it makes me wonder what are you getting out of this conversation?

Beyond that, I wasn't even talking about my own beliefs per se, but the response of scientists and atheists to your propositions. How do you determine that what a priest says matters, and what a scientist says does not?
 
The History Channel is not a very good source for facts. I have watcthed several of their documentaries on the American Revolution and the personalities therein and am surprised to see how many documentarians will perpetuate myth as fact. For example, any segment dealing with the southern campaigns will happily paint Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton as a British Bogey-Man raping and plundering his way across the south with his vicious career culminating in the slaughter of hundreds of surrendering rebels at the Waxhaws. The facts are so much less bloody and so far from this media archetype as to merit my historical group dubbing the History Channel "The Cartoon Network 2".

The documentaries found on The History Channel (THC???:m:) are little more than the opinions and interpretations of the person who made the documentary. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are not. They are as fallible as any source out there.
 
Oxygen said:
The History Channel is not a very good source for facts. I have watcthed several of their documentaries on the American Revolution and the personalities therein and am surprised to see how many documentarians will perpetuate myth as fact. For example, any segment dealing with the southern campaigns will happily paint Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton as a British Bogey-Man raping and plundering his way across the south with his vicious career culminating in the slaughter of hundreds of surrendering rebels at the Waxhaws. The facts are so much less bloody and so far from this media archetype as to merit my historical group dubbing the History Channel "The Cartoon Network 2".

The documentaries found on The History Channel (THC???:m:) are little more than the opinions and interpretations of the person who made the documentary. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are not. They are as fallible as any source out there.
Click to expand...
Of course. So are all of the books about history you could read that were written by Princeton or Oxford Phds. The point is, something like the History Channel, although greatly biased in one direction or another, is a lot better than getting your information from idle chit chat. Most historical studies are loading with all kinds of personal bias, and the real skill in a student of history comes in reading all of it, and then sifting out what sounds reasonable and what doesn't. Compar and contrast, etc...

All in all, though I second this motion. I used to watch the History Channel all the time, which got me interested in History. Now I substitute it with a large library. I don't really watch it all that much anymore.
 
Yeah... History Channel oversimplifies things...

But to answer the thread... I don't believe (or I don't want to anyway) because:
1.) Hell. If God so loved the world and its creation, why hell, why eternity? Surely the crime we commit in this finite life doesn't deserve an infinite punishment.
2.) Concept of prayers. So wait, God only answers when you ask for itin penitence and devotion? So he wants you to suffer for a long long while so you can get what you wish for? (ahem, before you go on trying to attack me on this, I've simplified my argument so think about it first then go for it).
3.) Premature deaths and infant mortalities. If life has a meaning according to religion, what was the meaning of their lives?
4.) Imperfectness of men. Bible says God is created in his image and that men is perfect. Okay. So why the genetic deformities, susceptibilities to chronic illnesses, allergies, vulnerability to epidemics, etc?
5.) History of religion justifying the cruelst practices of mankind i.e. slavery, genocide, wars, ignoring the homeless, discrimination against homosexuals and transgenders, etc.
6.) More than a hundred versions of so-called "God's word." If God really wanted to guide people through his words, why make it so confusing, why make it open so many interretations, and why make it so contradictory?
7.) Did I mention hell? Holy Shit! That means your friends, your brother, your parents, any of them will go to hell for eternity? For what? NOt believing in Jesus? Not believing in Allah? Not being chosen as a Jew by God? That's soooo many people going to hell! And it also means evil people who believe in Jesus can go to heaven while the good deserving like Ghandi doesn't!!!! What the fuck?!

I can't think of any more at this moment but oh, there're so much more. Believing in God just isn't worth it.
 
I refuse to believe in the gods of man because there simply is no evidence to suggest such beliefs are warranted and much to suggest they are misguided, including the fact that the vast majority of the world's population gets their religious doctrine from the societies they are raised in.

If there were, indeed, a universal truth, it would be universal and exist in spite of the cult indoctrinations of family and community.

There's also no reason to suggest that a god is necessary or needed. Many of the misguided and poorly educated go on and on about how evolution is "just a theory," but they fail to recognize that they are, in fact, arguing against the god hypothesis to some extent. If there were, indeed, a god there is no reason to suggest such a being wouldn't invent the process of evolution to get the universe going.

There just is no good reason to believe in the various extant and extinct religious cults of humanity.
 
Blindstein said:
I want to give this truth to everyone.
God is a creator who can draw upon infinite knowledge.
God is the creator of everyone, but also a father to everyone.
Click to expand...
ok.. so WHO created God?
God created us in his image; our bodies on earth are just like God's body on earth.
Click to expand...
right,so god is a MAN?
and youve seen this him where?
God can judge every soul he breathed into earth accuratly.
Click to expand...
cool,..what is this soul made of ?:rolleyes:
 
I don't believe in God as portrayed as man in the sky and blah blah blah

But I believe in the God as described by the Vedanta, the supreme witness or observer beyond our senses, the origin of reality itself, unchanging, eternal, beyond cause and effect, the absolute truth, the only true reality, personal yet impersonal, inner and outer, one without a second

I also believe in what Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and others say because I see the same truths revealed in them
 
VitalOne said:
I don't believe in God as portrayed as man in the sky and blah blah blah

But I believe in the God as described by the Vedanta, the supreme witness or observer beyond our senses, the origin of reality itself, unchanging, eternal, beyond cause and effect, the absolute truth, the only true reality, personal yet impersonal, inner and outer, one without a second

I also believe in what Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and others say because I see the same truths revealed in them
Click to expand...

yeah...nicely said...I believe that 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top