Of course, why didn't I figure that out before, if it's on TV, it must be true!
Why do you believe (or not believe)
- Thread starter The Evelyonian
- Start date
Of course, why didn't I figure that out before, if it's on TV, it must be true!
I was raised a pagan fire-goddess worshipper.
You're from Hawaii?
No, but I've visited before. Awesome place, your home state. And the pagan goddess thing was a joke. I was actually raised in the Viking tradition to worship SURT THE DESTROYER.
Ah.
I'm from Alaska. I'd worship Raven the Trickster if I didn't hate Jesus Christ, Lamb of God.
Wait, was that a non sequitor?
Why yes, yes it was.
Ggazoo,
As it stands there is no reason to believe that the universe has not always existed.
And there are a further infinite numbers of things that we can imagine that have no proof that they don’t exist, so why should the god fantasy be singled out as special?
Absolutely, which is what atheists keep saying. But theists have yet to provide such proof so their claims remain illogical.
You’ve missed the most likely third alternative; is has always existed.
What does self-existing mean?
Your fundamental problem here is to show that anything had a beginning and isn’t just a transformation of energy/matter from something else which is exactly what we observe through physics.
As it stands there is no reason to believe that the universe has not always existed.
That’s why no one is saying that, well except theists. This is a strawman argument that theists create that they can easily knock down and claim it is an atheist argument. But has already been pointed out, if the universe was created, who created the creator, or did that simply appear from nothing? If your claim for a creator is that it has always existed then on an equal basis we can also propose the universe has always existed with a great deal more believable credibility.
Nope, just naïve and misinformed.
so in other words you have a reason to believe that god, godess or gods are manifestations of nature and the human psyche .... what are those reasons?
Then what of those who have conclude that there is a god by dint of research and logical thinking? (in other words does research and logic lead to the same conclusion regarding god?)
As an atheist I have no belief in God - but neither do I have a belief in there not being a God.
I think a theistic God is unlikely - the same way that an invisible pink univorn sitting on my desk at the moment is unlikely - or that there is a planet where all the inhabitants look exactly like me is unlikely.
It's not impossible - but there's certainly no evidence to support it.
Hence I do not believe.
I've been that way ever since I learned how to think properly.
Back to the orginal question: "Why do you believe (or not believe)".
Because I believe it in my heart to be true.
Simple as that. I understand the need for hard evidence, and that's totally understandable. But believing in God is a spiritual connection. That's why there's a big misunderstanding about it being God vs Science. The two can co-exist, and they do. It's the spiritual aspect of God that science has a hard time with, even if God is all around them. Christians and atheists have different versions of "proof", because eveyone looks at things differently, and from their own point of view. That's never going to change.
Because I believe it in my heart to be true.
Simple as that. I understand the need for hard evidence, and that's totally understandable. But believing in God is a spiritual connection. That's why there's a big misunderstanding about it being God vs Science. The two can co-exist, and they do. It's the spiritual aspect of God that science has a hard time with, even if God is all around them. Christians and atheists have different versions of "proof", because eveyone looks at things differently, and from their own point of view. That's never going to change.
What if a person who said god existed (by dint of logic and research) responded to the said question (does research and logic lead to the same conclusion regarding god?) - in other words what constitutes actual research and the actual platform of knowledge regarding the fomulation of conclusions regarding the existence/non - existence of god?
(you mentioned quality - what is good quality and what is unsatisfactory quality?)
Too many "what if's", lightgigantic. Such modulated situations are not fruitful. What if Cthulhu rose from the ocean depths? I don't know.
I research world mythologies in relation to anthropology and human (animal) psyche. Read and compare works by scientists, read folk tales, myths, old songs, accounts of different societies, talk with people, record and analyse dreams, human behaviour.
If I really wanted, I could write many pages in reply and explanation of my theory, alas I don't need you to agree with me, indeed I don't even care, so believe what you want really.
I research world mythologies in relation to anthropology and human (animal) psyche. Read and compare works by scientists, read folk tales, myths, old songs, accounts of different societies, talk with people, record and analyse dreams, human behaviour.
If I really wanted, I could write many pages in reply and explanation of my theory, alas I don't need you to agree with me, indeed I don't even care, so believe what you want really.
So it seems your attitude to religion is shaped from accepting the platform of athropology as absolute