Why do you believe/disbelieve in God?

[iagainsti]

It's not always about convincing people you're right and they're wrong. Sometimes it's just about the exchange of ideas with others who share an interest in the topic.

While I can understand an exchange of ideas or interest in the topic but when some of the questioners use terms like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Thumper", they are not interested in a debate.

If you had a clue as to why the FSM was created, you'd realize how foolish your statement sounds.

Yep..."Flying Spaghetti Monster" isn't something we dirty rotten atheists say to try to make the idea of there being a god sound silly. The whole thing was created by a college student who didn't want intelligent design taught in his science classes.

Check it out: Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[Avatar4321]

Yep..."Flying Spaghetti Monster" isn't something we dirty rotten atheists say to try to make the idea of there being a god sound silly. The whole thing was created by a college student who didn't want intelligent design taught in his science classes.

Check it out: Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

And yet you guys keep quoting that as if its the best idea out there...

 

[JBeukema]

Earlier, I demonstrated that FSM is real and is the ultimate god of all gods. I demand this be taught in all schools.

 

[iagainsti]

Yep..."Flying Spaghetti Monster" isn't something we dirty rotten atheists say to try to make the idea of there being a god sound silly. The whole thing was created by a college student who didn't want intelligent design taught in his science classes.

Check it out: Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

And yet you guys keep quoting that as if its the best idea out there...

I believe this is what was actually said to start the whole thing off:

Just because we don't know how something happens doesn't automatically mean that god did it. You have to demonstrate how it was done (and not just saying god waved his magic wand and did it) and present proof. Without proof, your argument is on equal ground with the idea that the Flying Spagheti Monster created the universe and controls your every move.

Doesn't sound like it was presented as the best idea anyone's ever come up with EVER, just as an analogy.

And did you even go to the site, by any chance?

 

[JBeukema]

Yep..."Flying Spaghetti Monster" isn't something we dirty rotten atheists say to try to make the idea of there being a god sound silly. The whole thing was created by a college student who didn't want intelligent design taught in his science classes.

Check it out: Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

And yet you guys keep quoting that as if its the best idea out there...

I believe this is what was actually said to start the whole thing off:

Just because we don't know how something happens doesn't automatically mean that god did it. You have to demonstrate how it was done (and not just saying god waved his magic wand and did it) and present proof. Without proof, your argument is on equal ground with the idea that the Flying Spagheti Monster created the universe and controls your every move.

?

Whichi showed to be wrong, as FSM has more supporting evidence and better fits our recent scientific discoveries

 

[iagainsti]

And yet you guys keep quoting that as if its the best idea out there...

I believe this is what was actually said to start the whole thing off:

Just because we don't know how something happens doesn't automatically mean that god did it. You have to demonstrate how it was done (and not just saying god waved his magic wand and did it) and present proof. Without proof, your argument is on equal ground with the idea that the Flying Spagheti Monster created the universe and controls your every move.

?

Whichi showed to be wrong, as FSM has more supporting evidence and better fits our recent scientific discoveries

It does, I'll give you that.

 

[iagainsti]

Dude, you miss the point of my thesis... Everybody has a belief set of some sort. The sooner that we recognize everyones right to think wrong, providing they don't act in a way which violates the covenant agreement we have with each other called 'The Law', the sooner we will be on the road to establishing fair laws.

Imagine if every person over the age of consent with beliefs that differed from the powers that be had to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...

Wouldn't it be easier to make rules for our little community based on behavior?

-Joe

I agree with you up to a point, that point being that people often want to base 'The Law' on their beliefs. For example, the debate on gay marriage...those who oppose it do so on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral according to their religion. So if the law were based on that religion, then gay marriage should be illegal...but now we've mixed the two. What is immoral about homosexuality outside of religion? Where is the line drawn between beliefs and "the covenant agreement we have on each other"? So many people have different sets of beliefs, which include moral codes, that it makes it difficult to come up with such an agreement outside of religion.

I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm suggesting that beliefs should have to be defended is that all too often they do cause people to behave in ways that violate 'The Law'. Throughout history, people have committed hideous crimes in the name of one god or another. True, in many societies today those who commit crimes are often punished regardless of whether the motive behind them was religion; but the point is that people still commit acts which violate 'The Law' because of their religious beliefs, and yet those beliefs remain elevated above criticism or questioning.

And I'm not sure why you say people would have to defend their beliefs to the powers that be...why wouldn't the powers that be have to defend their beliefs in the first place? In a dictatorship, maybe, but that's a whole other situation. I'm suggesting that the starting point for all this is that the origin, purpose, and eventual fate of our existence is a great mystery, so anyone who thinks they know the answers to those questions should have to defend those answers, including the powers that be.

The starting point should be what the various groups can agree on. After that it is the moral obligation of the government to protect the reasonable rights of the minorities.

Slippery slope, eh?

That is why preventing the state from adopting an official religion was the first step in creating a truly free community.

Nobody said it would be easy, especially with other groups, like the economically advantaged using the fears of the majority in letting the minorities have their freedoms to wield undue political power.

Sorry I'm just now answering this, it sort of got swallowed up with the other replies and I didn't see it!

You're right, it is a slippery slope. And I understand what you're saying...we can all agree on the basics - like that murder shouldn't be allowed, for example - so from there belief shouldn't have to be defended as long as its exercise doesn't violate that agreement. I think that's reasonable.

Would the majority of Christians really give a shit if gays got married or not were it not for the fear used by the political right to generate a political football out of the issue by convincing some that "Church Marriage" would never be the same in YOUR church should the law be changed?

That's a good question. There are always the Fred Phelps of the world who would...but I think you're right that most of it is based on that fear that's been generated that homosexual marriage will somehow undermine and corrupt "traditional" straight marriage, and will somehow corrupt society as a whole.

 

[trueblue]

I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.

Are you offended by this question?

Why do you believe/disbelieve in God?


I take nothing on faith. As popular it is to millions of people in my view the bible and every other so called support for the existance of a supeme being is purely and simply bad evidence.

I don't care how many people believe or want to believe..if they are in error..they are in error.

Offended by the question? No... I'm offended at the weakness that some conclude and conceed on this question.

Intellectual laziness by giving up and inserting a supreme being in the space reserved for imperical evidense is offensive.

So, purely of curiosity, what would be good evidence? How do you know they are in error and you're not? How is believing in something unseen intellectual laziness? I'm not trying to set you up for an argument or anything, your responses just seemed sincere so I wondered how you reached those conclusions.

 

[jeffrockit]

It's not always about convincing people you're right and they're wrong. Sometimes it's just about the exchange of ideas with others who share an interest in the topic.

While I can understand an exchange of ideas or interest in the topic but when some of the questioners use terms like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Thumper", they are not interested in a debate.

If you had a clue as to why the FSM was created, you'd realize how foolish your statement sounds.

If you had a clue how little I care about "why" it was created....

 

[iagainsti]

While I can understand an exchange of ideas or interest in the topic but when some of the questioners use terms like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Thumper", they are not interested in a debate.

If you had a clue as to why the FSM was created, you'd realize how foolish your statement sounds.

If you had a clue how little I care about "why" it was created....

So you're not looking to gain any new insight, or to learn anything all about the position you're arguing against, or even about the topic in general? Sweet...so whatcha doin' here, anyway?

 

[editec]

Mankind was endowed with the ability to think?

That's true enough.

Mankind was also endowned with the ability to imagine, though, wasn't he?

In fact, if you look at the real advances in society what you discover is that imagination is actually the breakthrough tool that we most often use to really advance our society.

Reality-based thinking is a very useful approach to problem solving about knowns and well understoods, but it is not the only tool we're endowed with, and that reality based thinking often gets in the way of real advances in understanding

Imaginative-based thinking also serves us rather well.

Animals can think realistically the day long, but man's real strength comes from his ability to see past reality into that which is not yet really understood intellectually.

Fire was just a threat until somebody imagined that they might be able to harness it.

Mathamatics, for example is a tool of the imagination, as much as one of the intellect.

If you doubt that, somebody please send me a five or a pi, or (and I love this) an infinite number PLUS one.

 

[jeffrockit]

If you had a clue as to why the FSM was created, you'd realize how foolish your statement sounds.

If you had a clue how little I care about "why" it was created....

So you're not looking to gain any new insight, or to learn anything all about the position you're arguing against, or even about the topic in general? Sweet...so whatcha doin' here, anyway?

Not belittling Christians...and you?

 

[sealybobo]

I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.

Are you by this question?

Because after they tried to brainwash me as a child and I didn't fully buy the story, I later started to learn the history of religion and it didn't sound like anything a god would go along with. I didn't like that christians and muslims both say everyone is is going to hell.

Then it dawned on me recently that if the adam and eve, mosus & noah stories are all lies, so is the Jesus story. Before that dawned on me, I always assumed the jesus story was true. Maybe I didn't fully think it through. I always wondered about the virgin birth and miracles. That probably bothered me but I still believed in god. Then one day I ran into an atheist who showed me a bunch of great atheists on the net. I always agreed with George Carlin so I'm not actually sure when I became a full blown agnostic atheist but it was this year when I took the leap.

Here was my journey.

a. Swallowed the Jesus story but maybe had some doubts about parts of the story

b. Rejected all organized religions but had a personal relationship with god

c. Agnostic

d. Atheist for only a minute

e. Agnostic Atheist. Nothing tells us a god exists but we remain open to what's on the other side of black holes. We don't know. This is the best position to have.

If you believe in god it is only because it makes you feel good. You want there to be. Nothing more than wishful thinking. No argument for god is definitive proof. Every argument for god has a fatal flaw that makes it not proof. At least not to a scientist.

Notice the first leap towards atheism is to abandon organized religions and just be "spiritual" for awhile. You know what? Go ahead. Seems harmless. It's the organized religions that are bullshit and need to be exposed so they no longer control the masses.

 

[sealybobo]

Mankind was endowed with the ability to think?

That's true enough.

Mankind was also endowned with the ability to imagine, though, wasn't he?

In fact, if you look at the real advances in society what you discover is that imagination is actually the breakthrough tool that we most often use to really advance our society.

Reality-based thinking is a very useful approach to problem solving about knowns and well understoods, but it is not the only tool we're endowed with, and that reality based thinking often gets in the way of real advances in understanding

Imaginative-based thinking also serves us rather well.

Animals can think realistically the day long, but man's real strength comes from his ability to see past reality into that which is not yet really understood intellectually.

Fire was just a threat until somebody imagined that they might be able to harness it.

Mathamatics, for example is a tool of the imagination, as much as one of the intellect.

If you doubt that, somebody please send me a five or a pi, or (and I love this) an infinite number PLUS one.

I like your spin on this. I say the scientists who are smart enough to not accept "god did it" and to keep looking for the truth to be our saviors but you are right. In the beginning, it was an imaginative and creative man who imagined building homes, making tools, etc.

I heard on tv that an animal can think of a man whenever you ring a bell if you train it. A man can think of an animal every time you ring a bell if you train him. But only a man can imagine a half man half human. At least we think. Maybe dolphins dream of walking on land and maybe dolphins believe in god(s) too. We don't know yet.

My grand parents said "if you can imagine it then it can be done or invented". I want to see us go warp speed one day or be able to beam each other from America to Europe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.

Are you offended by this question?

One doesn't "disbelief" in "god," as it never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the title pretty much sums up the question. One more though.

Are you offended by this question?

One doesn't "disbelief" in "god," as it never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts

So true. Do Catholics believe a word of what the Mormons or Muslims say? Hell no. Jews and Muslims say Jesus was just a nice guy. I agree. How come I'm an evil atheist and they are not? All theists care about is that you go along with the main premise. That being GOD. As long as you believe in ANY god then that's not dangerous to them. They only fear people who deny that god even exists because that's the real truth.

I have to end everything with "most likely" because of course I don't know everything. Who knows if a god is hiding on the other side of the moon.

 

[BillyP]

No proof either way for a god or for a god to not be possible. But upon proper proof, I'd be open to changing my mind.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I do not believe. I am open to the possibility of such a being existing but I shun the notion of adhering to the tenets of Western Abrahamic religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)

I however, think that some of the values found in certain Eastern religions (Jainism, Buddhism, Zen) have merit and I personally practice meditation and recommend that everyone meditate for at least 10 minutes a day or so. Taking time each day to still your mind and take reflection on yourself and your life, or just to have a minute to be "unplugged" from modern life and be in the now is very healthy.

Lastly, I'm not offended by this question. We are all entitled to our beliefs but we should also be able to give reasons for them.