Why don't you believe in God?

[Isabelle07]

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

[Nabz]

I'm not saying that religion is the root cause of every war that's ever been, and I recognise that the human nature is to gear for conflict. However, what's the point in giving people the option to justify their warmongering by citing some book that nobody has any factual evidence to support? Would you accept the USA nuking your home country tomorrow, because in Lord of the Rings they blow up a volcano which is a metaphor for American nuclear superiority, and allow them to do it because you freaking love JRR Tolkien? Of course you wouldn't, can't you see how silly that seems?

I couldn't understand exactly what you meant in your first comment with all the " " being thrown around, sorry. Nonetheless, you gave the impression you believe war and murder will happen anyway, so why not allow them to justify these deaths by saying they were done by God's hand. Like I said, that's nonsensical - borderline perversion of justice.

@Luka; yeah, the pursuit of wealth is what drives basically every war. My point was that this pursuit of money has often, in history and modern times, been masked by excuses of "oh, we're doing it for God, man, trust us", deceiving the laymen of the country who don't think to look into it any further. Why continue supporting this system? I see religion as a derelict structure that we as a modern society no longer really need.

What makes us any more advanced than societies before? Yeah we made some progressions but we made some regressions as well. Things don't change haha.

I mean there is no longer any need to pray to a God to cure a common cold (exaggeration) - science has progressed, our morals have progressed, a lot of things have progressed. The only possible regression I see is international relations, the massive rifts of wealth between developed and developing countries, pollution and overpopulation, etcetera.. everything else has gone forwards, right?

Well, I guess artists like Lil Wayne and 2-Chainz are regressions in culture, but you know what I'm saying.

People arguing that God is "useless" should bare in mind that if God does not intervene directly supposedly, then it provides benefits indirectly, socially or maybe politically etc...People with same religion, interact with each other more. They build a special place for these people in their heart as they worship the same entity/entities. I have never seen a single religion which encourages lie, hatred, jealousy etc, so why do you keep saying that God doesn't exist, when it exists in peoples' hearts

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

That's called laziness informally lol

[braindead]

I'm not saying that religion is the root cause of every war that's ever been, and I recognise that the human nature is to gear for conflict. However, what's the point in giving people the option to justify their warmongering by citing some book that nobody has any factual evidence to support? Would you accept the USA nuking your home country tomorrow, because in Lord of the Rings they blow up a volcano which is a metaphor for American nuclear superiority, and allow them to do it because you freaking love JRR Tolkien? Of course you wouldn't, can't you see how silly that seems?

I couldn't understand exactly what you meant in your first comment with all the " " being thrown around, sorry. Nonetheless, you gave the impression you believe war and murder will happen anyway, so why not allow them to justify these deaths by saying they were done by God's hand. Like I said, that's nonsensical - borderline perversion of justice.

@Luka; yeah, the pursuit of wealth is what drives basically every war. My point was that this pursuit of money has often, in history and modern times, been masked by excuses of "oh, we're doing it for God, man, trust us", deceiving the laymen of the country who don't think to look into it any further. Why continue supporting this system? I see religion as a derelict structure that we as a modern society no longer really need.

What makes us any more advanced than societies before? Yeah we made some progressions but we made some regressions as well. Things don't change haha.

I mean there is no longer any need to pray to a God to cure a common cold (exaggeration) - science has progressed, our morals have progressed, a lot of things have progressed. The only possible regression I see is international relations, the massive rifts of wealth between developed and developing countries, pollution and overpopulation, etcetera.. everything else has gone forwards, right?

Well, I guess artists like Lil Wayne and 2-Chainz are regressions in culture, but you know what I'm saying.

People arguing that God is "useless" should bare in mind that if God does not intervene directly supposedly, then it provides benefits indirectly, socially or maybe politically etc...People with same religion, interact with each other more. They build a special place for these people in their heart as they worship the same entity/entities. I have never seen a single religion which encourages lie, hatred, jealousy etc, so why do you keep saying that God doesn't exist, when it exists in peoples' hearts

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

That's called laziness informally lol

Yes, people interact more within the same religion. But the amount of conflict that arises is greater, and more important - what's the point in religion, or God, if its existence divides people even further than they already are? It's becoming a tired example but for some reason it keeps being ignored - the Middle East is precisely the result of the exploitation of peoples' conflicting faiths to provoke conflict. So what if people can get together and sing in Church for a few hours, that justifies the deaths of hundreds elsewhere in the world? If that's the kind of logic God possesses, maybe I'm just too simple to understand, but to the general human consensus I'm pretty damned sure that that cost is definitely too high for "interacting with each other more"...

And did you really just pull out a "God exists in people's hearts" in a debate about whether God exists at all? How can I debate against that, can you back that up with reason? God, if he/she/it exists, is useless, at least to us humans and the earth. Look at what we've done to the world - politics has been screwed since the Romans, war, conflict, death, famine, disease everywhere, racial hatred and violence, drugs, pedophilia, suicide, bullying, pollution, deforestation, deterioration of the ozone layer, and you're trying to argue that God is in some way benevolent? I am not seeing much benefit there really, sorry. Humans did all of that, we as a race, and God didn't even try to stop it. How is he not useless?

[wjw]

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

I can't prove He does or doesn't exist either. That's why I believe He exists. You don't really believe in something that is proven. That is why the term 'believing' is used. I don't believe in evolution; I accept it as a fact.

I just feel like many atheists or non-believers are confused about reasons for belief, or what belief even is.

Yes, people interact more within the same religion. But the amount of conflict that arises is greater, and more important - what's the point in religion, or God, if its existence divides people even further than they already are? It's becoming a tired example but for some reason it keeps being ignored - the Middle East is precisely the result of the exploitation of peoples' conflicting faiths to provoke conflict. So what if people can get together and sing in Church for a few hours, that justifies the deaths of hundreds elsewhere in the world? If that's the kind of logic God possesses, maybe I'm just too simple to understand, but to the general human consensus I'm pretty damned sure that that cost is definitely too high for "interacting with each other more"...

And did you really just pull out a "God exists in people's hearts" in a debate about whether God exists at all? How can I debate against that, can you back that up with reason? God, if he/she/it exists, is useless, at least to us humans and the earth. Look at what we've done to the world - politics has been screwed since the Romans, war, conflict, death, famine, disease everywhere, racial hatred and violence, drugs, pedophilia, suicide, bullying, pollution, deforestation, deterioration of the ozone layer, and you're trying to argue that God is in some way benevolent? I am not seeing much benefit there really, sorry. Humans did all of that, we as a race, and God didn't even try to stop it. How is he not useless?

I don't see why God needs a purpose, or why he has to be needed to exist... I don't believe in Him just because I need to.

I don't think He's useless, but if He were, how could that prove He doesn't exist?? Maybe the deists are right: He does exist, but has no further role in our existence after initially creating us. And I also don't see the role God's own logic has in us destroying ourselves. Are you suggesting He promotes it, or causes it? It is us who make the decisions of what we do. He doesn't write our culture or political laws for us. It seems to me you are a bit confused yourself about what you think about God's role in everything.

[Sandwich]

Thats if you believe nothing happens after you die (I'm assuming that is your belief) But people who do believe that their earthly actions will affect the status of their existence in the afterlife do have a concern and a use for god. Its just the choice they make in their free will in this life that affects what happens after. So the usefulness of a god who does not intervene in this reality depends on your beliefs.

O'kay. So let's assume that an afterlife with heaven and hell exists.

If I'm christian and I don't believe in God - and God only, then technically I would end up in hell, right? Person X who has a different religion believes in 'their God' and therefore also doesn't believe in the 'christian God' and therefore would end up in hell as well. Person Y, who believes in a third religion and a third God wouldn't believe in neither the 'christian God' nor the God of person X and therefore end up in both hells.

Theoretically... Everyone would end up in everyone else's religions hell. - So yeah, I don't think it's really useful.

Perhaps more concerning is that there are millions of people who lived, ate and breathed prior to 30AD (or however old Jesus was when he popped his clogs and inadvertently founded a religion) who are doomed to go to hell through basic timing and having been born too soon. Unless you think it's cool that prior to that everybody was basically Jewish, in which case all Jewish and Christian people are presumably still in the same heavenly boat and (at least in terms of the afterlife) on a par.

Also the millions of people who lived in an era where they were never exposed to Christianity, and who never had the opportunity to save their everlasting souls are presumably now sitting in the firey pit of eternal hell and damnation feeling pretty pissed off.

Or the fact that somebody who does not believe in god may live a blameless life that essentially follows the 10 commandments but go to hell, whereas a Christian person who's stolen from other people but yet believes in god is (presuming he atones in some way and feels bad about what he did) going to heaven.

If your acts in this life are done purely to determine how you get on in a future life, of which there is no evidence, does that also not entirely devalue the acts of your current life? If you're only doing something in order to gain favour in a hypothetical future existence, are you really performing acts of goodness or acts of selfishness? It's pretty much the Euthyphro question.

I don't see why God needs a purpose, or why he has to be needed to exist... I don't believe in Him just because I need to.

I don't think He's useless, but if He were, how could that prove He doesn't exist?? Maybe the deists are right: He does exist, but has no further role in our existence after initially creating us. And I also don't see the role God's own logic has in us destroying ourselves. Are you suggesting He promotes it, or causes it? It is us who make the decisions of what we do. He doesn't write our culture or political laws for us. It seems to me you are a bit confused yourself about what you think about God's role in everything.

I think the point is not that a god wants us to destroy each other, it's the fact that we ARE destroying each other, for gods of various varieties. Remove god and you remove all of the religiously motivated wars, crimes and discrimination which have damaged society. It is immaterial what god's role is, the only real thing that plays a role is people's belief in god. Whether there is a god or not makes no difference to the fact that people believe it and use it as a reason to harm each other. Something doesn't have to be true in order to have effects, people only need to believe that it is true and it turns into its own reality. Really I think this point referred back to the previous argument on this thread that belief in god is a force for unity and community happiness: braindead's point was more or less that you can't possibly make it a significantly useful thing on those grounds simply because you'd also have to acknowledge that it's been and still is a force for a whole multitude of evils. The fact that people can go to church and have a happy clappy singsong or feel like their relatives have moved on to a better place when they're dead and all that is a nice outcome but you've got to look at the whole of it and say that other people have relatives who wouldn't be dead if it weren't for people who believe in god.

[wjw]

Perhaps more concerning is that there are millions of people who lived, ate and breathed prior to 30AD (or however old Jesus was when he popped his clogs and inadvertently founded a religion) who are doomed to go to hell through basic timing and having been born too soon. Unless you think it's cool that prior to that everybody was basically Jewish, in which case all Jewish and Christian people are presumably still in the same heavenly boat and (at least in terms of the afterlife) on a par.

Also the millions of people who lived in an era where they were never exposed to Christianity, and who never had the opportunity to save their everlasting souls are presumably now sitting in the firey pit of eternal hell and damnation feeling pretty pissed off.

Or the fact that somebody who does not believe in god may live a blameless life that essentially follows the 10 commandments but go to hell, whereas a Christian person who's stolen from other people but yet believes in god is (presuming he atones in some way and feels bad about what he did) going to heaven.

If your acts in this life are done purely to determine how you get on in a future life, of which there is no evidence, does that also not entirely devalue the acts of your current life? If you're only doing something in order to gain favour in a hypothetical future existence, are you really performing acts of goodness or acts of selfishness? It's pretty much the Euthyphro question.

Some people believe that you can end up in eternal punishment by committing any venial sin, others believe by sinning often and leading a bad life, and even more think it is by simply not believing in God. Personally, I believe that anyone who believes in God, from any Abrahamic faith, can go to Heaven. However, the Bible doesn't entirely address this, and the stances of different Churches aren't clear either, so it is a confusing topic. And yes, assuming all religions are correct at the same time, nobody would make it to Heaven. But only one is truly correct, so "everyone would end up in everyone else's religions' hell" wouldn't apply. Christians who believe in God, but steal from others would go to Purgatory, then proceed to Heaven. The only Christians that are not saved, according to some interpretations and beliefs, are those who commit the unforgivable sin (ie. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

And our actions in this life are not done only to predict our afterlife. The Bible even states that those who do good things from fear of eternal punishment will not go to Heaven. Good deeds due to selfish outcomes will ensure no entrance to Heaven. We don't do good things because we want to get to Heaven. We do them because they are good, and that is what we should be doing. (But some people ignore the actual teachings of Jesus, and do violent things and make ridiculous claims. But "the dram of evil doth all the noble substance of a doubt to his own scandal," so these 'Christians' are the only ones who are thought of, and people end up believing that God actually supports these things. To accord with braindead's earlier posts: yes, religion has many people do dumb things, but just because the people who are doing them are in support of them does not mean the Church or religion or God are).

Taking the Bible literally, our lives are not eternal due to the fall of man and original sin. Before that, if I remember correctly, humans and other life were supposed to live on Earth, unharmed and immortal. Heaven, then, became a reward after death for those who accept God and do good things, and a place where we can be with God, as we lost direct communication with Him after sinning. And either way, fundamentally, religion supports good actions and morals, and has people leading better, happier lives. Religion as a whole, I think, is good, but it is when people twist it into something political, or manipulate it into giving them personal benefits, that is the real evil. It is the people and their faulty interpretations that are useless and destructive.

I just wanted to give more of a Christian's point of view. I'm sorry for the long posts, again.

I think the point is not that a god wants us to destroy each other, it's the fact that we ARE destroying each other, for gods of various varieties. Remove god and you remove all of the religiously motivated wars, crimes and discrimination which have damaged society. It is immaterial what god's role is, the only real thing that plays a role is people's belief in god. Whether there is a god or not makes no difference to the fact that people believe it and use it as a reason to harm each other. Something doesn't have to be true in order to have effects, people only need to believe that it is true and it turns into its own reality. Really I think this point referred back to the previous argument on this thread that belief in god is a force for unity and community happiness: braindead's point was more or less that you can't possibly make it a significantly useful thing on those grounds simply because you'd also have to acknowledge that it's been and still is a force for a whole multitude of evils. The fact that people can go to church and have a happy clappy singsong or feel like their relatives have moved on to a better place when they're dead and all that is a nice outcome but you've got to look at the whole of it and say that other people have relatives who wouldn't be dead if it weren't for people who believe in god.

Ok, I see. I was reading the posts from a few pages back, and probably clumped all my different thoughts into one response. I was under the impression it was an argument about the existence of God, not the way people misuse their belief of His existence.

Edited May 18, 2013 by wjw

[Ezak]

Well, an often cited passage when it comes to this is that Jesus said, and I quoute: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Thus the bible quite promptly say that for you to get into heaven you have to belive in Jesus, the father and the holy spirit, all else will be denied access.

And what about other christian denominations that condemn you to hell? I don't know wether you are protestant, catholic or whatever denomination you belong to, but ask many in these denominations and they will say that the others will not enter heaven basing their opinion on the bible.

Finally, that religious people are much kinder, happier and whatnot is just anecdotal evidence and it doesn't really correlate to reality: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201102/does-religion-make-people-happier

[braindead]

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

I can't prove He does or doesn't exist either. That's why I believe He exists. You don't really believe in something that is proven. That is why the term 'believing' is used. I don't believe in evolution; I accept it as a fact.

I just feel like many atheists or non-believers are confused about reasons for belief, or what belief even is.

Yes, people interact more within the same religion. But the amount of conflict that arises is greater, and more important - what's the point in religion, or God, if its existence divides people even further than they already are? It's becoming a tired example but for some reason it keeps being ignored - the Middle East is precisely the result of the exploitation of peoples' conflicting faiths to provoke conflict. So what if people can get together and sing in Church for a few hours, that justifies the deaths of hundreds elsewhere in the world? If that's the kind of logic God possesses, maybe I'm just too simple to understand, but to the general human consensus I'm pretty damned sure that that cost is definitely too high for "interacting with each other more"...

And did you really just pull out a "God exists in people's hearts" in a debate about whether God exists at all? How can I debate against that, can you back that up with reason? God, if he/she/it exists, is useless, at least to us humans and the earth. Look at what we've done to the world - politics has been screwed since the Romans, war, conflict, death, famine, disease everywhere, racial hatred and violence, drugs, pedophilia, suicide, bullying, pollution, deforestation, deterioration of the ozone layer, and you're trying to argue that God is in some way benevolent? I am not seeing much benefit there really, sorry. Humans did all of that, we as a race, and God didn't even try to stop it. How is he not useless?

I don't see why God needs a purpose, or why he has to be needed to exist... I don't believe in Him just because I need to.

I don't think He's useless, but if He were, how could that prove He doesn't exist?? Maybe the deists are right: He does exist, but has no further role in our existence after initially creating us. And I also don't see the role God's own logic has in us destroying ourselves. Are you suggesting He promotes it, or causes it? It is us who make the decisions of what we do. He doesn't write our culture or political laws for us. It seems to me you are a bit confused yourself about what you think about God's role in everything.

Don't most religions believe God made us the way we are, that he created the first humans? Us destroying ourselves, by religious logic, is the result of the way God wired us, quite simply. I'm not misunderstanding. I'm also definitely not suggesting he directly causes it - I stated multiple times that it is we, as humans, that do these things to our world, not some potentially existent deity - it seems to me you missed that bit. Since God created us this way (as religion would have us believe), then has no further influence on us, we are the direct causes for the world's wrongs, but he is the root cause of them, the fundamental reason we exist the way we exist, live the way we live, kill the way we kill. Perhaps it's a pessimistic view of things - I can see why people want to believe in God - but I just can't see any real reasoning behind it. The closest I've seen so far is "how else do you explain our existence and our reason for living", which in itself, is a bit flimsy as a logical argument. I think an argument with reason would be more conducive to this debate than simply picking apart my existing points without looking at how I've backed them up.

[meggan.turner]

I believe in some kind of greater power, but whether that's a man, woman, or spiritual being, I've no idea. I grew up in a loose Christian household, and I went to a Catholic Primary school. Since we were kids, my eldest brother has become an atheist, my younger brother an agnostic, and me unsure. I feel as if there is some greater power holding us together, but I'm not so sure I want to know what that power is. I'm perfectly happy not knowing. I feel like if there were a God/s that created us, surely he/she/it would not want us wasting our lives away bowing down to him/her/it and trying to find out exactly how to make him/her/it happy. If there is a God, then that God would have created us to live our own lives, and not merely live it for them.

[Nabz]

Thats if you believe nothing happens after you die (I'm assuming that is your belief) But people who do believe that their earthly actions will affect the status of their existence in the afterlife do have a concern and a use for god. Its just the choice they make in their free will in this life that affects what happens after. So the usefulness of a god who does not intervene in this reality depends on your beliefs.

O'kay. So let's assume that an afterlife with heaven and hell exists.

If I'm christian and I don't believe in God - and God only, then technically I would end up in hell, right? Person X who has a different religion believes in 'their God' and therefore also doesn't believe in the 'christian God' and therefore would end up in hell as well. Person Y, who believes in a third religion and a third God wouldn't believe in neither the 'christian God' nor the God of person X and therefore end up in both hells.

Theoretically... Everyone would end up in everyone else's religions hell. - So yeah, I don't think it's really useful.

Perhaps more concerning is that there are millions of people who lived, ate and breathed prior to 30AD (or however old Jesus was when he popped his clogs and inadvertently founded a religion) who are doomed to go to hell through basic timing and having been born too soon. Unless you think it's cool that prior to that everybody was basically Jewish, in which case all Jewish and Christian people are presumably still in the same heavenly boat and (at least in terms of the afterlife) on a par.

Also the millions of people who lived in an era where they were never exposed to Christianity, and who never had the opportunity to save their everlasting souls are presumably now sitting in the firey pit of eternal hell and damnation feeling pretty pissed off.

Or the fact that somebody who does not believe in god may live a blameless life that essentially follows the 10 commandments but go to hell, whereas a Christian person who's stolen from other people but yet believes in god is (presuming he atones in some way and feels bad about what he did) going to heaven.

If your acts in this life are done purely to determine how you get on in a future life, of which there is no evidence, does that also not entirely devalue the acts of your current life? If you're only doing something in order to gain favour in a hypothetical future existence, are you really performing acts of goodness or acts of selfishness? It's pretty much the Euthyphro question.

I don't see why God needs a purpose, or why he has to be needed to exist... I don't believe in Him just because I need to.

I don't think He's useless, but if He were, how could that prove He doesn't exist?? Maybe the deists are right: He does exist, but has no further role in our existence after initially creating us. And I also don't see the role God's own logic has in us destroying ourselves. Are you suggesting He promotes it, or causes it? It is us who make the decisions of what we do. He doesn't write our culture or political laws for us. It seems to me you are a bit confused yourself about what you think about God's role in everything.

I think the point is not that a god wants us to destroy each other, it's the fact that we ARE destroying each other, for gods of various varieties. Remove god and you remove all of the religiously motivated wars, crimes and discrimination which have damaged society. It is immaterial what god's role is, the only real thing that plays a role is people's belief in god. Whether there is a god or not makes no difference to the fact that people believe it and use it as a reason to harm each other. Something doesn't have to be true in order to have effects, people only need to believe that it is true and it turns into its own reality. Really I think this point referred back to the previous argument on this thread that belief in god is a force for unity and community happiness: braindead's point was more or less that you can't possibly make it a significantly useful thing on those grounds simply because you'd also have to acknowledge that it's been and still is a force for a whole multitude of evils. The fact that people can go to church and have a happy clappy singsong or feel like their relatives have moved on to a better place when they're dead and all that is a nice outcome but you've got to look at the whole of it and say that other people have relatives who wouldn't be dead if it weren't for people who believe in god.

1. How can you judge that there were people were never exposed to Christianity? Maybe they didn't accept it...

2. You're using your own assumption whether certain people shall go to heaven or hell.

3. Discrimination exists in many regions, where religion is only a part of it to blame. What causes racism? Religion? I think not. DIsparities in wealth, social status etc, aren't caused by religion but our system.

4. Again, just like any other, you're putting the blame of a few on everyone. There are people, were and will always be, who would cause pain, trouble, only because "they" misinterpreted their religion BUT you cannot use that example to base your facts against religion lol.

I can't prove that God exists and I can't disprove it. So I'm an agnostic.

On the other hand, my family is not religious, and I think that's why I'm not religious too.

I can't prove He does or doesn't exist either. That's why I believe He exists. You don't really believe in something that is proven. That is why the term 'believing' is used. I don't believe in evolution; I accept it as a fact.

I just feel like many atheists or non-believers are confused about reasons for belief, or what belief even is.

Yes, people interact more within the same religion. But the amount of conflict that arises is greater, and more important - what's the point in religion, or God, if its existence divides people even further than they already are? It's becoming a tired example but for some reason it keeps being ignored - the Middle East is precisely the result of the exploitation of peoples' conflicting faiths to provoke conflict. So what if people can get together and sing in Church for a few hours, that justifies the deaths of hundreds elsewhere in the world? If that's the kind of logic God possesses, maybe I'm just too simple to understand, but to the general human consensus I'm pretty damned sure that that cost is definitely too high for "interacting with each other more"...

And did you really just pull out a "God exists in people's hearts" in a debate about whether God exists at all? How can I debate against that, can you back that up with reason? God, if he/she/it exists, is useless, at least to us humans and the earth. Look at what we've done to the world - politics has been screwed since the Romans, war, conflict, death, famine, disease everywhere, racial hatred and violence, drugs, pedophilia, suicide, bullying, pollution, deforestation, deterioration of the ozone layer, and you're trying to argue that God is in some way benevolent? I am not seeing much benefit there really, sorry. Humans did all of that, we as a race, and God didn't even try to stop it. How is he not useless?

I don't see why God needs a purpose, or why he has to be needed to exist... I don't believe in Him just because I need to.

I don't think He's useless, but if He were, how could that prove He doesn't exist?? Maybe the deists are right: He does exist, but has no further role in our existence after initially creating us. And I also don't see the role God's own logic has in us destroying ourselves. Are you suggesting He promotes it, or causes it? It is us who make the decisions of what we do. He doesn't write our culture or political laws for us. It seems to me you are a bit confused yourself about what you think about God's role in everything.

Don't most religions believe God made us the way we are, that he created the first humans? Us destroying ourselves, by religious logic, is the result of the way God wired us, quite simply. I'm not misunderstanding. I'm also definitely not suggesting he directly causes it - I stated multiple times that it is we, as humans, that do these things to our world, not some potentially existent deity - it seems to me you missed that bit. Since God created us this way (as religion would have us believe), then has no further influence on us, we are the direct causes for the world's wrongs, but he is the root cause of them, the fundamental reason we exist the way we exist, live the way we live, kill the way we kill. Perhaps it's a pessimistic view of things - I can see why people want to believe in God - but I just can't see any real reasoning behind it. The closest I've seen so far is "how else do you explain our existence and our reason for living", which in itself, is a bit flimsy as a logical argument. I think an argument with reason would be more conducive to this debate than simply picking apart my existing points without looking at how I've backed them up.

Again, if everyone would have been same, with same emotions, same lifestyle, same practices then wouldn't the world become colorless. Don't you think that the variety of choices that we hold, is the actual evidence of the power than our creator holds, let it be a God or a jellyfish. You sound as if you have no control over yourself and that you're born to kill, spread hatred etc. I mean, my landlord is an old man and his wife. They're the kindest people i've met in my life. Have you ever seen a landlord, arranging bouquet for their new tenant? They literary ironed every single piece of cloth for us. Also the fact that they're very practicing Christians, gives me the strongest evidence that "goodness" and religion are correlated with each other.

During your earlier years of schooling (primary school, middle school, high school), you're bond to study a variety of topics. Why is that? Why, in your final exams, are you examined on a range of subjects when in university you're only going to be choosing one or the other. You're given these varieties, to judge yourself, whether you are more inclined towards science or religion, or you decide to spend your life doing useless activities. Sure, no one is born with their favorites but you have to go through a process to judge yourself. I think that explains why we're given an element of evil.

Edited May 19, 2013 by shad0wboss

[braindead]

Pretty amusing you should use your landlords as an example like that, since I know of a Christian who broke the window of their neighbour's house and lied to the police about it. Does that mean there's a correlation between then? All Christians are vandalising scumbags? No, you can't just give an example and apply it universally.

Also, you've twisted what I've said massively - yes, I think the nature of some people is to kill and be evil innately. However, not all of us are like that - I've never had any murderous thoughts (seriously), and I doubt many of us have to be honest. The fact, however, is that anybody - anybody - can be twisted, made into something evil. I bet if Adolf Hitler had been exposed to a different set of circumstances in early life, he could've easily turned out to be someone just like your landlord, but he just wasn't. But not once did I say that we are all born to spread hatred and kill. I am fully aware that good people exist in this world, but whether they are good or not has nothing at all to do with whether they believe in God. Bill Gates is a freaking atheist, for crying out loud, and he's contributed vastly to the development of technology in the 20th century.

I'm also inclined to say that the variety of choice we have has developed from human progression. Do you think schoolchildren in the Dark Ages had anywhere near as much diversity in education as we do today? Yet religion was still around back then, in much greater strength, with the Church dominating all aspects of life. Only when advances in culture (art, architecture), science and politics (feudalism) were introduced to late-medieval Europe did things improve - and everyone knows science is the antithesis of religion. Thanks to the way humanity has evolved (through human intuition, which I cannot stress enough), we have such great 'choice' that you refer to now. I don't think it's down to any divine intervention at all. I doubt it was God who taught Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein everything they know while they were still in the womb, was it?

[Nabz]

Pretty amusing you should use your landlords as an example like that, since I know of a Christian who broke the window of their neighbour's house and lied to the police about it. Does that mean there's a correlation between then? All Christians are vandalising scumbags? No, you can't just give an example and apply it universally.

Also, you've twisted what I've said massively - yes, I think the nature of some people is to kill and be evil innately. However, not all of us are like that - I've never had any murderous thoughts (seriously), and I doubt many of us have to be honest. The fact, however, is that anybody - anybody - can be twisted, made into something evil. I bet if Adolf Hitler had been exposed to a different set of circumstances in early life, he could've easily turned out to be someone just like your landlord, but he just wasn't. But not once did I say that we are all born to spread hatred and kill. I am fully aware that good people exist in this world, but whether they are good or not has nothing at all to do with whether they believe in God. Bill Gates is a freaking atheist, for crying out loud, and he's contributed vastly to the development of technology in the 20th century.

I'm also inclined to say that the variety of choice we have has developed from human progression. Do you think schoolchildren in the Dark Ages had anywhere near as much diversity in education as we do today? Yet religion was still around back then, in much greater strength, with the Church dominating all aspects of life. Only when advances in culture (art, architecture), science and politics (feudalism) were introduced to late-medieval Europe did things improve - and everyone knows science is the antithesis of religion. Thanks to the way humanity has evolved (through human intuition, which I cannot stress enough), we have such great 'choice' that you refer to now. I don't think it's down to any divine intervention at all. I doubt it was God who taught Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein everything they know while they were still in the womb, was it?

You're mixing a lot of stuff with religion my friend. Firstly you said that God made us that way, that's why i gave that example. My point was that not everyone is the same so you cannot blame the actions of a few (in middle east or crusades) on the whole universe. Surely there are people who're atheist and are good by nature as oppose to some who're very religious and bad by nature.

I don't understand how you can link Hitler's cruel lifestyle with religion at all. My whole purpose of the argument was that i have never seen a single religion, let it be a monotheistic one or polytheistic one, which promotes evil explicitly. However bare in mind that there had been mixes here and there over time and so i believe nothing is 100% pure, which is why religions are misinterpreted in many ways but i believe that the soul of the religion was not the cause of these conflicts and bloodshed.

[braindead]

Again.. I haven't said that religion promotes evil, apologies if it seemed that way. My point was the clashes between faiths causes conflict - not that each sect in themselves preaches hatred or violence or anything like that, obviously not. The Hitler thing was conjecture, I didn't link religion to what he did at all...

"Surely there are people who're atheist and are good by nature as oppose to some who're very religious and bad by nature. "

EXACTLY! So how can you claim there is a correlation between being a good person and being religious like this:

" the fact that they're very practicing Christians, gives me the strongest evidence that "goodness" and religion are correlated with each other."

Aren't you seeing your own contradictions? Religion has nothing to do with making a person better (or worse), because people simply are the way they are. The actions of the few that cause these conflicts globally are provoked, or masked by, religious clashes as a petty excuse. Why would, or more suitably why do, we as people accept that sort of reasoning? Why do we accept religion as a legitimate reason for conflict (á la Al-Qaeda) when there is nothing even near to conclusive proof that your deities exist?

[Nabz]

Again.. I haven't said that religion promotes evil, apologies if it seemed that way. My point was the clashes between faiths causes conflict - not that each sect in themselves preaches hatred or violence or anything like that, obviously not. The Hitler thing was conjecture, I didn't link religion to what he did at all...

"Surely there are people who're atheist and are good by nature as oppose to some who're very religious and bad by nature. "

EXACTLY! So how can you claim there is a correlation between being a good person and being religious like this:

" the fact that they're very practicing Christians, gives me the strongest evidence that "goodness" and religion are correlated with each other."

Aren't you seeing your own contradictions? Religion has nothing to do with making a person better (or worse), because people simply are the way they are. The actions of the few that cause these conflicts globally are provoked, or masked by, religious clashes as a petty excuse. Why would, or more suitably why do, we as people accept that sort of reasoning? Why do we accept religion as a legitimate reason for conflict (á la Al-Qaeda) when there is nothing even near to conclusive proof that your deities exist?

Yeah, ok, i did say that but as i said in the previous post, many interpretations have been made and many changes had been done, but the soul of religion shouldn't be blamed.

I think there are two parts to any religion: the practices part, and the faith part. The one which causes the most amount of problem is the "faith" part but because of that, you cannot blame religion because it did teach you good deeds. I think a religion may cause harm only because the way people handle it. The fault isn't within the concept of having a religion but the way it is treated by many, may be the sole reason of conflict and cause harm.

Edited May 19, 2013 by shad0wboss

[braindead]

I am not blaming religion itself, it's the fact there are so many that lead to conflict. One universal faith would be much more understandable than various divisions in society that eternally conflict, due to the basis of their faiths. The only major religion that doesn't subscribe to a deity is Buddhism, and most agree that serious Buddhist practitioners are far more peaceful and nonaggressive than your average human being (obviously there have been conflicts between Buddhist and non-Buddhist states, but it has never been labelled as a religion-driven war). So yes, maybe you could be right in saying religion does teach - but then what do you think education is for? I've never once attended a church, and likewise I have never vandalised, attacked anyone, destroyed someone else's property, stolen or done drugs, simply because I'm not an uneducated idiot who actually pays attention in class. The people who don't listen in class, in general, become these "lowlifes" - and that is an issue with society that will not be fixed by converting them all to vicars.

So basically, to summarise my point, one universal religion would be most desirable, since it would all but eliminate any type of religious conflict (the only clashes remaining would be between the theists and atheists). That will never happen, because religions have become subscriber services rather than pure faiths. Religions are wrong, and twist any reason to believe in God.

The real reason behind this thread is whether you believe God exists, though, and I will happily state again that I don't believe he does, simply because he has not done anything, has not improved anything or influenced anything, that cannot be attributed to the ingenuity (or malice) of our species, whether that be a collective group (NASA, Al Qaeda, Greenpeace) or individuals (Einstein, Watt, Edison, etc). If you try to argue that God implanted them with that genius, there is no way either you or I could prove or disprove that, so that is the point where the phrase "agree to disagree" becomes relevant.

[difiCa]

I am not blaming religion itself, it's the fact there are so many that lead to conflict. One universal faith would be much more understandable than various divisions in society that eternally conflict, due to the basis of their faiths. The only major religion that doesn't subscribe to a deity is Buddhism, and most agree that serious Buddhist practitioners are far more peaceful and nonaggressive than your average human being (obviously there have been conflicts between Buddhist and non-Buddhist states, but it has never been labelled as a religion-driven war). So yes, maybe you could be right in saying religion does teach - but then what do you think education is for? I've never once attended a church, and likewise I have never vandalised, attacked anyone, destroyed someone else's property, stolen or done drugs, simply because I'm not an uneducated idiot who actually pays attention in class. The people who don't listen in class, in general, become these "lowlifes" - and that is an issue with society that will not be fixed by converting them all to vicars.

So basically, to summarise my point, one universal religion would be most desirable, since it would all but eliminate any type of religious conflict (the only clashes remaining would be between the theists and atheists). That will never happen, because religions have become subscriber services rather than pure faiths. Religions are wrong, and twist any reason to believe in God.

The real reason behind this thread is whether you believe God exists, though, and I will happily state again that I don't believe he does, simply because he has not done anything, has not improved anything or influenced anything, that cannot be attributed to the ingenuity (or malice) of our species, whether that be a collective group (NASA, Al Qaeda, Greenpeace) or individuals (Einstein, Watt, Edison, etc). If you try to argue that God implanted them with that genius, there is no way either you or I could prove or disprove that, so that is the point where the phrase "agree to disagree" becomes relevant.

As an act of offtopic, it is a very hasty generalisation to say that people who do not pay attention to or have an interest in formal education beyond the education needed for everyday life in today's society in general become 'lowlifes'. Opposing examples are quite abundant in both sides to the argument.

But you're quite right, converting any form of malignant person to religion will not necessarily be the key to their peaceful existence here. However, I believe that religion is one of the rather few forces that definitely has a potential to do good to someone facing a low point in their life, which is why I am all for religion when practised in a way that respects my personal viewpoint on religions and the general right of anyone to make their own decisions regarding religion and any other decision they make regarding their personal life. Additionally, religion should not be an excuse for anyone to trample human rights or promote inequality.

I personally do not think an universal religion would solve too many issues with religion, since it seems atheism is a religion to some, as are vegetarism and other forms of thinking not generally thought of as religions but practised in a similar fashion. Churches, to an extent, are both extensions of faith and enterprises aiming to make money/help others/whatever other aims they may have. However, from my Lutheran viewpoint it does seem that the church does more beneficial work to the young, sick and the vulnerable than, for example, self-help prophets or other types of religious/pseudoreligious entities. I do, however, acknowledge that views on the church depend a lot on the culture and the perception the majority church raises in citizens. In Finland, the Lutheran church does youth service (sometimes with a relatively non-religious backdrop from my experience), aids sick and old people irrespectively of belief, and practises other admirable pursuits on the sideline. Neither does it have a profit motive, but receives government funding.

I'm not a believer, but just as much as I disapprove of religious fanaticism, I also disapprove of persuasive atheism and other forms of force-oriented persuasion. However, I don't mind anyone practising religion or any other comparable provision for the common good or their personal help. If someone does indeed find solace in religion, I'm happy for them as long as they do not attempt to persuade me to take up something I do not wish to or try to trample anyone else's rights through it.

[braindead]

In case you were addressing me directly with that last part, I'm not trying to force my atheism onto anyone, merely trying to convey my own view of the debated topic. Obviously bending someone's views through coercion is a horrible thing that I'd never condone, but sometimes people don't listen, or resort to in their own arguments, reason. Also, yeah, that was quite a brash assertion I made, but you got my point nonetheless.

Here's my question to you: why give people a Church instead of a homeless shelter, a belief in divine intervention instead of the means to become self sufficient? A lot of people who work in soup kitchens and homeless shelters are not religious (of course, some are), yet they still have the kindness in their hearts to give to the poor for free. Those homeless don't go away at night thinking, "thank you God for giving me that soup", they are thinking, "thank you shelter worker for giving me that soup" - or at least, that's how it should be. If no religious structures existed, there'd be space for more housing, economically advantageous buildings, homeless shelters, homes for the elderly, etcetera... instead, we have Churches that already stable people go to to occasionally perform charity work. Homeless shelters are full-time. Additionally, with somewhere to stay semi-permanently, people would have some time to prepare themselves for self-sufficiency - getting a clean pair of clothes, getting a job, eventually their own home... one night of whatever Church charity work consists of is very unlikely to provide that for them. Similarly, neither is a God... it is up to that person and that person alone to make the most of a potential opportunity and convert it into a success. Like I've been saying, human initiative, not divine intervention.

[difiCa]

In case you were addressing me directly with that last part, I'm not trying to force my atheism onto anyone, merely trying to convey my own view of the debated topic. Obviously bending someone's views through coercion is a horrible thing that I'd never condone, but sometimes people don't listen, or resort to in their own arguments, reason. Also, yeah, that was quite a brash assertion I made, but you got my point nonetheless.

Here's my question to you: why give people a Church instead of a homeless shelter, a belief in divine intervention instead of the means to become self sufficient? A lot of people who work in soup kitchens and homeless shelters are not religious (of course, some are), yet they still have the kindness in their hearts to give to the poor for free. Those homeless don't go away at night thinking, "thank you God for giving me that soup", they are thinking, "thank you shelter worker for giving me that soup" - or at least, that's how it should be. If no religious structures existed, there'd be space for more housing, economically advantageous buildings, homeless shelters, homes for the elderly, etcetera... instead, we have Churches that already stable people go to to occasionally perform charity work. Homeless shelters are full-time. Additionally, with somewhere to stay semi-permanently, people would have some time to prepare themselves for self-sufficiency - getting a clean pair of clothes, getting a job, eventually their own home... one night of whatever Church charity work consists of is very unlikely to provide that for them. Similarly, neither is a God... it is up to that person and that person alone to make the most of a potential opportunity and convert it into a success. Like I've been saying, human initiative, not divine intervention.

I wasn't explicitly referring to you, just to my view on religion in general, so if I did come across that way, I'm terribly sorry for it! The lack of reason from both sides of the religion argument is indeed mind-boggling at times so that is a view I wholeheartedly share.

It seems we are not quite speaking of the same thing, as I obviously do agree that human initiative is significantly more important in terms of improving one's situation than divine intervention (which, as such, I do not really believe exists). However, most, if not all, branches of the Finnish Lutheran church are involved in running full-time charities both operationally and/or through funding, so there might be a slight difference in perception of the church between us. The poor and needy are, for the most part, attended to by full-time church/charity employees. Most volunteering takes place in the youth work department, which is better suited for it as the main point is bringing all kinds of youths a place they can comfortably be in, for the most part regardless of their religious views. I used to chair the youth board for the local church for a few years, and I would definitely see it as something that, if not significantly helping me, at least brought more than a few laughs and a good time, which, to me, seems like a fine deal.

The point I was originally getting at is that if religion helps someone in their battle with things such as addiction, loss of a loved one, divorce or whatever else, I'm entirely open to them participating in religion. As such, it is, to me, just like friends, exercise or any other hobby one might use to get over hardship in life, and in that department, it seems, speaking on a subjective basis, more effective than many other methods of coping with such issues. Thus, I was trying to say that it is not religion that is bad, per se, it is the people who take it either too literally, advocate it too harshly or otherwise ruin it that make it objectionable to me, along with the ideological standpoint of my own that does not really need to accommodate religion if I so wish, and I do.

[Kashmiri]

La ilaha illa Allah!!!

[Luka Petrovic]

La ilaha illa Allah!!!

I think you just turned every non-believer into a theist... Thank you lol. Edited July 12, 2013 by Luka Petrovic