Is there any reason to believe in God?

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Yeah, I know that is the definition the dictionary gives. I question how much it actually reflects reality, after having spoken to as many people as I have.

Again, nope. I think you have this idea that intelligence is a necessary predicate for sentience. It's not. Stupid people can be sentient. Unless these "many people" were insensate braindead meatbags, they were sentient regardless of their intelligence (or your perception of their intelligence.)

 

[lrkun]

Science cannot disprove God, but its lead us away from any real need to believe in God.
We know how and why we should be good we've learned that.
Do we really need a magical sky daddy any more?

If I stretch the use of a God for a bit. I can reasonably say that God's purpose is that of an explanation for things that we can't yet explain. Unless and until we can explain it via empirical evidence, we can always say God did it or that it is unknown.

 

[masterjedijared]

That's still not a very useful definition of gods though. It's just not very tenable in that it doesn't lend itself whatsoever to making a god anymore viable or real.

Believing in deities can impede the progress of knowledge though. The only way to avoid this is to honestly say that deities = what we don't know. In that case a deity just isn't a better term for that. We can just be honest and say we don't know yet.

 

[Yfelsung]

If I stretch the use of a God for a bit. I can reasonably say that God's purpose is that of an explanation for things that we can't yet explain. Unless and until we can explain it via empirical evidence, we can always say God did it or that it is unknown.

But why call it anything other than unknown? By calling it God, it implies some sort of knowledge. We must never be afraid to just say "I do not know" or "that is currently unknown".

We don't require the certainty of the theist. The theists lie to themselves until they believe they truly do know the answers to the unknowns. Rational thought, be it atheism or simple secularism, thrives on calling things as it sees them.

You call a spade a spade.
You call an unknown an unknown.

 

[lrkun]

If I stretch the use of a God for a bit. I can reasonably say that God's purpose is that of an explanation for things that we can't yet explain. Unless and until we can explain it via empirical evidence, we can always say God did it or that it is unknown.

But why call it anything other than unknown? By calling it God, it implies some sort of knowledge. We must never be afraid to just say "I do not know" or "that is currently unknown".

We don't require the certainty of the theist. The theists lie to themselves until they believe they truly do know the answers to the unknowns. Rational thought, be it atheism or simple secularism, thrives on calling things as it sees them.

You call a spade a spade.
You call an unknown an unknown.

I'm addressing the issue of the topic. If the term god were to have a purpose it would be to define that which is unknown. However unknown is more accurate, nevertheless, it's two syllables and I'm opting to use that which is more palatable to my tongue. Therefore it's just personal bias.

Richard Feynman's Views on the Irrational Origin of Religion

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "

Richard Feynman, quoted by P. C. W. Davies and J. Brown in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything,p. 208. See also "Collected Thoughts of Richard Feynman" and "The Richard Feynman Webring". Best Feynman site is "FEYNMAN PAGE", info and links.

http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/God/Feynman_atheism.html

 

[Yfelsung]

I understand what you are getting at, but I still think it fallacious to use the word god, even in the way you're using it, because the average person would not automatically make the connection that you are using the word god to describe the unknown. By using the word god, you create the false assumption in others that you think you know something you don't. Assumption is the mother of all... well, you know the saying, so I'm not saying it's GOOD that people assume this when you use the word, but the bottom line is that they will make that assumption.

Also there must be a significant difference imparted in the use of the word god or the use of the name God. It is true that gods were created to explain unknown phenomenon. It is my whole hearted belief that God (Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah etc.) was created by us as a control method.

As I always like to say to Abrahamists, "Some sort of god may exist but this God character in your book is a complete fabrication. It would take faith to reject the possibility of some sort of god, but all it takes is critical thinking to disprove your specific deity."

 

[lrkun]

I understand what you are getting at, but I still think it fallacious to use the word god, even in the way you're using it, because the average person would not automatically make the connection that you are using the word god to describe the unknown. By using the word god, you create the false assumption in others that you think you know something you don't. Assumption is the mother of all... well, you know the saying, so I'm not saying it's GOOD that people assume this when you use the word, but the bottom line is that they will make that assumption.

Also there must be a significant difference imparted in the use of the word god or the use of the name God. It is true that gods were created to explain unknown phenomenon. It is my whole hearted belief that God (Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah etc.) was created by us as a control method.

As I always like to say to Abrahamists, "Some sort of god may exist but this God character in your book is a complete fabrication. It would take faith to reject the possibility of some sort of god, but all it takes is critical thinking to disprove your specific deity."

I may not agree with you, but I can respect that.

 

[Memoryfull]

The way I see why people believe in god (from an atheist perspective) is simply because they cannot comprehend the fact that humans might not have a purpose. Theist have this singular problem that they need to have a purpose, or what's the point of us being here? The fact is humans are here by a cascade of events, and not because ''something'' up there snapped its fingers

The other reason I see, and this came personally from the passing of my grandfather, is the fear of death. While i believe 99.9% of the humans on earth would rather live than die, the idea of simply seasing to exist, as religious people put it, is simply impossible to comprehend for a large amount of people.

I can understand why people would believe in god for these two reasons, but I still see them slightly narcissistic from my point of view. I need to have a purpose, and I can simply die; sound pretty hollow to me.

 

[Laurens]

There is no reason to believe in God whatsoever, our universe works perfectly well without such magic, and I don't need to believe in, nor would I feel any comfort whatsoever in believing that there is someone watching over me at all times, and who might eternally punish me if I so much as thought the wrong thing.

 

[dustinianthagr8]

Naw I don't think it would be good to believe in God without any evidence.

Either a thing is true or it isn't. And if it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't then you shouldn't.

I don't think a God is necessary for morality or any of the laws of the natural universe. And, since I see no evidence for his existence, I simply don't believe.

 

[lrkun]

There is no reason to believe in god, because if he exists, and he is the god of abraham, he fails to change the destiny of man. To illustrate, war, famine, sickness, death, rape, torture, calamities, diseases, and the fact that prayer doesn't work. Or if this god had the power to change man's destiny, he's an evil god, for the same reason as illustrated.

 

[Andiferous]

We've devolved into the reasons why not believe in god, but the question was "Is there any reason to believe in God?"

In response I'd ask "Is there any reason we're here anyway?" It's arguable that we don't really have reasons for everything. If someone has a firm reason for human and my existence in particular then I might agree we'd need a reason to believe in god too.

 

[Laurens]

We've devolved into the reasons why not believe in god, but the question was "Is there any reason to believe in God?"

No.

Not much discussion there really

 

[Andiferous]

We've devolved into the reasons why not believe in god, but the question was "Is there any reason to believe in God?"

No.

Not much discussion there really

I admit I could think of hypotheticals,. Off on my existential bent, my point was seeing a bit of the circularity of the question. In that people often choose to believe because they want a reason (particularly for existential type things), and then demanding a reason for believing to create a reason for being makes the whole argument kinda loopy, and does little more than put us in the mind of the same viewpoint we criticise. If that makes more sense. I realise I sound confusing... Not sure if this is better.

 

[Laurens]

I admit I could think of hypotheticals,. Off on my existential bent, my point was seeing a bit of the circularity of the question. In that people often choose to believe because they want a reason (particularly for existential type things), and then demanding a reason for believing to create a reason for being makes the whole argument kinda loopy, and does little more than put us in the mind of the same viewpoint we criticise. If that makes more sense. I realise I sound confusing... Not sure if this is better.

I'd believe in God if it got me laid on a daily basis, is that a good reason?

 

[Andiferous]

I admit I could think of hypotheticals,. Off on my existential bent, my point was seeing a bit of the circularity of the question. In that people often choose to believe because they want a reason (particularly for existential type things), and then demanding a reason for believing to create a reason for being makes the whole argument kinda loopy, and does little more than put us in the mind of the same viewpoint we criticise. If that makes more sense. I realise I sound confusing... Not sure if this is better.

I'd believe in God if it got me laid on a daily basis, is that a good reason?

/me scratches head.

Well, that is personal contact and a bit hard to evaluate, or at least I'm not sure I'd want to.

 

[borrofburi]

Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:02 am

Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:23 am

Wth...

Is there any reason to believe in God?

Err... depends on what you mean by "reason". I've met a number of theists who think "it makes me feel warm and fuzzy" is good enough "reason" to believe in god.

 

[Laurens]

/me scratches head.

Well, that is personal contact and a bit hard to evaluate, or at least I'm not sure I'd want to.

I meant if holding the belief itself would get me laid.

I don't actually want to screw God.

I think he prefers young female virgins anyway...

 

[Andiferous]

I can see that, given the Mary thing, although still unclear on the genital thing. But sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[Laurens]

I can see that, given the Mary thing, although still unclear on the genital thing. But sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying.

I'm not sure either, I'm just being a doofus