Why do you NOT believe in a God? Watch

Ekpyrotic
Badges: 13
#101
Report 10 years ago
#101
There's no evidence.

And for the record the question is "Why do you believe in God?"; the burden of proof is on the believer. I'm not the one making a statement, the believer is.
quote
reply
moneyballs2
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#102
Report 10 years ago
#102
True you say, how can you use inevidential sources to rebutt an inevidential source? That is true.
I simply said that I don't trust any evidence of that sort because it could be mistranslated and is different people's interpretations. I never said I was using inevidential sources.

That't not what the film was getting at, the film after all, was just putting forward ideas and theories...which is all that can be done considering the lack of evidence from that era. BUT, as a matter of fact, there is evidence from that era, ranging from authors during and soon after the life of Jesus, including Pliny the younger who never mentioned Jesus, but how strange is that? There were authors around the time of Jesus who didn't mentione him! How could they not if he was so awe inspiring?

The links in the film can't be ignored however, most of them are indefinitely far fetched, but since as humans we are pattern seeking, it would not be surprising if the myth of Jesus sprung up from hundreds of similar ones before it. The only difference is that the bible as a text has had a better survival because of the better survival ideas (or memes as Richard Dawkins calls them).
If they are just "ideas and theories" then yes, they can be ignored, and I intend to ignore them. I'm very strong on my atheist beliefs and won't be convinced otherwise without a first-hand experience of something that will change my mind. I am very stubborn with what I believe...
0
quote
reply
Antonia87
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#103
Report 10 years ago
#103
I see a lot of "science" replies in this thread. People are forgetting that science is often proven wrong. Scientific theories are discarded all the time and so come along new ones. Religion is accused of being illogical but science has come out with some pretty wacky theories as well.
0
quote
reply
Calumcalum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#104
Report 10 years ago
#104
(Original post by Sammerz)
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Here there is a very interesting and convincing film which shows you the origin of the whole story of Jesus, watch and be amazed as I was...
The fact that it's convincing doesn't make it right, Hitler's Aryan supremacy theory was very convincing to many.
The film gives false information across a range of topics, misinterprets Christianity, and to put it bluntly just mixes up facts and gets stuff wrong...
0
quote
reply
Calumcalum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#105
Report 10 years ago
#105
(Original post by Sammerz)
how so? It's an excellent book! Full of very compelling arguments, from logical and philosophical, to biological.

I do prefer Dawkins' books on evolution however.

If anyone here cares about your origins and why you are here, read The Ancestor's Tale
It's a hypocritical, dogmatic, misconceived, disaster of a book, throwing out random assertions about subjects which science should stay far away from...
0
quote
reply
OhNO!
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#106
Report 10 years ago
#106
because I've never found a compelling reason to believe in God.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#107
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#107
(Original post by Helen_J)
extremists have been poisoned with religious b*llocks of course it is not religion's fault they act on it but in the end it boils down to religion
No, it doesn't. At least, not solely.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#108
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#108
(Original post by Calumcalum)
It's a hypocritical, dogmatic, misconceived, disaster of a book, throwing out random assertions about subjects which science should stay far away from...
No such subjects exist, sorry.
0
quote
reply
suneilr
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#109
Report 10 years ago
#109
(Original post by Antonia87)
I see a lot of "science" replies in this thread. People are forgetting that science is often proven wrong. Scientific theories are discarded all the time and so come along new ones. Religion is accused of being illogical but science has come out with some pretty wacky theories as well.
Yes but scientific theories are always based on empirical evidence which is more than can be said about religion. I don't see why scientific theories being discarded is a bad thing... The whole point of science is to adapt our theories to fit the evidence we see, not the other way around.
0
quote
reply
dan6613
Badges: 0
#110
Report 10 years ago
#110
Science pisses on god in any debate.

but hey thats my opinion.

GOD BLESS DAN
0
quote
reply
mashw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 10 years ago
#111
(Original post by dan6613)
Science pisses on god in any debate.

but hey thats my opinion.

GOD BLESS DAN
I think science has outright disproved the theological answers to the origin and proliferation of life and the universe but cannot - by definition - touch the existence of a god. It can only attempt to disprove supposed tangible proofs like miracles and investigate whether prayers affect sick patients etc.. The question of God's existence is strictly a philosophical question, and when Richard Dawkins and others begin speaking about the actual existence of God they're doing philosophy, not science (sometimes fairly bad philosophy too).

I'm personally agnostic simply because I think it's the only position I can hold in good conscience. I lean towards atheism and sometimes just call myself one for convenience sake but I find myself as at odds with atheists as I do with believers. I'm open to the idea of there being some sort of organizing principle present in the universe but I am confident this thing is nothing like the Abrahamic religion's conception of God, it doesn't seem to be even be sentient or aware of our existence at least, neither do I believe in an afterlife for various reasons.
0
quote
reply
SD111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 10 years ago
#112
people say they dont believe in GOD because there is so much suffering etc "people being violent" etc as someone on page one said
that is a result of god choice to give us free-will if he didnt then would we know the difference between good and bad? we woud all be robots with no control

amen
0
quote
reply
Sammerz
Badges: 0
#113
Report 10 years ago
#113
(Original post by Calumcalum)
It's a hypocritical, dogmatic, misconceived, disaster of a book, throwing out random assertions about subjects which science should stay far away from...
perhaps instead of just describing what you think of the book, maybe you would like to back up with an example what part of the book is either 'hypocritical' or 'dogmatic'...

It certainly is not dogmatic in any sense, dogmatic by its definition is a belief without any evidence and the point Dawkins always tries to make as emphatic as possible is that our beliefs SHOULD be based on evidence and that's what the whole of the book entails.

It is the religious who are dogmatic, Prof. Dawkins is nothing of the sort, nor is The God Delusion.

As for hypocritical, well, I have found no incoherencies of the sort, could you shed some light on that?

Also why should science stay away from the subject of God, it is a scientific proposition "There exists a God" since it bears evidence on either side.

And science HAS to get involved when religion starts making bogus claims about the origins of the universe and life.
0
quote
reply
mashw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 10 years ago
#114
(Original post by SD111)
people say they dont believe in GOD because there is so much suffering etc "people being violent" etc as someone on page one said
that is a result of god choice to give us free-will if he didnt then would we know the difference between good and bad? we woud all be robots with no control

amen
But to some of us the idea of free-will is incoherent, you'd have to persuade us we really do have some kind of un-caused volition for that to be a convincing answer. It also doesn't explain the sheer amount of suffering we see in nature, or natural disasters.
0
quote
reply
SD111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 10 years ago
#115
(Original post by mashw)
But to some of us the idea of free-will is incoherent, you'd have to persuade us we really do have some kind of un-caused volition for that to be a convincing answer. It also doesn't explain the sheer amount of suffering we see in nature, or natural disasters.

the sheer amount of suffering is what HAS to happen. free-will is GOD's law written in all of us he gives us the free-will to choose weather we believe in him or not

if there was only a little suffering we wouldn't have the ability to love and care to the same extent we do when natural disasters happen
0
quote
reply
Sammerz
Badges: 0
#116
Report 10 years ago
#116
(Original post by moneyballs2)
I simply said that I don't trust any evidence of that sort because it could be mistranslated and is different people's interpretations. I never said I was using inevidential sources.



If they are just "ideas and theories" then yes, they can be ignored, and I intend to ignore them. I'm very strong on my atheist beliefs and won't be convinced otherwise without a first-hand experience of something that will change my mind. I am very stubborn with what I believe...
you give a bad name to atheists then my friend...

you are the first atheist I've met who's sounded so fundamentalist. Fundamentalism belongs in the arena of religion.

I have absolutely no idea why you would reject a theory in the first place, I don't know if you know, but a theory does include evidence and makes statements based on observable phenomena. It only becomes factual when you can actually 'experience' or see what you are testing in the first place. This is why gravity, dark matter, atomism and evolution have remained theories because it is actually impossible to 'see' atoms or gravity etc.

But if you want to reject a theory just because it's a theory, then that is quite bigoted of you.
0
quote
reply
mashw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 10 years ago
#117
(Original post by SD111)
the sheer amount of suffering is what HAS to happen. free-will is GOD's law written in all of us he gives us the free-will to choose weather we believe in him or not

if there was only a little suffering we wouldn't have the ability to love and care to the same extent we do when natural disasters happen

That's all well and good for us, that the suffering in the world is so we can care more but I don't think it will console the 9 year old African kid I sponsor who was born hiv-positive and lives in a village where people die of disease and malnutrition every day. Famine is usually caused by climatic change, something natural after all. I'm not just trying to tug on your heart strings, I think your answer is just a little myopic. Why should they suffer so we can experience a heightened sense of love and care? Does God favour us more? I'm still not convinced free-will makes any sense either.
0
quote
reply
sloaner
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report 10 years ago
#118
because I sin too much to start believing that there is an omnipotent guy judging me, and that consequences will be dire etc.

since if Hell exists, I've got a first class ticket. Along with most people apparently.

And things like the seven deadly sins don't leave much in the way for fun. Gluttony, what a farce, I'll eat as much Ben and Jerry's Cookie Dough as I like, thank you very much.
0
quote
reply
thanette
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#119
Report 10 years ago
#119
cos: i feel no need for a belief in a god; there is no proof of his existence; i don't want to believe that he does, as if he did i would hope he'd be sorting out the problems we have on earth.
0
quote
reply
Sammerz
Badges: 0
#120
Report 10 years ago
#120
(Original post by SD111)
the sheer amount of suffering is what HAS to happen. free-will is GOD's law written in all of us he gives us the free-will to choose weather we believe in him or not

if there was only a little suffering we wouldn't have the ability to love and care to the same extent we do when natural disasters happen
I don't think you understand what the word benevolent actually means...

How CAN you say God loves you by causing suffering, just so that suffering can contrast to some happiness, to make the happiness better. You're just trying to excuse suffering, but it's not working.

If you are honestly saying that as humans we can only love each other BECAUSE of suffering, then you are actually being really offensive.

You are degrading human solidarity to the sake of a pitiless existence, where we are only happy BECAUSE we overcome suffering; there is nothing moral about that, in fact, it is a completely immoral middle age view which tries to justify suffering and it must be abandoned.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (281)
27.6%
No (737)
72.4%

Watched Threads

View All