Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe because there are just too many unanswered questions. When I was a child I thought about things such as 'The bible is a book, millions of fictional books have been written, who's to say this isn't fictional?' and 'If God 'proved' himself in so many ways all those years ago, why does he not now? Why does he leave people wondering if he is in fact real?'

    After spending many school years being taught bible stories and reading pasages etc, I decided that even if I could ever believe in God, christianity still wouldn't be the right direction for me. It just doesn't seem to add up. I'm more convinced by other religions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wolfos)
    I'm not an athiest because I am of the idea that there is some kind of master lifeform - a god if you would prefer. However I don't subscribe to the idea of religion, maybe this particular god doesn't want us to constantly thank him and apologise for being human, restricting ourselves and live by a book which could've been written by anyone. The Bible may contain some 'amazing' stories for some, but so did Lord of the Rings, which was written by a human. The Ten Commandments can be diluted into generic moral values which any human being with common sense would understand, and don't necessarily have to be religious. I also don't believe in the concept of an afterlife. I think when you die, that's it. Lights out. It's like sleeping - you don't realise it and it's not something that should be feared.

    I also don't think there is one meaning of life, but one for each person, and they're all different. Well there is, but basically it's you who decides what your meaning to live is. You go out and strive to achieve whatever, fail, try to resolve problems and keep going on. There's so many religions with many different views on what to do and not to do, they're all shaped by different people who wanted to create different meanings for their own lives. That's why I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. The phrase "damned to Hell for eternity" to me is just a silly scare phrase to get people to follow you and have them under your control. It's just fear and intimidation, and if anyone tries to use it against you, you really should just brush it off and laugh. Right, that's enough pseudo-intellectual bull from me.
    This :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CMJBGBWC)
    Wolfos may be a deist.
    I had no idea what this actually was when you mentioned it until I quickly Googled it. Yes I guess that comes in line with what I currently think.

    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Your sensibleness makes me curious. Why do you believe in that master lifeform?
    As a passive and relatively powerless observer of this world I just came to that conclusion from pure human intuition. The universe is such a massive place I don't believe this god created us in his, or should I say "it's" image. There could be, or probably is, many many more different lifeforms out there and it could be a long time before we ever see them. What I haven't quite thought about is the nature of the god - what's it like? How could it have created the universe? Did it start off one thing which led to another like falling dominoes, or did it start the Big Bang? Then it gets really complicated and just exhausts your mind, like venturing out in some burning hot desert.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saying "no evidence" misses the point. The thing that is integral to all major religions is faith which necessitates the lack of hard evidence (although primitive or naive faith works differently). I think it's futile to argue against religion/the existence of a divine being by using science and empirical thinking - just like it's ridiculous to explain the physical world on the grounds of religion. Science and religion exist independently and do not necessarily exclude each other. So I've made a point for agnosticism, but in effect I am an atheist: Although it's fundamentally impossible to disprove god, I think it's hugely unlikely. Tbh religion, the belief in god, even spirituality are so human that looking at the course of history, it's hard to imagine people throughout the ages not becoming religious. It's very plausible that the whole thing is no more than the product of historical, sociological and psychological circumstances.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NB: The situation is complicated by the existance of multiple religions and belief systems. However we can distinguish between those who believe in divine powers, Gods, spirits, magic, etc, and those who don't and for the purposes of this arguement I am going to divide people into these two categories. This does not invalidate my arguement because I am not using the "multiple religions arguement" as a case against the existance of God.

    Why I don't believe in God:

    Evidence

    I have seen no compelling evidence for the existence of God and I won't support a theory until there is enough evidence to go by. The bible is not evidence (to believe it is evidence you must first believe in God). First hand stories of revelations / visions are not enough, as people have other first hand stories of things which are not true. Prayer has never been proven to work in any reliable investigation. As an atheist, and therefore i believe in the automatic: there is no God, I don't need evidence to prove that there isn't a God. Thats like saying you need evidence to prove that unicorns don't exist -- the evidence is the lack of evidence for the contrary.


    'Faith'


    Believers will respond to the lack of evidence with the arguement: " the whole point of religion is that it requires faith, and faith is belief in the absence of evidence"

    Now I don't agree with that definition of faith. Faith is the belief in something with the absence of proof. But to believe something with absolutely no evidence is not "faith", its just weird and irrational. I put "faith" in my friends that they won't let me down for example: there's not absolute proof they won't but my knowledge of their personalities is evidence. Thats faith.

    Even if there was no proof I would be willing to believe in a God if there was some evidence for his existance: I believe in Australia, for example, although I've never been there so can't actually prove its there. But there's enough evidence for me to believe it.

    On a more cynical note, just look at that arguement. "Well of course theres not evidence - God doesn't want there to be evidence so that we have faith".
    a) convenient, much?
    b) Surely Gods purpose, which is to make humans behave in a less sinful manner, would be a lot easier to carry out for him if he proved once and for all that he existed. So why on earth does he want everyone to rely on faith

    Evidence against
    If there was no evidence either way I would be agnostic, but I believe the evidence against the existance of God is compelling.

    a) The origins of religion. Religion began among humans as a way to understand life, death, luck, chance etc. Because people had no scientific knowledge of phenomena such as the solar system, the weather, and because obviously its impossible to know what happens after death. They fitted all the pieces together and came up with Gods, deities, magic, spirits. Religion filled the knowledge gap. That was its only purpose - but of course we thought it was true because it was the only knowledge we have.

    Now we have scientific reasons for all of these phenomena, the origins of religions are shown to be completely defunct. It wasn't a divine revalation to mankind that first introduced us to religion and God - it was our lack of technology.

    This begs the question of course, that if we know that religion was born upon us by lack of technology and knowledge, and not by a divine being demanding worship, then how can one argue the case for a God that involves himself in human events. The truth is that we created God, not the other way around: so how can we believe that this "God" has any sort of juristiction over our souls/the way we live/the laws of the universe!

    b) the existance of evil

    Of course this counter-arguement does assume that "God" would be benevolant.

    c) Science has proven so much of the "word of God" wrong
    for example, evolution has proven that the divine creation did not occur as descrived in the bible.
    Quantum physics: the theory that we cannot know both the position and velocity of a particle in space time is incompatible with the idea of an all powerful God. Even Einstein believed this, although he chose to reject quantum physics rather than his religion: "God does not play dice" he said. No, he doesn't, but the dice are being played, so God does not exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vapory)
    ok how about this then - if its such a good guide on how to lead your life, why do you not follow it?

    Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. 18:29

    Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. 109:6

    Ohno! wait, you are!!

    If they ... assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. ...
    Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

    My bad!

    Read the verses in correct context, then come back and ask the same question again:

    Its very easy to quote FDR's or Churchill's anti- German war speeches from 1940s and say that those quotes are applicable to the Germans of today.

    Can a religion that preaches the killing of all outside its confines capture the minds and hearts of millions throughout history? Sorry that doesn't stand a story.
    Edit: Hell even categorically forcing Islam on someone is prohibited.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the only good thing from religion are the gorgeous buildings dotted around the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flit)
    Do you believe in evolution? Or are you undecided?
    To be fair I am undecided regardless of scientific evidence. I just follow what the Qur'an says.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibysaiyan)
    Read the verses in correct context, then come back and ask the same question again:

    Its very easy to quote FDR's or Churchill's anti- German war speeches from 1940s and say that those quotes are applicable to the Germans of today.

    Can a religion that preaches the killing of all outside its confines capture the minds and hearts of millions throughout history? Sorry that doesn't stand a story.
    Edit: Hell even categorically forcing Islam on someone is prohibited.
    This person sent this reply to me and what you said Is exactly why I replied back about taking the passage out of context.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    I anticipate that he's moral due to a sense of morality and not just fear of the consequences.
    tbh you could argue for either one, but the one with the stronger case is the fear of consequences. If society went to pot, so would one's morals.

    Whether it be out of fear or a sense of duty or morality or whatever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lou Reed)
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
    lol nothing like quoting a manipulation of the English language to make you look smart...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    No evidence. At all.
    Just to say the no evidence thing; its not hard to suggest that something spiritual is lacking in physical evidence, simply because the two are seperate.

    If one for example was looking for evidence of Jesus, one would need to examine thematter spiritually... basically one needs to do some digging in their own heart and soul.

    If one takes the Bible, for example, as the authority on Christianity (either as factual or as one takes the Harry Potter books as the authority on Harry Potter), then clearly the argument put is that to get a response from God, you have to believe in Him.

    "Everything you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith." Mark 11

    There are various other quotesthat I don't have time to find, but basically, the message the Gospel's give out (if it's the leading authority on Christianity whether the religion is true or not) is basically Put your faith me, and I will be there. Demand I make the first move, and you'll get nowhere.

    So, if Christianity is the truth: if you demand for physical evidence without putting any faith in, you'll find nothing.
    If you put faith in and pray with all your heart that God comes into your life, he will.

    If Christianity is not the truth: then nothing will happen to anything.

    But clearly, most of those who think they have faith without doubts receive a "reply" of some discription... so, I'll bet on "something" being true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flowerness)

    (Original post by Prussianking666)
    Seriously? Well then little red riding hood must exist as well, and goldylocks and the three bears.
    What do you have to lose if you just believe in a God?
    What? You've absolutely ignored what he said! This isn't a reply!

    What do to lose - you can't just choose to believe in something. I can't choose to believe 2+2=5 - I could say I did but that's not the same.

    Also we're not supposed to be doing a cost-benefit analysis of whether God exists, surely? I want to believe in things because they are true - this outweighs other benefits for me. Not a case of - well, believing in God doesn't seem to cause me any great harm hence I should do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W0bble)
    What? You've absolutely ignored what he said! This isn't a reply!

    What do to lose - you can't just choose to believe in something. I can't choose to believe 2+2=5 - I could say I did but that's not the same.

    Also we're not supposed to be doing a cost-benefit analysis of whether God exists, surely? I want to believe in things because they are true - this outweighs other benefits for me. Not a case of - well, believing in God doesn't seem to cause me any great harm hence I should do it.
    Here we have a presentation of Pascal's wager.

    What is there to lose? Well, apart from the fact that religion discourages independent thought and scientific progress (God did it, why do Physics, etc) and makes many people worried about insignificant actions (oh noes, did I just drink alcohol!?), it wastes time.

    Plus, what if the God you "just decide to believe in" isn't the "correct" God? What if it is Allah who is the "real" deity?

    And finally, you cannot "just start believing" in a God "because you have nothing to lose". I cannot just start whole heartedly believe in Santa Claus because my parents told me he is "real".

    It is ignorant IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iffi)
    To be fair I am undecided regardless of scientific evidence. I just follow what the Qur'an says.
    Well then what you're saying there is "I will believe in whatever I was taught first".

    As you probably know already, there is insurmountable evidence in favour of the theory of evolution, and it is scientific theory (i.e. a fact in simple terms).

    Please now don't tell me you believe the Abrahamic version of events?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    Just to say the no evidence thing; its not hard to suggest that something spiritual is lacking in physical evidence, simply because the two are seperate.

    If one for example was looking for evidence of Jesus, one would need to examine thematter spiritually... basically one needs to do some digging in their own heart and soul.

    If one takes the Bible, for example, as the authority on Christianity (either as factual or as one takes the Harry Potter books as the authority on Harry Potter), then clearly the argument put is that to get a response from God, you have to believe in Him.

    "Everything you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith." Mark 11

    There are various other quotesthat I don't have time to find, but basically, the message the Gospel's give out (if it's the leading authority on Christianity whether the religion is true or not) is basically Put your faith me, and I will be there. Demand I make the first move, and you'll get nowhere.

    So, if Christianity is the truth: if you demand for physical evidence without putting any faith in, you'll find nothing.
    If you put faith in and pray with all your heart that God comes into your life, he will.

    If Christianity is not the truth: then nothing will happen to anything.

    But clearly, most of those who think they have faith without doubts receive a "reply" of some discription... so, I'll bet on "something" being true.
    People KNOW that astrology is real, that ghosts DEFNITELY exist.

    Your response is essentially saying "you have to discover God before He reveals himself". But why should I make an attempt? What evidence is there that I should? God should reveal himself first: why pay for something you haven't odered?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CMJBGBWC)
    People KNOW that astrology is real, that ghosts DEFNITELY exist.

    Your response is essentially saying "you have to discover God before He reveals himself". But why should I make an attempt? What evidence is there that I should? God should reveal himself first: why pay for something you haven't odered?
    He has in the person of Jesus Christ. That's the claim. It's for you to conclude whether that claim is right or wrong and how are you going to personally respond to that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iffi)
    This person sent this reply to me and what you said Is exactly why I replied back about taking the passage out of context.
    Yeppers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antzlck)
    He has in the person of Jesus Christ. That's the claim. It's for you to conclude whether that claim is right or wrong and how are you going to personally respond to that.
    There is no reason to begin to believe in God though in the first place; it is an idea invented by people who couldn't understand how the world worked before modern day science.

    I will ignore the claims, and live life as I currently do.

    I will live with the idea that I may be wrong: it doesn't bother me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CMJBGBWC)
    There is no reason to begin to believe in God though in the first place
    I believe God to be the best and most logical explanation for the existence of the universe. The greatest most fundamental question of them all is 'why is there something rather than nothing'?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,504

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.