What's your religion?

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm sure that people had a hard time proving or disproving what made you sick, as well. All that they could do was point to case-by-case scenarios, such as getting wet at night, or leaving the window open (note that some of these beliefs are still prevalent, apparently). When it was discovered that there are millions upon millions of microscopic life forms that we'd never known about things started to become clear. However until the discovery of microscopic life people were completely in the dark.

Microbiology was an area of science that required certain advancements to be made before people could even begin to discover it and understand it. Perhaps God is something similar. Just like the people of the past who could only observe sickness, all we have are some faint clues referring to what God is. Perhaps God really is just a fairytale, or perhaps what we know of God is a misunderstanding that was passed down for generations. I don't think anyone knows for certain, and that's partly what makes it so interesting.

How long has religion been around? People naturally bought into it because they didn't know any better. You are right that it is the same for all of those scientific discoveries. However, today you can't argue that we do know, or at least think we know, a lot more and have better reasoning skills.

Comparing science to religion, for me seems a little strange. Your argument makes sense, but to me feels like apples and oranges. Perhaps it's just today's society that is an influence, built off of religion from before. So annoying to know that I, technically speaking, acknowledge part of the bible due to the fact that people have learned to accept it.

Powerful stuff. No arguing who's affected or not affected. Everybody is, arguing that is going to go nowhere.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't think anyone knows for certain, and that's partly what makes it so interesting.

That's why we're in this topic . But, yes arguing about something that really won't affect people's opinions is fun. The discussion just adds on and on, I guess religion is good for one thing .

~

Also, it would seem extremely weird to think how different my life and myself would be if my parents actually cared about religion. Vice versa is applicable too. I wonder if I would actually believe that stuff they try to feed into your mind and take the bible extremely seriously. Things like that.

Destroying religion will probably only occur once humans are off the face of the Earth. Religion began with ancestors, who are related to people of today, thus a connection between that.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Thentus

How long has religion been around? People naturally bought into it because they didn't know any better. You are right that it is the same for all of those scientific discoveries. However, today you can't argue that we do know, or at least think we know, a lot more and have better reasoning skills.

I can't agree with the first and last parts of your paragraph. People naturally bought into it because they didn't know any better? We know more now, true, but what makes you think that our reasoning skills are any better? I've never met anyone from that time period so I have no evidence to refute you, but I have certainly encountered my share of ignorant people even in the "information age" that we live in. Having a mix of ignorant and intellecutuals - I don't believe that it was any different back then.

Comparing science to religion, for me seems a little strange. Your argument makes sense, but to me feels like apples and oranges. Perhaps it's just today's society that is an influence, built off of religion from before. So annoying to know that I, technically speaking, acknowledge part of the bible due to the fact that people have learned to accept it.

It probably feels like that to most people. To me (and to those who know what I do and more, I'm sure) it's no different. I can explain to a person how illnesses work and how what they're doing won't keep them from getting sick, yet despite this sound reasoning that can be backed by research papers and countless experiments the average person will either not believe me or will continue what they were doing before regardless. Following things based on feeling or because it's habitual - religion is very similar to that, I think. Very few are willing to examine their beliefs and possibly make changes, especially when the subject matter isn't tangible.

I can understand your frustrations with the common person's interpretation of religion. The common person takes what is spoon-fed to them from their local religious authority and doesn't think on it much - at least, this is the sense that I get. Yet if you delve into the religion yourself you'll find that it can be interpreted quite differently from the norm. This doesn't make it any more justifiable, but it may help you to overcome your resentment of religion that seems to be stemming from the fact that people are mindlessly just passing on a message.

Destroying religion will probably only occur once humans are off the face of the Earth. Religion began with ancestors, who are related to people of today, thus a connection between that.

I don't believe that religion will be destroyed. Even when humans leave the Earth, they'll be coming from us. If you send off a group of athiests who never mention God to their children, their children will invent God. Think back to history - what culture didn't have its gods, its God, or its spirits of worship? None. You will probably argue that this is because those people didn't have science or the knowledge that we have now, but I don't think that would thwart religious notions. There will always be things that we don't understand and can't explain, and we tend to wonder about the supernatural during those times.

It is built into the human brain - there is a region that stimulates religious notions. This region becomes active when people undergo trances during religious ceremonies, and when stimulated by impulses the religious begin to see Jesus or other religious symbols while the non-religious report feeling like there is a greater presence around them. Does this explain away religion or religious sightings? No, it doesn't. While one could argue that this is the source of religious notions and that everything was nothing more than a figment of the imagination, one could also argue that it only makes sense for the Creator of humanity to have put in a special region so that He could contact us.

Is that ridiculous? If you think it is, perhaps you've bought into the notion that God is essentially magic. What if God weren't magic - what if God can't materialize out of thin air? However, if God could stimulate a part of your brain and appear to you in a vision, that certainly seems rather practical.

I don't particularly believe that, but I think it's an interesting notion. It also shows how nothing is particularly definite in this area.

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I can't agree with the first and last parts of your paragraph. People naturally bought into it because they didn't know any better? We know more now, true, but what makes you think that our reasoning skills are any better? I've never met anyone from that time period so I have no evidence to refute you, but I have certainly encountered my share of ignorant people even in the "information age" that we live in. Having a mix of ignorant and intellecutuals - I don't believe that it was any different back then.

Who says the human brain hasn't developed more?

However, with no proof of that, I didn't really mean to say "reasoning skills". I mixed it up with conclusions that we draw since we now have more to draw from. Sorry that's my bad of not straightening out my thoughts. Haxing a mix of ignorant, those who just don't get it, and intellectuals is more like it. Ignorance is easily corrected, stupidity is not as you know.

I am not sure if it was any different, who knows what happened back than. Nothing here than, just running into a brick wall for this idea.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It probably feels like that to most people. To me (and to those who know what I do and more, I'm sure) it's no different. I can explain to a person how illnesses work and how what they're doing won't keep them from getting sick, yet despite this sound reasoning that can be backed by research papers and countless experiments the average person will either not believe me or will continue what they were doing before regardless. Following things based on feeling or because it's habitual - religion is very similar to that, I think. Very few are willing to examine their beliefs and possibly make changes, especially when the subject matter isn't tangible.

You can connect the dots for almost anything with a somewhat valid argument. I don't think the "average person" cares about themselves than.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I can understand your frustrations with the common person's interpretation of religion. The common person takes what is spoon-fed to them from their local religious authority and doesn't think on it much - at least, this is the sense that I get. Yet if you delve into the religion yourself you'll find that it can be interpreted quite differently from the norm. This doesn't make it any more justifiable, but it may help you to overcome your resentment of religion that seems to be stemming from the fact that people are mindlessly just passing on a message.

Normally stereotypes are based on the majority. In this case, it's based on those who are bible thumpers, I do realize that but since it is a common thought I feel that I can use it as a valid argument although it is clearly false. Not on here though .

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't believe that religion will be destroyed. Even when humans leave the Earth, they'll be coming from us. If you send off a group of athiests who never mention God to their children, their children will invent God. Think back to history - what culture didn't have its gods, its God, or its spirits of worship? None. You will probably argue that this is because those people didn't have science or the knowledge that we have now, but I don't think that would thwart religious notions. There will always be things that we don't understand and can't explain, and we tend to wonder about the supernatural during those times.

We're not on the same track. I meant completely ELIMINATED from Earth, other planets, the universe, EVERYWHERE.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It is built into the human brain - there is a region that stimulates religious notions. This region becomes active when people undergo trances during religious ceremonies, and when stimulated by impulses the religious begin to see Jesus or other religious symbols while the non-religious report feeling like there is a greater presence around them. Does this explain away religion or religious sightings? No, it doesn't. While one could argue that this is the source of religious notions and that everything was nothing more than a figment of the imagination, one could also argue that it only makes sense for the Creator of humanity to have put in a special region so that He could contact us.

Dating back to some of my first posts in this thread. The original creator[s] of religion are genius. Way to connect the dots for those people and/or societies. Is it really religious notions per se, or something a lot general. Such as, that region being stimulated by CERTAIN things that just happen to HAPPEN during said notions?

Religion makes sense because it was made to make sense. Who on Earth would believe something they just hear? The ignorant. Even today we choose to connect those dots because people will generally have some knowledge of the bible and god and all that. It's implanted into every single person's brain as of now, nothing can possibly said to disprove this. There will always be a LINK somewhere to something RELIGIOUS because we are BUILT AROUND religion, therefore it is only logical we would have RELIGIOUS things around a place BUILT AROUND religion. What a major restate, anyways...

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Is that ridiculous? If you think it is, perhaps you've bought into the notion that God is essentially magic. What if God weren't magic - what if God can't materialize out of thin air? However, if God could stimulate a part of your brain and appear to you in a vision, that certainly seems rather practical.

Assuming God exists, he must be very entertained to have this everlasting debate and laughing at people at me who deny his existance. Once again, something built around religion seems religious.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't particularly believe that, but I think it's an interesting notion. It also shows how nothing is particularly definite in this area.

Everything, if you think about it, is at least relatively undefined after all.

[thepainfulpain]

me im catholic

[Clarste]

Ah, the good old god debate. How I missed thee.

I'm technically agnostic because it's impossible to disprove god (or more generally spiritualism), but I lean strongly towards atheism because frankly religion itself seems kind of stupid. Er... I typed all these paragraphs out but then deleted them because they seemed too aggressive. I guess I really can't talk about religion without trying to insult it.

The kindest thing I can say about it is that it's unnecessary. The only nook it seems to have is to explain things that science hasn't managed to figure out yet, and even then its explanation aren't particularly useful or insightful. Sure, it's possible and people will always cling to that possibility but there's still no actual reason to believe it in the first place. No reliable evidence of any kind, etc etc.

I do wonder if a society unexposed to religion yet having access to the scientific method would create God. That's a very interesting question. I'm leaning towards no. Personally, I was brought up without religion (not indoctrinated in atheism, it just wasn't mentioned) and from my perspective the whole thing just looks crazy. It just makes no sense. Of course, I was brought up in a society that had religion, and I became aware of its existence at an early age, so I'm not exactly a control subject. Unfortunately the actual experiment itself would be pretty undoable, for ethical reasons as well as financial ones. And of course it would take many generations to generate results.

[WanderingKnight]

Does God exist? It's possible until proven otherwise.

Eh? No, sorry, God doesn't exist until I see proof of it. It's not having faith in science, it's using the scientific method. Great, so there is a hypothesis about how the world works under the magnificent hand of God. Where's the proof? What, that some guy said he heard God speak to him? That's no proof.

Hypothesis have to be contrasted with facts. Tested. God can't be tested. Thus, God doesn't exist until we can test its existence.

Likewise, white crows don't exist until I see proof of them (the "white crow" example has been used a lot in my epistemology classes (and no, no talking about albino crows please, it's just a silly example )).

[Vexx]

The usual example is the "orbiting teapot" theory. Hypothesize a teapot orbiting the solar system opposite the Sun from Earth at the same orbit.

I'll contest with WK to the point that the existence of God can be a hypothesis. You don't need *proof* -- you test for *failure*.

Any remarks I make after that are likely to sound like the epistemology noises from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Thentus

Who says the human brain hasn't developed more?

Neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists. It's possible, but unlikely. When we look at major structural changes in the brain along the line of humans and human ancestors we're examining time on the scale of tens of thousands of years, at least (going by memory; feel free to verify and get the correct numbers). If we're discussing the difference between when religion as we know it formed and now, you're looking at a bit over 2,000 years. It's an incredibly long time to be sure, but from an evoltionary standpoint it's a drop in the bucket.

Here's a question for you: who's to say that the human brain hasn't regressed? Human society did something interesting in that it removed traditional evolutionary pressures. As a result we now have dogs that are the size of your palm, cows that are essentially walking meat bags, and a host of other life that wouldn't survive outside of human society for very long. Human society has introduced its own selection pressures on these life forms.

Evolution isn't about what's better, it's about what reproduces more and spreads its genetics farther into time. Smarter humans came about and dominated because intelligence allowed us to have better rates of survival (and allowed us to dominate/wipe out other species - otherwise known as the competition). Then what? Better brain development doesn't just come about with each generation. Does society value intelligent people? Do intelligent people have more children than other people? Or are people like Britney Spears (no particular offense to her but she's been plastered all over tabloids recently) the idols of society, the aspiration of what most women want to be and what most men want to reproduce with? If that's the case and it stays that way for generations you may notice a trend toward physical features, but not much more. And in today's society where appearence doesn't necessarily reflect genetics, even that's a hard point to make.

Another important point is that brain development alone doesn't equate with reasoning abilities. It seems that it may be partly cultural as well. There was an interesting study performed where children from America and children from Africa or some Middle Eastern nation (can't remember but can find it if anyone's interested) were asked to sort objects in a hierarchy. The sorting methods were completely different, and initially people said that these American Caucasian children were superior, as they were sorting in a way that made sense to the American scientists running the study. The interesting part is that when the African children were told to sort the objects as if they were a foolish person, they sorted in the way that the American children did. Ah, relativity.

Ignorance is easily corrected, stupidity is not as you know.

Try it some time - when you discover a method that makes it easy, please let me know right away

You can connect the dots for almost anything with a somewhat valid argument. I don't think the "average person" cares about themselves than.

The point I was making is that people don't care for reasoning and logic, even when dealing with something reason-based such as science. It doesn't have to do with caring for themselves, but for human feeling and irrationality.

Dating back to some of my first posts in this thread. The original creator[s] of religion are genius. Way to connect the dots for those people and/or societies. Is it really religious notions per se, or something a lot general. Such as, that region being stimulated by CERTAIN things that just happen to HAPPEN during said notions?

One could say the same about many aspects of history, or almost any event that happened that we did not directly witness ourselves. I'd imagine that partly for that reason the idea of evolution is still under hot debate. Just keep in mind that if you're approaching religion and saying "I know what this is - a bunch of men created this to enslave people" then you have already reached your conclusion about religion. You can immerse yourself in religious study and detective work, but if you hold on to your conclusion you'll only ever be trying to connect the facts to support your conclusion.

Religion makes sense because it was made to make sense. Who on Earth would believe something they just hear? The ignorant. Even today we choose to connect those dots because people will generally have some knowledge of the bible and god and all that. It's implanted into every single person's brain as of now, nothing can possibly said to disprove this. There will always be a LINK somewhere to something RELIGIOUS because we are BUILT AROUND religion, therefore it is only logical we would have RELIGIOUS things around a place BUILT AROUND religion. What a major restate, anyways...

A lot of religion makes no sense, actually. Wine turning to blood? A fish that could barely feed one man somehow being enough to feed thousands? God turning rivers into blood? The Angel of Death coming and killing the first born son of every family unless there was lamb's blood on the door? That'd make for an awesome video game, let me tell you, but beyond that I don't see how it makes sense.

As Vexx pointed out it isn't the ignorant who believe this. Some people are indoctrinated into it. If you're born and grow up with religion always being there that doesn't make you ignorant. If you find some of the ideas interesting and even find them feasible it doesn't make you ignorant. Thentus you have admitted to not knowing religion much beyond what the stereotypical Church-goer follows, but there are more religions than that and there is more even to the major organized religions than that. Look into it and see for yourself. Read the actual documents, read various interpretations, and talk with different people about it. If you're going to maintain that religion was created by people in the past to control others or take advantage of them, though, then save yourself the time and don't bother. If you have a solidified conclusion you will not be open to understanding anything that goes outside of that.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Eh? No, sorry, God doesn't exist until I see proof of it. It's not having faith in science, it's using the scientific method. Great, so there is a hypothesis about how the world works under the magnificent hand of God. Where's the proof? What, that some guy said he heard God speak to him? That's no proof.

Hypothesis have to be contrasted with facts. Tested. God can't be tested. Thus, God doesn't exist until we can test its existence.

That seems rather subjective. By that reasoning couldn't one just as easily say that God exists until I see proof otherwise? The difference is in where your personal bias is - you are approaching this as "God doesn't exist, by default" whereas my counter example would be someone who believes that God does exist by default. In this case we can't reach an objective conclusion, although you stated yours.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That seems rather subjective. By that reasoning couldn't one just as easily say that God exists until I see proof otherwise? The difference is in where your personal bias is - you are approaching this as "God doesn't exist, by default" whereas my counter example would be someone who believes that God does exist by default. In this case we can't reach an objective conclusion, although you stated yours.

I think it's just fair to treat that God doesn't exist by default.
One can't argue against the fact that there is no credible evidence that God ever existed. Anything which lacks credible evidence of existing is just a product of people's over-active imagination.

As Wanderingknight has already stated, white crows don't exist until there is proof of them - it's the same situation with this so-called "God".

If you're going to say that God exists until someone proves he doesn't exist, then we might as well all believe that anime characters exist in real life. And they're just hidden somewhere on this planet, so there's just no proof YET that they exist in real life.

[WanderingKnight]

That seems rather subjective. By that reasoning couldn't one just as easily say that God exists until I see proof otherwise? The difference is in where your personal bias is - you are approaching this as "God doesn't exist, by default" whereas my counter example would be someone who believes that God does exist by default. In this case we can't reach an objective conclusion, although you stated yours.

Science is not about believing, science is about being able to test and corroborate hypotheses. I can believe in gravity hippos all I want but that doesn't change the fact that there's a hypothesis which covers gravity and is actually testable. God can't be tested by any stretch of imagination, thus any hypothesis presupposing his existence is not accountable as scientific by any means (and thus becomes an irrational belief).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

I think it's just fair to treat that God doesn't exist by default.
One can't argue against the fact that there is no credible evidence that God ever existed. Anything which lacks credible evidence of existing is just a product of people's over-active imagination.

I believe you're stating that out of personal bias. Before people knew that there were microscopic organisms (an idea that would have been laughed at, I'm sure) there were many beliefs about illness and food spoilage that I'm sure were perfectly rational at the time. Had people simply accepted those explanations and moved on we may not have had advancement in the area. Which leads to my next point:

If you're going to say that God exists until someone proves he doesn't exist, then we might as well all believe that anime characters exist in real life. And they're just hidden somewhere on this planet, so there's just no proof YET that they exist in real life.

I am not advocating a belief in God, I'm saying that you should not fool yourself into thinking that you're any more rational than a person who chooses to believe in God by disbelieving in God simply because there is no proof of God's existence. There may be proof of God's existence - there are historical accounts of miracles, there are modern-day tales of unexplainable miracles, but what are these? Are these real, and if so are they due to God or something else that we don't yet understand?

My main message here is that you can't say whether God exists or not. If you choose to believe that God doesn't exist, you're choosing to do so without evidence to disprove God. If you choose to believe that God exists, you are doing so without or with scant evidence to prove God's existence.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Science is not about believing, science is about being able to test and corroborate hypotheses. I can believe in gravity hippos all I want but that doesn't change the fact that there's a hypothesis which covers gravity and is actually testable. God can't be tested by any stretch of imagination, thus any hypothesis presupposing his existence is not accountable as scientific by any means (and thus becomes an irrational belief).

And before we had microscopes we had a hard time testing for the existence of microbial life, didn't we? We can't test for God, but that doesn't mean that God does or does not exist! If you choose to believe that God doesn't exist, you're believing - that's not science.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I believe you're stating that out of personal bias. Before people knew that there were microscopic organisms (an idea that would have been laughed at, I'm sure) there were many beliefs about illness and food spoilage that I'm sure were perfectly rational at the time. Had people simply accepted those explanations and moved on we may not have had advancement in the area. Which leads to my next point:.

And I'm believing you're saying that as a personal bias as well.
Because you believe in God. Kind of reminds me of the argument I had with a catholic nun sometime ago in my office.

Nun: "Without God you are nothing, all your possessions have been given to you by Him."
Me: "Oh, I'm not at all surprised to hear that from someone brainwashed in a monastery."

I am not advocating a belief in God, I'm saying that you should not fool yourself into thinking that you're any more rational than a person who chooses to believe in God by disbelieving in God simply because there is no proof of God's existence. There may be proof of God's existence - there are historical accounts of miracles, there are modern-day tales of unexplainable miracles, but what are these? Are these real, and if so are they due to God or something else that we don't yet understand?

Religion is something that is irrational, by choosing not to believe on something that is irrational I'm a fool? oh my...

You said it yourself there were historical accounts of "miracles" and miracles as Wikipedia defines: "Miracle is the action of a supernatural being" Which in itself is highly fallible proof because the existence of Supernatural beings themselves isn't proven yet.

Believing in a miracle just because you've read it happened somewhere? or because someone told you so?

Miracle = not credible evidence

My main message here is that you can't say whether God exists or not. If you choose to believe that God doesn't exist, you're choosing to do so without evidence to disprove God. If you choose to believe that God exists, you are doing so without or with scant evidence to prove God's existence.

"To see is to believe"

Not being here on this planet (lacking credible historical data of actual existance) is enough to disprove the existence of any supernatural or fictional being - God included.

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists. It's possible, but unlikely.

Are you comparing the development of the human brain, as a species, overtime to religion? Possible but unlikely.

Liddo, I agree with you.

Sorry that's all I can say right now, short on time.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

And I'm believing you're saying that as a personal bias as well.
Because you believe in God. Kind of reminds me of the argument I had with a catholic nun sometime ago in my office.

Nun: "Without God you are nothing, all your possessions have been given to you by Him."
Me: "Oh, I'm not at all surprised to hear that from someone brainwashed in a monastery."

I'm not Ledgem but rather than him trying to persuade you that God exists, I think he merely pointed out that whether "God does not exist until proven otherwise" or "There's a possibility that God exists until proven otherwise", instead of choosing to go with one or the other, it's perfectly well to consider the other possibility or embrace both principles.

So instead of becoming a believer or an atheist, be an agnostic, at least for a very little while. (That was partially untrue, but w/e )

His other point seems to be that what being perceived as rational nowadays does not completely mean that it's rational, much like rationalism in the past =/= rationalism for today. Even if that's a bit far-fetched, and that using the scientific methods developed nowadays are fundamental (and a lot more rational), it seems there are many ways to become a skeptic. Personally, I merely see it as, generally, the people of the past were on the far end of superstition, and people nowadays are on the far end of skepticism.

In any case I don't think he intended to call you a fool either.

Of course, I'm not perfectly sure I interpreted Ledgem correctly, so I'll take back anything he didn't mean to say (I just hope I wasn't completely off, though; this post will be useless otherwise. )

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

And I'm believing you're saying that as a personal bias as well.
Because you believe in God.

I identify with Jewish culture but in terms of religion I would technically be agnostic. You're free to believe what you like, but don't say that you're following science. Athiests are no better than the religious people that they often heckle - they're choosing to believe in something without evidence to back them, just like the religious folk. Saying "there's no evidence that God exists, so God doesn't exist" would be like me saying "there's no evidence that there's life on Mars, therefore there isn't life on Mars and never was" - it's jumping to an unfounded conclusion. The difference between God and life on Mars is that we have a pretty good idea of how to search for life and traces of it, but we don't really know where to begin searching for God.

Religion is something that is irrational, by choosing not to believe on something that is irrational I'm a fool? oh my...

tiachopvutru said it - I wasn't calling you a fool. I said don't fool yourself, meaning don't kid yourself, don't deceive yourself, don't lie to yourself. However your stating that I am disagreeing with you because I believe in God as well as interpreting that sentence to be an insult to you makes me wonder if you're trying to view me as some sort of enemy. I am not insulting your beliefs, nor the beliefs of the religious. I would just like to point out that you aren't basing anything on proof as you claim, but on your own beliefs.

Believing in a miracle just because you've read it happened somewhere? or because someone told you so?

Yeah, damn those history books, too - I bet George Washington never existed.

Miracle = not credible evidence

For the record, I did not state that I believed in miracles. There was a request for proof of God, and the accounts of miracles are one of the few things that exist. I'm going to second-guess a misread on your part, so read this: This doesn't mean that they actually happened or that they are true! We don't know whether they are true or not, or whether the accounts of them were metaphorical and/or misunderstood. Understand where I'm coming from - I'm stating that these are worth looking into before discarding. You're stating that they should be written off right away.

I am not trying to make anyone believe in God. I simply do not appreciate the haughty attitude of Athiests who feel that they are better than "people who believe in fairytales" and base their superiority on the belief that they are following reasoning, logic, and evidence. They are doing nothing of the sort and that is an outright lie. As I mentioned before, just as there is no evidence that God does exist there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. If you say that God doesn't exist and you are 100% sure of your belief, you are doing the exact same thing that a Christian who is 100% sure of God's existence is doing.

Not being here on this planet (lacking credible historical data of actual existance) is enough to disprove the existence of any supernatural or fictional being - God included.

Determining what is credible and what isn't is rather subjective. There may be evidence of existence but you're instantly writing it off. You're free to do so, but realize what you're doing and don't claim it to be science or based off of sound reasoning.

Originally Posted by tiachopvutru

Of course, I'm not perfectly sure I interpreted Ledgem correctly, so I'll take back anything he didn't mean to say (I just hope I wasn't completely off, though; this post will be useless otherwise. )

You have the correct idea, thank you for restating it clearly

[Evil Rick]

Catolic but I don't belive much in the church

[Anh_Minh]

About atheists vs theists:

It depends on what you believe. Sure, "there is no god" is no more rational than "there is a god". But it's much more so than "Through the power of prayer, you can cure cancer", or "there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god".

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

About atheists vs theists:

It depends on what you believe. Sure, "there is no god" is no more rational than "there is a god". But it's much more so than "Through the power of prayer, you can cure cancer", or "there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god".

Can't argue with that, but I suppose that's when skepticism comes in handy. Your example above is superstition to the excess, although some atheists tend to be skeptical to the excess as well. I can't agree with either, but there should be at least a believer and an atheist out there who follow the safe limit.

Wherever that line of "excess" may be is subjective, though...

However, that's probably why many people jump ship to atheists. Those claims most likely aren't true, people's lives (some) are better, and they are more knowledgable; I'm also not so sure how many people actually still believe them. That's not to imply whether or not God does exist, though.

[Clarste]

Well, it's relevant to note that just because there could be a god doesn't mean that it's a 50-50 chance or anything like that. Thinking rationally, the likelihood of there being a god is really, really, extraordinarily low compared to the likelihood of there being no god, based on current evidence.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Well, it's relevant to note that just because there could be a god doesn't mean that it's a 50-50 chance or anything like that. Thinking rationally, the likelihood of there being a god is really, really, extraordinarily low compared to the likelihood of there being no god, based on current evidence.

I see it more as 'the probability is not possible to estimated based on current evidence'.

I also wonder how well science and religion match each other, actually.

But meh, if God exists, I demand him/her/it/[w/e-pronoun] to reveal his/her/its/[w/e pronoun] existence. I wish God doesn't exist, though.