Thread: Why do you believe in God?

Originally posted by Haz2004
I'm a born atheist so i don't really believe in God. It's because how could there be such a being the universe, all matter and particles and stuff, plus scientist have also shown and proven how the solar system has formed and stuff, so how could God have made it?
Sorry if i offended some ppl out there.
Please post ure thoughts aswell!

you were BORN with certain beliefs? :

How do you know it's a good estimate? How do you know it's not a terrible estimate?[/b]

[list]SETI is a respected research organization.
The numbers presented seem accurate, but you're welcome to check them.
I don't know for certain. Estimates, by definition, are usually rough and theoretical numbers and are not always completely accurate. They are based on empirical data.[list]
You can go ahead and do research yourself, of course. Come to your own conclusions.

I've seen Drake's Equation on a Discovery channel program discussing whether life could evolve with intelligence on other planets; it's not necessarily a new concept.

Originally posted by Xisdence+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xisdence)</div>

Originally posted by CT@
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

I'm atheist.

+1.

-1=0[/b]

78^5*sin = -0.95105651629515357211643933337938.

The athiests raised an excellent point.

That point being, the univers is really really big. And, of those minimun of ten-thousand life-forms, don't you think that one of them could possible be what we would equate to God? I wonder what the odds that somewhere in the universe is God are.
that's my two more cents.

pyrhho

Originally posted by Paperdoll EP

you were BORN with certain beliefs? :

Sure he was! Everyone's born with a lack of belief, which is what atheism is. Some people just keep it

I kept it

-spoon

I don't know for certain. [/b]

Exactly

Estimates, by definition, are usually rough and theoretical numbers and are not always completely accurate.[/b]

Exactly.

In this case we have virtually no data to base our estimate on. We know of 1 inhabited planet, so estimating how many others ther might be is guesswork. Estimates are not always completely accurate, sometimes they aren't even vaguely accurate - how can you be sure this is?

You can go ahead and do research yourself, of course.[/b]

I could, but I don't see what it would achieve. I belive you when you say your sources are based on logic and reason, but an estimate is still an estimate.

I've seen Drake's Equation on a Discovery channel program [/b]

Well it must be true if it was on TV!!

I don't disagree with you about the likelyhood of life on other planets, but I think you're treating evidence as fact. My point really is that the only way to tell if an estimate is good is by comparing it to the true answer 'after the fact' - this is something we cannot yet do so we have no way to know if it's a good estimate or a terrible one.

What ever way you look at it this estimate is conjecture.

Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Paperdoll EP

you were BORN with certain beliefs? :

Sure he was! Everyone's born with a lack of belief, which is what atheism is. Some people just keep it

I kept it

-spoon[/b]

Seems I lost that pretty fast then. Even as a young child I was fascinated by the spiritual and the miracles of the universe. I wasnt raised religiously(my mother is an atheist more or less and I never knew my father), so thats a choice I made myself. And I continued developing my own believes, just by following my heart so I dont think your born with a lack of belief. Just like any other belief you probably develop it over time..however, you might have more potential to tend towards a certain kind of belief system..dont know about that one

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

you were BORN with certain beliefs? :[/b]

Sure he was! Everyone's born with a lack of belief, which is what atheism is.[/b][/quote]

Surely being born with certain beliefs is a different thing than being born with a lack of beliefs? Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism isn't just a passive lack of belief, it's a absolute belief that there isn't a god, right?

Well it must be true if it was on TV!! [/b]

I believe you misread. Directly after that quoted statement I said it is not a new concept. I never based whether it were true or not on me seeing it on television, only the popularity amongst scientists; who, by the way, study these planet-sun-life relationships as a career.

Please try to keep the ridiculous and completely out of context comments to a minimum.

I could, but I don't see what it would achieve.[/b]

You don't see how enlightening yourself would achieve anything useful? Or determining whether what someone says is true or not? You don't have to believe anything I say - or anyone for that matter. Unfortunately, I don't make decisions for you.

but I think you're treating evidence as fact. [/b]

Hardly. Merely pointing out that quite a few intellectuals believe that there is a high probability that life has developed beyond our solar system, contrary to what Ame stated.

this is something we cannot yet do so we have no way to know if it's a good estimate or a terrible one. [/b]

This conjecture, as you call it, is based on evidence that we can study - such as the distance of a planet from the sun in a solar system. It is something we can see in a round-about way. We can study it with numbers and data. You're right, until we see something that proves the numbers, the theory will remain just that. Much like the theory of relativity. Or the evolutionary theory.

Please try to keep the ridiculous and completely out of context comments to a minimum.[/b]

My appologies if it was taken this way, it was meant to be lighthearted.

You don't see how enlightening yourself would achieve anything useful? [/b]

To clarify, I don't see how studying the numbers would lead me anywhere that others have not been. I have also read a little about these theories and I trust that they are doing their jobs properly.

quite a few intellectuals believe that there is a high probability[/b]

This conjecture, as you call it, is based on evidence that we can study - such as the distance of a planet from the sun in a solar system. It is something we can see in a round-about way. We can study it with numbers and data. You're right, until we see something that proves the numbers, the theory will remain just that. Much like the theory of relativity. Or the evolutionary theory.[/b]

I stand by my original statement.

Originally posted by Yogi Bare
Surely being born with certain beliefs is a different thing than being born with a lack of beliefs? Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism isn't just a passive lack of belief, it's a absolute belief that there isn't a god, right?

Well, sort of. Theres a few "types" (for lack of a better word) of atheism, "weak" and "strong". But they don't exactly fit into those categories.

Weak atheism is that passive lack of belief, the absence of the belief in any god. Doesn't claim anything about specific gods, doesn't have to (afaik the burden of proof is on the people making the claim of existance). Weak atheism (I've been told) is the majority camp. I'd guess most people, upon coming to the descision that thier local god is false - just don't really care! It'd become just like anything else you used to believe in. But theres a lot of emotional baggage that comes along with belief(or losing that belief) so some people decide to take the strong Atheist position.

Strong atheism is not seperate from weak (rather it builds off it) and involves actively denying the existance of a particular god (or gods). I wouldn't say that people can 100% deny any god, for instance I would have a hard time finding much to support/negate a deist god (a god that created the universe, the "first cause", and abandonded it). People are generally strong atheists to well defined gods. And yes, because strong atheists claim to know something that proves the lack of a particular god, they have the burden of proof to support thier claims.

Yeah, you'd think there would be a simple definition wouldn't you? I'd say that atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, it doesn't need to go any further than that. I don't believe in leprechauns either, would I be a strong or weak a-leprechaunist ? See how rediculous it is? Oh well, I guess we like to define things.

What I was saying above about everyone being an atheist at birth is the "weak atheist" position (the default position on everything I guess). I'd guess at some point you'd get exposed to beliefs (or come up with them on your own) that you would either:

a) ignore (and stay the default "weak atheist")
B) believe (buh-bye atheism)
or c) actively claim is false (helloooo "strong")

I did c) for some gods , with a healthy mix of a) for the rest.

-spoon (hmmm... did I make sense....)

Good post Spoon, makes perfect sense to me.

BTW I'm a 'weak a-Leprichaunist' lol

Let me throw this out there. Let's take one thing: the Bible. It is the fundamental tool by which Christians have found their faith today. Some people say that it was just written by random, biased people, but scripture (don't shake your head at me) says that "All scripture is God-breathed" meaning that the authors of the bible were directed under devine inspiration (and just a tidbit, the word inspire and breathe come from the same root). Anyway, if you believe the Bible to be truth then you believe in the existence of God. If you don't believe the bible then you "make God out to be a liar and the truth is not in Him."

Now, scientists and archeologists have found evidence that points to the validity of the bible. In practically every ancient culture there has been a story about a world-wide flood. There is archeological evidence that points towards the existance of this flood, which in destroying most of the earth's population, probably also wiped out a good number of animal species (including dinosaurs). The Bible mentions dinosaurs, too, in case you didn't know, as it talks about "leviathans" and other great creatures. The actual word "dinosaur" didn't become used until Darwin's time, also.

Also, take the prophecy of the Old Testament. I don't know the exact number of prophecies that Christ fulfilled, but the chances of even 10 of them coming to be in any one person is astounding. There have been personal accounts of people who met Christ (namely the first 4 gospels of the New Testament), even stating explicitly that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people after he rose from the dead.

The Bible is a facinating work and there is so much in it! I believe from the evidence I've learned (unfortunately most details forgotten) and the validity of scripture is enough for me.

-Amé

Personally, I'm an agnostic. I think it's a little stupid to try and say that there is or isn't a God if there's no way to definitively prove it. Though I tend to lean closer to the atheist side rather than the theist, as atheist seems a little more reasonable.

Someone mentioned 0% chance of afterlife if you don't believe in God. Well, not if you believe in reincarnation, or some other type of afterlife other than heaven/paradise-style.

I would respond to the other actual mor eimportant comments in this thread, but I'm lazy, and you can probably respond better than me...

Oh, but about proff of a world-wide flood possibly killing the dinosaurs. Haven't archaeologists and scientists already proved that humans weren't in existence at the time of dinosaurs? So there's possibly a bit of contradicting stuff there.

Originally posted by Raylin
Oh, but about proff of a world-wide flood possibly killing the dinosaurs. Haven't archaeologists and scientists already proved that humans weren't in existence at the time of dinosaurs? So there's possibly a bit of contradicting stuff there.

Scientists have not proven that humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time. There are samples of rocks where human footprints and animal (ie. dinosaur) footprints are next to each other. I'm open to the idea that humans probably didn't live in the same exact places as these huge, gigantic creatures (I wonder why), and didn't come along until later. That's just my understanding.

-Amé

How did they prove the flood any more than that?

I suppose it would be possible for humans and dinosaurs to coexist but never actually meet, seeing as the world is so large, but the species population would've been relatively small compared with the species population today.

The other thing I find hard about the flood, and if the bible was true about that, what about Noah's Ark? I find it hard to believe that that long ago, they could've built a boat strong enough to withstand a world-wide flood, and heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights, even if all the humans built it together, not just 1 family. And of course, if it wasn't true, how did humans survive if they existed at this time?

Scientists, those fantastic, durable rubber polyester things now available at your local wal-mart. Anyway, let's see if I can make a very nice, well structed post. Probably not, this late at night, but I'll have a stab.

The Bible
Is a book - well, a bunch of books, I believe it's 52 or 62, something in that region anyway. There's two parts to it, the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have no idea what the difference is between the both. I've never read the bible.

Archbishop Ussher
Was a Christian bloke, around from 1581 to 1656. He got a copy of the bible, and somehow - I think it was by adding up the ages of all the people in the bible, or something - reached the date in which creation happened. I read this in a little "Horrible History" book of mine, as an intresting bit of trivia - wether or not this claim has been debunked, or wether it's true, well, goodness knows.

Anyway, he date he arrived at was 4004BC. That is to say, creation happened on 4004BC. Now we know the Earth's been around for about 4.5 billion (4.5×10[9]) years, so there's a very big gap there, where an awful lot could of happened, like evolution.

*shrug*. Just an intresting bit of trivia that somebody can probably debunk, but oh well.

^^^

Yep, I remember reading that. (I guess handsome, intelligent people read horrible history )

Old testament: Used in both Christianity and Judaism I think. It's just about all the stuff that happened before Jesus, involving a lot of stories and stuff. Includes genesis.

New Testament: Mainly about Jesus, his teachings, the teachings of Christianity. Used only by Christianity.

Originally posted by Raylin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Raylin)</div>

How did they prove the flood any more than that?[/b]

As I think I mentioned, I've forgotten a lot of details over the years, but I know there's more out there. I'll have to talk to someone I know and try to get back to that.

<!--QuoteBegin-Raylin
The other thing I find hard about the flood, and if the bible was true about that, what about Noah's Ark? I find it hard to believe that that long ago, they could've built a boat strong enough to withstand a world-wide flood, and heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights, even if all the humans built it together, not just 1 family.

It wasn't just 1 family who built the boat... It was one man, Noah. It didn't just take him a couple of years, but if I recall correctly, it took him 40 years of ppl telling him he was crazy. He was given directions on how to build the boat and what the dimensions would be and it's written in the old Testament. Also, consider boats that were used in the past to travel the world on numerous explorations. Those took a lot longer than a mere 40 days yet they held up quite well most of the time. People also lived a lot longer in Noah's day and so he had time to build it.

Okay, gotta go. Further stuff will have to come tomorrow.

-Amé

Sorry, last time I read about Noah's Ark was from a not very descriptive children's book when I was about 6.

Still, I think that 40 days of continuous rain, probably very heavy if it's going to flood the world, on a boat back then would've done a lot of damage. And what about the animals? Surely 2 of each animal would cause a lot of damage. They'd probably tyr to eat each other too.

Originally posted by Amethyst Star

Now, scientists and archeologists have found evidence that points to the validity of the bible. In practically every ancient culture there has been a story about a world-wide flood. There is archeological evidence that points towards the existance of this flood, which in destroying most of the earth's population, probably also wiped out a good number of animal species (including dinosaurs). The Bible mentions dinosaurs, too, in case you didn't know, as it talks about \"leviathans\" and other great creatures. The actual word \"dinosaur\" didn't become used until Darwin's time, also.

Wouldn't ancient cultures writing about a flood kind of be evidence against it? How could they write if they were underwater and whatnot? Sure you find mention of a flood in other writings (epic of gilgamesh for example) but all that's evidence is that there are floods! For people's such as the babylonians or chinese to exist to write those stories calls the bible's version into question doesn't it?

And about the dinosaur/man footprints, got any sources?

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon
Wouldn't ancient cultures writing about a flood kind of be evidence against it? How could they write if they were underwater and whatnot? Sure you find mention of a flood in other writings (epic of gilgamesh for example) but all that's evidence is that there are floods! For people's such as the babylonians or chinese to exist to write those stories calls the bible's version into question doesn't it?

um, not really. in the Biblical account, Noah had kids, and his kids had kids, etc. Then eventually they got together and built the Tower of Babel as a defiance against God. Anyway, God was like "umm no". and basically made each family speak a different language, and the tower never got finished, cause they all scattered.

I don't believe in god, I'm an atheist.

God/Hell/Satan/ excuses for wrong thingsin life