Why do/don't you believe in God?

[JemyM]

Good and evil are concepts that make no sense to me.

Many of the most "evil" acts in history was initiated by someone calling someone "evil".

 

[DArtagnan]

But DArtagnan... you cannot do anything with human nature, so why can you suggest that human nature can be a "problem"? Nature simply is what it is. The only real question is what to do, and that's where ideologies and religions come in.

Oh, I disagree entirely.

But I didn't say human nature is the problem, I'm saying YOU seem to have a problem with IT.

But I don't think our nature is static and unchanging - and though I don't necessarily believe in evolution as it has been described, I definitely think there's something similar going on and that we can learn from our past mistakes.

One problem with religions and even the ideologies of the 19th century is that they haven't got the insights we have today, thus they may sound attractive at a first glance, but when you begin to challenge it with stuff like psychology and anthropology (= our understanding of human nature), some of them really go blatantly wrong.

Again, it's the interpretation of religion and how it's been described by human beings that you don't agree with.

Should you exclude the existence of a god simply because you don't think much of the bible - as written by human beings?

Maybe God exists and they just got the details wrong?

How do we know communism is bad? Well, it's not that human nature is the problem. The real problem is that communism doesn't go well with human nature as it is. Thus communism is a tempting, romantic but lethally dysfunctional system, one that should be warned against, at least one should be well educated about it's result throughout history, so one can identify when and why it go wrong. If we do not use such experiences, we are little more than random animals, doomed to repeat mistakes over and over again. We humans have an unique capacity to learn about our ancestors mistakes, that's the reason we are kings of the animal kingdom (which also gives us great responsibility).

It seems we're going in circles. You concede that communism doesn't go well with human nature - but you simultaneously claim that human nature isn't the problem. Surely, it's at least HALF the problem?

You're looking at history and how human beings have been practising the ideas of communism and you're saying our nature isn't the problem.

I must say I disagree - and I think communism, like so many other systems, could work very well if we actually followed the ideals put forth.

Oh, and there are several reasons for us being "kings of the animal kingdom" - but that's for another discussion.

To sum up; Some ideas are very tempting to human nature, which is why it's in humanity's best interest to learn why those ideas doesn't work. That's why almost every child learn about Nazism so early on that Godwin's Law is a trained kneejerk reaction. Hitler is the Satan of our time, the villain that show how to not be, where one should never go, where one should begin to question himself if he begins to see signs that he's thinking like him.

Yeah, Hitler's nature was not beneficial as it turns out.

But that's not to say nazism was all bad - and we should remember that national socialism held plenty of interesting ideas that could have worked out under different circumstances. It's - again - not necessarily the ideas that are wrong, but our interpretation and ways of putting them into practice. Hitler wasn't exactly the ideal human being as most people see it, and his ways of practising nazism - as his (and that of others) "version" of national socialism - probably wasn't what the originators had in mind when formulating the ideas.

Just like I loathe capitalism as it's being put into practice today - especially in the US. But I certainly see the sense behind the system and how it would have worked pretty damn well if it wasn't so good at facilitating destructive and selfish human behavior.

I'd claim that no system could ever survive, in a remotely pure form, human nature as it is today - and as such, maybe we shouldn't be looking at the systems at all.

 

[DArtagnan]

Many of the most "evil" acts in history was initiated by someone calling someone "evil".

A gross simplification.

 

[Rithrandil]

Should you exclude the existence of a god simply because you don't think much of the bible - as written by human beings?

Maybe God exists and they just got the details wrong?

What about lack of scientific evidence for a god?

But that's not to say nazism was all bad - and we should remember that national socialism held plenty of interesting ideas that could have worked out under different circumstances. It's - again - not necessarily the ideas that are wrong, but our interpretation and ways of putting them into practice. Hitler wasn't exactly the ideal human being as most people see it, and his ways of practising nazism - as his (and that of others) "version" of national socialism - probably wasn't what the originators had in mind when formulating the ideas.

Uh, Hitler and Anton Drexler established the tenants of national socialism, Point #4 of which was: "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race."
So no, I'm pretty sure Hitler was enacting the national socialist dream as he originated it.

 

[JemyM]

Are you claiming that your hostility towards religion, Christianity in particular, has nothing to do with your personal experiences? That it's all a product of cool, calm ratiocination? If so, you're seriously in need of some self-examination. "Know thyself," that sort of thing.

I have done so. You see, most of my current criticism on why some particular ideologies doesn't work is related to recent studies, accompanied with heavy self-examination. Had you asked me ten years ago I would first not had even known about half the things I criticize today. I would also not be able to offer any thought through arguments for my convictions, I would instead reply to any challenge with emotions and frustration.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant when I said that religions themselves are morally neutral -- they become whatever we make of them.

You are thereby suggesting she's doing beneficial actions, because that is what she makes of her religion. I would say she's doing beneficial actions because she's motivated by her empathy. I see no link between her doing beneficial actions and the original teachings of the religion. Had there been a such link I would have actually became disappointed, because that would mean she isn't driven by her humanity, her empathy, her compassion, but is instead acting to get special benefits from an authority.

Why do you believe that religion=good implies no-religion=bad? That doesn't make any more sense to me than claiming that apples=good implies oranges=bad.

It isn't about sense, but about how our brains work. The less amount of information we have, the better we are to see things in black or white. If you think that Christianity is about "not killing, not stealing, not lying", it's a natural conclusion to say that not being a Christian means killing, stealing or lying. I see that logic all the time. Don't tell me you haven't.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

If you think that Christianity is about "not killing, not stealing, not lying", it's a natural conclusion to say that not being a Christian means killing, stealing or lying.

Sounds like what that Baptist pastor of Rith would say.

 

[Squeek]

We come into this world with whatever we've got, starting off wherever we're at, and think and feel our way through it all, but I believe there's something else at the root of each and every one of our lives that connects us to God.

There are memories of it, of being immersed in nothing but it, deep inside all of us, I think, and they're beautiful. Every now and then one of us will connect with them. And whenever we do, words fail, because it's something that's simpler and purer than anything we have words to describe.

I caught a fleeting glimpse of my own memory of it once, and I would call it hope, an anticipation of life, one with astonishingly high expectations. I was startled, because I wasn't in any way looking for it. And it was clearly a memory that was older than I was, the realization of which came as a shock.

 

[Prime Junta]

You are thereby suggesting she's doing beneficial actions, because that is what she makes of her religion. I would say she's doing beneficial actions because she's motivated by her empathy. I see no link between her doing beneficial actions and the original teachings of the religion. Had there been a such link I would have actually became disappointed, because that would mean she isn't driven by her humanity, her empathy, her compassion, but is instead acting to get special benefits from an authority.

Exactly: religion is morally neutral. She took it, and used it to give shape and form and structure to what she did. Just like the Crusaders took it and used it to give shape and form and structure to something altogether different.

It isn't about sense, but about how our brains work. The less amount of information we have, the better we are to see things in black or white. If you think that Christianity is about "not killing, not stealing, not lying", it's a natural conclusion to say that not being a Christian means killing, stealing or lying. I see that logic all the time. Don't tell me you haven't.

Of course I have. Just like I've seen "no-religion=good, therefore religion=bad." Which makes exactly as little sense to me.

 

[DArtagnan]

What about lack of scientific evidence for a god?

What about it?

What about the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise, for the non-existence of a god?

Uh, Hitler and Anton Drexler established the tenants of national socialism, Point #4 of which was: "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race."
So no, I'm pretty sure Hitler was enacting the national socialist dream as he originated it.

Several people were involved in the ideas that ultimately combined into nazism - but I doubt many imagined the extremes to which Hitler took the racial aspects - which I concede was a big part of his contribution to the overall ideology. But even so, I don't think most proponents of racial superiority imagined murdering millions of jews, end-lösung style.

Hitler certainly didn't originate the ideas of national socialism all by himself, and claiming that he did is ignorance. Much of it is based on fascism that, in turn, is based on ideas going all the way back to the renaissance, and probably even earlier than that.

Anyway, my basic point is that ideas isn't - by far - the same as what human beings manage to do with those ideas.

 

[Rithrandil]

What about the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise, for the non-existence of a god?

Doesn't mean both ideas are likely, and in fact the existence of a god is more improbable. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Invisible pink elephants? The celestial teapot? You can't disprove that I am actually Jesus Christ returned, so are you going to accept that as fact?

Throwing the idea of a "god" into the mix does nothing to solve any scientific issues (and in fact creates several larger ones).

Several people were involved in the ideas that ultimately combined into nazism - but I doubt many imagined the extremes to which Hitler took the racial aspects - which I concede was a big part of his contribution the overall ideology. But even so, I don't think most proponents of racial superiority imagined murdering millions of jews, end-lösung style.

Hitler certainly didn't originate the ideas of national socialism all by himself, and claiming that he did is ignorance. Much of it is based on fascism that, in turn, is based on ideas going all the way back to the renaissance, and probably even earlier than that.

He didn't, but claiming he took an interesting idea and abused it is even more ignorant. Some ideas are just bad and wrong.

 

[Kostas]

I was mostly covered by JemyM and PJ but generally this question doesn't make more sense than "Why do/don't you believe in Santa?"

Of course I have. Just like I've seen "no-religion=good, therefore religion=bad." Which makes exactly as little sense to me.

Actually that makes more sense because there's enough proof tha religion can be bad(Crusades,Terrorists etc)

What about the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise, for the non-existence of a god?

Does that really makes sense?
-You're saying that God/Santa exists
-I'm saying that there's no evidence God/Santa exists
-You're saying that there's no evidence God/Santa does not exist.
I think that argument is pretty weak.

 

[Prime Junta]

Actually that makes more sense because there's enough proof tha religion can be bad(Crusades,Terrorists etc)

There's similar "proof" to be found that no-religion can be bad. Mobs do bad shit. They find ways to explain it to themselves. Your country, your race, your honor, your religion -- makes no difference. Patriotism can be the glue that stops tribes from fighting each other and brings peace -- or the poison that makes the nation go to war against its neighbor. Religion can be the structure that motivates one person to stay off the sauce and help others get off it, or the structure that pushes another one to blow himself up in a crowd.

It's what we make of it -- just like nationalism, football, alcohol, food, or any other human activity.

And that's really all I have to say on the topic.

 

[DArtagnan]

Doesn't mean both ideas are likely, and in fact the existence of a god is more improbable. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Invisible pink elephants? The celestial teapot? You can't disprove that I am actually Jesus Christ returned, so are you going to accept that as fact?

Throwing the idea of a "god" into the mix does nothing to solve any scientific issues (and in fact creates several larger ones).

I'm an agnostic - I don't accept much at all as fact.

But because science has no evidence to support the existence of a god, doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. Especially since science is incomplete and essentially just assumptions based on possibly flawed knowledge.

You talk as if science is all there is - which is amusing given the fact that even scientists acknowledge how little of the universe we understand.

Science is, basically, just a bunch of theories that seem likely until they're disproven or adjusted. I don't know how many "truths" have been "corrected" over the years - but we're talking about more than a handful

He didn't, but claiming he took an interesting idea and abused it is even more ignorant. Some ideas are just bad and wrong.

I didn't say he took one interesting idea and abused it - I said his version of the ideology isn't the only one.

By the way, it's not ignorant it's a fact.

 

[coyote]

Regarding religion: compared to what I read here, my own case is spectacularly unspectacular. I grew up in an atheist family in a socialist state, had religion classes in school 'in the west' after my family fled, even took one of four high school graduation exams in religion, not because I was spiritually enlightened, but because I was fascinated with world religions and their ideas about ethics from a philosophical point of view.

My other big interest was science, and I practically devoured (text-)books on particle physics and astronomy well before I entered university. I never got around to reading the Bible. In fact, devout christians discounting all other religions or the absence of one as unworthy and false have an aura of arrogance to me. History is full of examples of zealous devotion: people got killed because they could not bring themselves to believe in the Ancient Gods of the Greeks and the Romans, they were murdered because they did not follow the tenets of Christianity or Islam, and always there are those who think that their insignificant and temporary religion is the one truth and disbelievers deserve only worse than they get. This claim to absoluteness is not only thoroughly unscientific, it also prevents progress and, well, it stinks of arrogance.

That says nothing about moderate religion, though. It does not change the fact that many of the ethical aspects are at least worthy of thought, that religion can inspire people to do good. Maybe I am just an unlucky creature who was never touched by true spirituality. In any event, if there is an ultimate spiritual truth, I am convinced that God would not elect to choose a peculiar few and make them convert all others by force and cunning in order to disseminate it among humans. For that matter, I do not believe that humans are as special as they are made out to be.

Regarding the human nature: ideologies assuming an ideal human according to their own arbitrary definition will never work, because humans will always be diverse. It is therefore best not to attempt their implementation on a large scale, even if such a system might be preferable from some theoretical point of view because everyone can be happy. A good social system accounts for the diversity in human nature, and achieves a good compromise even if not everyone will live in perfect bliss. Lamenting the fact that humans are not ideal is pointless, but on average, it should be possible to improve human nature in a continuous society, since our character is to some extend defined by the society we grow up in. Maybe this is even easier with global communication, because people tend to look up to a charismatic few. If they lead by good example, others are likely to follow. Unfortunately, it works in either direction.

 

[DArtagnan]

Does that really makes sense?
-You're saying that God/Santa exists
-I'm saying that there's no evidence God/Santa exists
-You're saying that there's no evidence God/Santa does not exist.
I think that argument is pretty weak.

No, I'm not saying Santa exists. I'm saying you can't prove he doesn't exist - and you can't.

You're saying I can't prove Santa exists, and I can't.

Both arguments might be silly and useless - which is why I would never use them in a discussion unless someone brought one of them up first.

It's essentially to demonstrate the value of both arguments, which is pretty slim.

 

[Rithrandil]

I'm an agnostic - I don't accept much at all as fact.

But because science has no evidence to support the existence of a god, doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. Especially since science is incomplete and essentially just assumptions based on possibly flawed knowledge.

You talk as if science is all there is - which is amusing given the fact that even scientists acknowledge how little of the universe we understand.

Science is, basically, just a bunch of theories that seem likely until they're disproven or adjusted. I don't know how many "truths" have been "corrected" over the years - but we're talking about more than a handful

And none of that disproves what I am arguing about. In face of the evidence we have, there being a creator god is less likely then there not being a creator god. That's why I like science, by the way, because it changes and parts of it are proven wrong and updated. And science is the best tool we have for understanding the universe. And it's given us far, far better things then religion has.

I didn't say he took one interesting idea and abused it - I said his version of the ideology isn't the only one.

By the way, it's not ignorant it's a fact.

But that's not to say nazism was all bad - and we should remember that national socialism held plenty of interesting ideas that could have worked out under different circumstances. It's - again - not necessarily the ideas that are wrong, but our interpretation and ways of putting them into practice. Hitler wasn't exactly the ideal human being as most people see it, and his ways of practising nazism - as his (and that of others) "version" of national socialism - probably wasn't what the originators had in mind when formulating the ideas.

Enlighten me on these good points of national socialism, please. Hitler's version of it was dominant even in the 1920s.

 

[Rithrandil]

No, I'm not saying Santa exists. I'm saying you can't prove he doesn't exist - and you can't.

You're saying I can't prove Santa exists, and I can't.

Both arguments might be silly and useless - which is why I would never use them in a discussion unless someone brought one of them up first.

It's essentially to demonstrate the value of both arguments, which is pretty slim.

But what is more likely? That a magical fat man can use flying reindeer to visit every house in the world in one night and leave presents behind, or that parents put presents there from "Santa" and eat the milk and cookies?

 

[DArtagnan]

But what is more likely? That a magical fat man can use flying reindeer to visit every house in the world in one night and leave presents behind, or that parents put presents there from "Santa" and eat the milk and cookies?

It was revealed to me that my parents bought and placed the presents, so I don't have a reason to suspect any other source.

That doesn't really relate to anything useful - unfortunately, because Santa doesn't represent the entirety of the unknown.

You might as well take a red apple that's gone bad and claim that all fruit in the world must conclusively be bad.

 

[Rithrandil]

It was revealed to me that my parents bought and placed the presents, so I don't have a reason to suspect any other source.

That doesn't really relate to anything useful - unfortunately, because Santa doesn't represent the entirety of the unknown.

Of course it relates to something useful. There are a lot of things we don't know, so we base our beliefs and decisions off of what we DO know. And all the evidence we have NOW says that it is unlikely there is a god. In the 1600s or 1700s, this would be the opposite. It'd be much harder to be an atheist/agnostic in those days. Like Richard Dawkins said, "technically speaking" he is an agnostic, but he is a practical atheist; until it's proven to exist he'll operate on the assumption that it doesn't. How is this a faulty assumption?

You might as well take a red apple that's gone bad and claim that all fruit in the world must conclusively be bad.

If you had never seen any other apples in your life it'd be a reasonable conclusion with the evidence available to you at the time.

 

[DArtagnan]

Of course it relates to something useful. There are a lot of things we don't know, so we base our beliefs and decisions off of what we DO know. And all the evidence we have NOW says that it is unlikely there is a god. In the 1600s or 1700s, this would be the opposite. It'd be much harder to be an atheist/agnostic in those days. Like Richard Dawkins said, "technically speaking" he is an agnostic, but he is a practical atheist; until it's proven to exist he'll operate on the assumption that it doesn't. How is this a faulty assumption?

No, there's nothing that makes it unlikely that there is a god. Maybe you're referring to a god as it's been described in a certain religion. I'm talking about ANY kind of god - or ANY kind of power greater than ourselves.

Imagine a god that created everything, including science, and decided that proof of his existence was irrelevant or even unwanted.

You see? It's pointless trying to use science as proof against such possibilities. I just don't know, and I can't know - it's obvious to me that no one can know unless they've experienced something profound that I haven't. But I don't interfere with the beliefs of others - that's their business.

If you want to use science as some kind of universal guide to truth, then I'll leave you to it.

If some guy assumes there isn't a god because he hasn't experienced proof - then so be it. Why would I think that's a faulty assumption? It's simply not an assumption I would make, personally.

If you had never seen any other apples in your life it'd be a reasonable conclusion with the evidence available to you at the time.

If Santa is an apple that I've seen, then I've seen all fruit in this analogy.