Are you capable of believing in God?
IT IS NOT.
It is reason vs. the unreasonable.
How can a reasonable person take any of the organized religions seriously? They all have their bases in social influence and collective delusions. Christianity in particular is nothing more than a collection of hokey stories of questionable origin and dubious moral character.
The fraud I loathe the most is this claim of some sort of persecution from the hands of the atheists. How's pointing one's lifetime of ignorance and servitude a persecution?
And also the claim that either side couldn't possibly know the truth. I don't have all the answers. But I know for sure that I don't want the wrong answers, regardless of how comforting they may be to some.
Finally I leave you with some food for thought: what is the difference between the major religions and Scientology? Answer: centuries of history. The former are socially acceptable, and the latter is mostly not. All have had the same origin: one charismatic dude with a power trip. Most crash and burn (David Koresh?) and some stick around for 2000 years.
I am not debating religion. I offer respect. Please respect my belief in God as I respect your beliefs. Neither my belief nor your belief is unreasonable---the universe hides too many secrets to disallow diverse beliefs. This was a thread asking us if we were capable of believing in God, and I answered truthfully. I am not debating your beliefs. Thank you.
_________________
"My journey has just begun."
Last edited by glider18 on 17 Sep 2010, 7:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
MONKEY
Veteran
Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)
I am sort of capable, because I used to believe in god when I was a young kid. But when I was 10 I changed my mind and I do not think I will ever believe in god again, it just doesn't make any sense to believe in a supernatural power, especially one that looks like a man because humanity as we know it today has only been part of the earth for a veeeeeery short time. And religious belief is only 10,000 years old and a result of our own brains and the way they evolved. And since the universe goes on for infinity with all those different glalaxies and other phenomenon I don't think even the most perfect of god could create it all, it's just too vast. The idea of a god owning all of this infinite vastness just doesn't seem at all plausible. I know there are many mysteries like how did the big bang happen or how did the chemicals in the earth become organic, but I'm not willing to just place god in the gaps that's just laziness. I'd rather accept it as the amazing mystery that it is and not just say "god did it" just to make my life easier. And creationism doesn't make any sense either, and I don't understand why creationists get so worked up and outraged at the idea that life evolved from simpler life forms and that they themselves are an evolved species. I think it's a wonderful way to look at the world because every living thing is related in some way or another and it's taken all those millions and millions of years to get to where we are and it's going to keep changing for as long as the earth exists. But just saying that some supernatural man made it all himself is really lame.
_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.
I must be capable because I do believe in God. When I was a kid, though, from about 6 or 7 onward, I was basically an atheist. But something happened when I was 19 that made me realize that there was no way in the world there could be no God & I have firmly believed ever since.
_________________
?Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.? _Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss)
Very well put.
I'm sorry that this thread upset you, truly, but I don't find it to be hateful at all. There are a lot of interesting points being made.
I am an atheist and in the broader culture we are vilified and made to feel less than human. I have to agree with Meadow that while people who are non-believers are expected to apologize for their views in case they might offend believers, it's never the other way around. Believers are the majority in society. No one ever expects believers to apologize to atheists for offending them with their intransigent point of view, or even for making doomsday threats about what will happen to us in the afterlife.
I find this thread comforting because many of the points made seem to me to be reasonable and reasoned. It's a breath of fresh air from what we have to hear out in the broader society.
I'm going to zone in on that word "capable". I find relationships difficult to understand. I had parents that didn't notice my needs, parents who love me, but who still don't quite get my needs because they are both autistic and sometimes through no fault of their own don't quiet get things. So I find it difficult to believe in a God who is interested in me as a person. I am capable of believing in a God. I have done for a long time. However, I like to read about how people feel that God has helped them and I like to read verses in the bible about how he cares for us, so that I can try and understand how he does care. However, I think that I may not be able to fully capable of understanding how much he cares and I do at times question whether he does. But then I am my own worst enemy and it's not his fault that I get into situations where I get myself emotionally hurt.
I have myself wondered if some people are just not capable of believing. Not because of external influences or what people have threatened them with if they don't believe, but becaues of their neurology.
Try this:
Fundamentalists ... did not attack evolutionary theory so much for its own sake as for the threat it posed to social conventions and mores. Fundamentalists approached evolution in the same way they did higher criticism of the Bible. They postulated a direct and necessary link between faith (their brand of conservative Protestant evangelicalism) and morals, and then proceeded to demonstrate that evolutionary theory destroyed both. ... A constant theme of J. Frank Norris’s during the 1920s was that evolution theory destroyed faith. “Evolution,” he declared, “has our schools by the throat ... destroying the faith of our young people in the faith of our Fathers.
For fundamentalists, Christian faith was impossible without a corresponding affirmation of the inerrant truth of the Bible. Because evolutionary theory posited a “nonbiblical” understanding of the origin of life, particularly human life, the fundamentalists could and did use their entire arsenal of biblical inerrancy rhetoric against it. And like their inerrancy rhetoric, the attack on evolution functioned to reinforce conventional Victorian gender ideology and roles.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/01/e ... -women.htm
The god question. Oy vay!
The problem is that the questions surrounding god and faith do not submit to empirical analysis. Empiricism can only be applied to questions that can be empirically answered. So a question like "how many people believe in god?" can be answered empirically but a question such as "why do people delude themselves about the existence of god when there is no god?" cannot be empirically answered because it assume the non-existence of god which cannot be proven.
If you are truly a materialist, keyed in on rationalism, then you cannot even question the existence or non-existence of god as there is no empirical way of answering the question. It falls outside the realm of answerable questions.
I am fascinated that it is so easy to ask questions that do not submit to empiricism. What does that say about language (including mathematics) and its capacity for describing reality? Is it fundamentally limited? If so, then what else exists that our language is incapable of describing? Are there things that we can experience which NO language can adequately describe? If so, is it necessary to experience these things to be fully human? And you should notice that these last two questions would be very difficult to answer empirically.
FluffyDog
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 639
Location: The rainiest part of Germany
Well, I don't think you have to believe that the Bible is literally true to be religious. Here in Germany schools mostly teach a way of reading the Bible that tries to restore some of the original, historical context. Like trying to understand what went on in the minds of the people who wrote it and why they chose to phrase their beliefs just so.
That said, I am the scientific type myself. I believe that the Bible holds some very valuable truths, but I do not believe, for example, that something as complex as an entire planet with all its surrounding celestial bodies AND all kinds of life inhabiting it can be made from scratch in a mere seven days and not be buggy as hell.
I don't think I believe in God as a person. I believe there is something out there that has established the order of the universe at some point and now helps to keep the whole thing running. There are just too many things fitting each other too well to attribute it all to blind coincidence.
Even while I believe in evolution, I can still find a place for my God-concept. Life itself is still a rather foggy concept to me and I reckon that some higher structuring principle must have helped to bring along something as complicated as the famous "spark of live", not to mention arranging all the major constants in nature so that that life could come to blossom and diversify.
Now, curiously enough with what I have just written, I still believe in Jesus as a person. I think that he really lived and that he tried to teach people how to get on with other. About the supposed miracles he worked, I am not sure, but I have no proof in the negative, so I just go along with these.
I do not believe in the Old Testament's "Eye-for-an-Eye"-policy, but I wholeheartedly indentifiy with Jesus teachings of treating other people with love and respect.
