How sure are you of your belief/non-belief in a god?

[Risso]

God isn't real. He told me.

I hope you're doubting the existence of Clive the Chimp.....

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Clive has feelings like the rest of us you know.

What a chimp.

[chrisp65]

Fascinating that there are so many threads on and around this subject on this messageboard, for the same old group to consistently trot out all the God! Show me magic taunts and wittisisms every time it comes around.

For what its worth, yeah, I believe in God.

I also believe in ever developing science, I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Proof the universe is really big, the world is round, some jesuit priests are kiddy fiddlers, babboons have affairs and an octopus can learn stuff is all great. Doesn't prove or disprove anything though.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in catholicism, or Greek orthodoxy, or Henry the **** eighths variation on a theme. Those tend to be self interested translations of versions of older accounts and translations and versions. Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

[tonyh29]

4 would seem the sensible answer , however as im 100% sure it will never happen it has to be 3

I mean what's God been doing all this time if it's 4 .. watching Top gear re-runs on Dave ?

[Brumerican]

Fascinating that there are so many threads on and around this subject on this messageboard, for the same old group to consistently trot out all the God! Show me magic taunts and wittisisms every time it comes around.

For what its worth, yeah, I believe in God.

I also believe in ever developing science, I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Proof the universe is really big, the world is round, some jesuit priests are kiddy fiddlers, babboons have affairs and an octopus can learn stuff is all great. Doesn't prove or disprove anything though.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in catholicism, or Greek orthodoxy, or Henry the **** eighths variation on a theme. Those tend to be self interested translations of versions of older accounts and translations and versions. Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

You can be a nice human being without having to subscribe to any form of dogma . Especially dogma written by far less knowledgeable, superstitious men. I also don't see why people are fascinated when a thread like this appears either. This particular subject has fascinated mankind for a very long time so I dont know why people would find it strange that people might want to talk about it now and again.

[TheDon]

I'm sure in my atheism to the same level that I'm sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Maybe the sun will disappear out the sky, and then I'll re-evaluate my position on the sun rising, but until that happens, the sun will rise, and there's no god.

100% certain doesn't mean that your blind to change, that concept is pretty messed up. It just means that based on your current set of knowledge there is no way that it could be true.

Based on my current set of knowledge there's no chance that the sun won't rise, no chance that a ball that's dropped won't hit the floor, no chance that there's a god, and no chance small heath will ever win anything.

Something might happen that changes those though, statements of belief are only correct for the time in which they are made.

[Brumerican]

I believe the children are our future.

[TheDon]

Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

Why? When you take away everything other than the core tenents of a religion you are taking away the religion.

The idea to be good to each other is not a religious one, it is a question of morality and social survival. To say that morality has to be religiously enforced is to cheapen those who have morals. It's far better to be moral because you think it's right than because some god is telling you to. Which is the better man, he who gives to charity because he thinks he should, or he who gives to charity because he's told he should?

The entire concept of be good so you go to heaven as a reward is completely out of skew with the concept of morality. It turns selfless acts into entirely selfish ones, and anyone that follows a religious moral code is surely just ensuring they go to hell because they're living their life in an entirely selfish manner, they're only being good for their own gain. Or does religion not have to comply to logic? And it's ok to be selfish if god says you should be?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's healthy to be selfish.

It's also healthy to eat shell fish.

[villadude]

[Brumerican]

Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

Why? When you take away everything other than the core tenents of a religion you are taking away the religion.

The idea to be good to each other is not a religious one, it is a question of morality and social survival. To say that morality has to be religiously enforced is to cheapen those who have morals. It's far better to be moral because you think it's right than because some god is telling you to. Which is the better man, he who gives to charity because he thinks he should, or he who gives to charity because he's told he should?

The entire concept of be good so you go to heaven as a reward is completely out of skew with the concept of morality. It turns selfless acts into entirely selfish ones, and anyone that follows a religious moral code is surely just ensuring they go to hell because they're living their life in an entirely selfish manner, they're only being good for their own gain. Or does religion not have to comply to logic? And it's ok to be selfish if god says you should be?

Exactly. It is very hard for a theist to accept that a "good" atheist man has far higher morals than a "good" theist man. The whole notion of "morality can only come from God" is one of religions greatest lies. Believers have to perform the craziest mental gymnastics to validate their own beliefs.

[Risso]

Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

And why do you need to believe in a magic sky fairy to live your life like that? That's generally how I proceed through life, yet I think all religion and the belief in god is total arse biscuits.

[Wol.]

I've changed my mind, I now think humans are the most intelligent and supreme beings in the universe.

[chrisp65]

Surely you just cut it down to the core message, try and be good, sometimes you **** up, try and make amends. Treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them.

Why? When you take away everything other than the core tenents of a religion you are taking away the religion.

The idea to be good to each other is not a religious one, it is a question of morality and social survival. To say that morality has to be religiously enforced is to cheapen those who have morals. It's far better to be moral because you think it's right than because some god is telling you to. Which is the better man, he who gives to charity because he thinks he should, or he who gives to charity because he's told he should?

The entire concept of be good so you go to heaven as a reward is completely out of skew with the concept of morality. It turns selfless acts into entirely selfish ones, and anyone that follows a religious moral code is surely just ensuring they go to hell because they're living their life in an entirely selfish manner, they're only being good for their own gain. Or does religion not have to comply to logic? And it's ok to be selfish if god says you should be?

That'll teach me to enter a big G thread. I don't know if you have to be religious to believe in your own personal God? Genuinely not sure on that one, wouldn't personally mark myself down as religious. I think I tried to say I don't subscribe to a pre set list of mores chosen by some historic character that didn't like gayers or wanted more wives or whatever. I also don't believe in some hieronymous bosch version of hell. There is no hell for me, so I can chill out on that one. Anybody that is 'good' to ensure some insurance policy for their anticipated afterlife probably hasn't really grasped the point of the whole exercise.

Each to their own and get yourself comfy in your own skin.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I like to think we are being influenced in our evolution as a species by far older races of intelligent life via giant monoliths.

[Stevo985]

I have seen none of the religions provide any compelling evidence that "God" exists but on the other hand I have not seen any atheist provide any compelling evidence that "God" does not exist. Therefore, the only sensible option to me is to stay an agnostic until someone can provide some evidence either way.

I could claim that there is a giant blue tea pot balanced on the edge of a black hole hidden behind a star 60 billion light years away...No one can prove it does not exist yet I doubt many people are agnostic towards giant blue galactic tea pots ! The burden of proof lies with those making the assertion otherwise you could get away with making any fanciful claim.

But no-one believes in that giant teapot. If there were millions and millions of people who did believe in that giant teapot, wouldn't you think "Hmmm, maybe there's something in that"

Not saying I'm atheist or religious, just that argument has always pissed me off because it's rubbish.

Yeah but people ages ago even thought if you kept walking one way, you'd fall of the earth. We're talking about religions starting way, way back, un-educated people, no technology when something said could to be fair, easily or forced to be believed.

That doesn't change what I'm saying though.

Forget religion. If someone tomorrow said "Ben, there is a massive dog in space about to eat the sun" I'd tell them to **** right off.

However, if they showed me that millions, or even billions of people believed that to be true, then I'd think "Shit, maybe they're right, as unlikely as it sounds"

I wouldn't be sure until I'd seen some evidence for myself. But if a massive chunk of the Earth's population believed it, could you blame me for thinking they MIGHT (I emphasise MIGHT) be right?

Yeah but the reason so many believe it is because of the attitude your taking, if so many have believed it, it must be true sorta thing.

People still believe it now because so many people believed it before them or it runs in family and it can't be dis-proved (it can't be proved either but that doesn't stop people who believe thinking that)

Well that's kind of my point Joe.

That's exactly why I'm saying you can't compare someone being "agnostic" to the existence of God to someone being agnostic to the existence of a giant teapot.

Again, I am NOT saying there is a God, or that I am agnostic, or that I am part of the group of people I'm describing who think "If so many people believe it it must be true".

All I'm saying is that you can't use the argument of "well ifI said there's a (insert inanimate object here)a billion miles away in space you can't prove it exists" because they are not the same thing.

[Stevo985]

That doesn't change what I'm saying though.

Forget religion. If someone tomorrow said "Ben, there is a massive dog in space about to eat the sun" I'd tell them to **** right off.

However, if they showed me that millions, or even billions of people believed that to be true, then I'd think "Shit, maybe they're right, as unlikely as it sounds"

I wouldn't be sure until I'd seen some evidence for myself. But if a massive chunk of the Earth's population believed it, could you blame me for thinking they MIGHT (I emphasise MIGHT) be right?

No, I couldn't but Brum's points still supersede your own with regards to an argument dealing with existence. How many people belief something has no relevance to truth. That is the crux of the teapot argument.

Yes. but the amount of people believeing something would affect how acceptable the theory was, as I tried to outline with my dog scenario.

All I was saying was you can't compare the existence of a teapot with the existence of God. Doesn't matter if the two things are as unlikely or as likely as each other. The fact that millions of people believe one and not the other surely would explain why some people may be willing to accept that God MIGHT exist, but not a giant teapot.

This is a very strange argument. Is the moral of the story that people are gullible and it's not their fault?

No.

It is not an argument. I'm not defending anyone's view on God. I'm not agnostics and I'm not defending anyone being Agnostic. I'm merely saying that the "Spaghetti Monster" argument (or teapot in this case) is not valid, because they aren't the same thing.

[Brumerican]

Why are they not the same thing?

[Stevo985]

Because billions (or millions I don't have the stats) believe one and nnot the other.

Again, if you told me that a billion people believed this teapot to exist, then I'd probably reserve judgement until I'd investigated it myself, seen some evidence etc. That, in my opinion, would make it the same.

Again, please don't confuse yourself into thinking this is an argument for God existing. It isn't. I don't believe that. It's simply an argument as to why I believe the spaghetti monsterargument to not be a valid one.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

If the spaghetti monster had hundreds of years of opression and murder behind it, persecuting those who deny it, i reckon it'd have a fair few followers.