How do people still belive in God?

CCCP

Einhard wrote: »

Newton didn't find them incompatible, and I'd rather take my cues from him than you.

I agree science and religion are not compatible.
However science and a belief in God are.
There is a difference !

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton

kylith

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Science and religion CANNOT co-exist.

Why do religions make public that they have no problem with science, yet science, continually are motivated to disprove God. It seems, as far as religion is concerned, the game is up and they know it.

I would see it more that the more science teaches us the more it becomes obvious that there is no need for a god. Gods are man-made rather than vice-versa

CCCP

kylith wrote: »

I would see it more that the more science teaches us the more it becomes obvious that there is no need for a god. Gods are man-made rather than vice-versa

Actually many many scientists of note have expressed belief in God, including many Nobel Laureates.

I_AmThe_Walrus

Einhard wrote: »

Newton didn't find them incompatible, and I'd rather take my cues from him than you.

I think you would do better to take your cues from modern Science.

Newton was indeed religious, but so was every other person of reputation and distinction until such a time where there was less judicial pressure and more scientific support abandoning it.

Scanlas The 2nd

glorified g wrote: »

why does it bother you so much that people have faith? you dont . thats fine. but what would you gain form trying to convince someone that god does not exist. with all due respect OP i dont understand people like you.

When did the OP say it bothers him, it's a long thread, maybe I missed that post.

From what I can tell the OP is simply baffled that people in this day and age, when the world and universe is more understandable than ever, still believe in something as ridiculous as God.

I myself have my suspicions that it comes from a fear of uncertainty, pointlessness of life, the fact we are as insignificant as flies and a few other things. I also think the unfairness of life may have something to do with it.

Rezident

kjl wrote: »

I have been wondering recently how does anyone think god exists. Like I can understand when we were back in the stupid ages before we knew what we know now, but how does anyone with an iq over 10 still believe nowadays?

I was on Grafton street last Saturday and there were a bunch of guys holding the "John 3:7" signs, I decided to question them. I made a lot of valid points to them which they completely ignored and feed me a bunch of circular reasoning to prove they were right.

Can anyone here who still believes explain your justification

If the choice is:

A. God

or

B. Dawkins' - life spontaneously appeared

then I'd honestly have to go with A. Also, (in the interests of democracy) if it's all the billions of Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Shinto and all the other believers think God (maybe they know something we don't) versus what Dawkins calls a "100 billion billion to one" shot (life spontaneously appeared out of non-life) then I think it's just common sense to believe in God.

If there was a horse race, with only two horses, one that billions of people thought (but couldn't prove ) was going to win and the other horse had odds of 100 billion billion to-one, would you really bet your money on the 100 billion billion to one shot? If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

MagicMarker

Rezident wrote: »

If the choice is:

A. God

or

B. Dawkins' - life spontaneously appeared

then I'd honestly have to go with A. Also, (in the interests of democracy) if it's all the billions of Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Shinto and all the other believers think God (maybe they know something we don't) versus what Dawkins calls a "100 billion billion to one" shot (life spontaneously appeared out of non-life) then I think it's just common sense to believe in God.

If there was a horse race, with only two horses, one that billions of people thought (but couldn't prove ) was going to win and the other horse had odds of 100 billion billion to-one, would you really bet your money on the 100 billion billion to one shot? If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

Can you clarify what you mean by ''life''?

gbee

kylith wrote: »

I would see it more that the more science teaches us the more it becomes obvious that there is no need for a god. Gods are man-made rather than vice-versa

Whilst I agree with you, the more one understands the infinitely more fascinating it gets, and whilst we can certainly discount God as an active ingredient, not everyone can accommodate this as it often creates a void in their lives which becomes very uncomfortable for them.

Rezident

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean by ''life''?

It was Dawkin's quote, I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, whatever he meant by 'life' as a biologist. I'm not a biologist but I think we all know that life means living things as opposed to rocks and carbon and inanimate objects?

Hank Scorpio

World started somewhere/sometime

Someone created it, "God"

Dont no who he/she/it is though

Ush1

Rezident wrote: »

If the choice is:

A. God

or

B. Dawkins' - life spontaneously appeared

then I'd honestly have to go with A. Also, (in the interests of democracy) if it's all the billions of Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Shinto and all the other believers think God (maybe they know something we don't) versus what Dawkins calls a "100 billion billion to one" shot (life spontaneously appeared out of non-life) then I think it's just common sense to believe in God.

If there was a horse race, with only two horses, one that billions of people thought (but couldn't prove ) was going to win and the other horse had odds of 100 billion billion to-one, would you really bet your money on the 100 billion billion to one shot? If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

This is not what science says at all!!!

robinph

Rezident wrote: »

If there was a horse race, with only two horses, one that billions of people thought (but couldn't prove ) was going to win and the other horse had odds of 100 billion billion to-one, would you really bet your money on the 100 billion billion to one shot? If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

But one of the horses doesn't exist.

Davidius

Rezident wrote: »

If there was a horse race, with only two horses, one that billions of people thought (but couldn't prove ) was going to win and the other horse had odds of 100 billion billion to-one, would you really bet your money on the 100 billion billion to one shot? If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

Well if you consider a huge number of trials then it doesn't seem very unwise to bet that the horse that is unlikely to win in one trial will win at least once the over course of all those trials.

I_AmThe_Walrus

nuxxx wrote: »

World started somewhere/sometime

Someone created it, "God"

Dont no who he/she/it is though

First and foremost, religion is childish; that's why I dislike the word, "God".

Intelligent Design is the term known as the belief that an entity created the world. Intelligent Design can be disproved just as quickly.

If we don't understand something, why must we fill it with Intelligent Design by default?

CCCP

gbee wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you, the more one understands the infinitely more fascinating it gets, and whilst we can certainly discount God as an active ingredient, not everyone can accommodate this as it often creates a void in their lives which becomes very uncomfortable for them.

The opposite can also be true, As one begin to understand the universe more and more through modern science, it can lead people to believe there was a creator. Such as in the case of myself. Scholarly pursuits in the arts and Sciences have brought me to faith I never had before.

Rezident

Ush1 wrote: »

This is not what science says at all!!!

That is exactly what Dawkins says.

CCCP

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

First and foremost, religion is childish; that's why I dislike the word, "God".

Intelligent Design is the term known as the belief that an entity created the world. Intelligent Design can be disproved just as quickly.

If we don't understand something, why must we fill it with Intelligent Design by default?

I believe in God but not in intelligent design, wrap your head around that one
Your making a mistake by generalizing, Junking all god believers together.
IMHO intelligent design proponents, your average evangelical Christian, creationists etc are all wrong and believe what they are told to believe either through stupidity, lack of education or indoctrination/peer pressure.
However, I still believe in God.

Ush1

Rezident wrote: »

That is exactly what Dawkins says.

Where did Dawkins say life spontaneously appeared without an explanation?

kylith

gbee wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you, the more one understands the infinitely more fascinating it gets, and whilst we can certainly discount God as an active ingredient, not everyone can accommodate this as it often creates a void in their lives which becomes very uncomfortable for them.

I think you've put your finger on it for religious scientists. It may be not that they think currently unexplained phenomena are gods' work, but that they veer more to the 'comfort in times of strife' gods.

I_AmThe_Walrus

CCCP wrote: »

I believe in God but not in intelligent design, wrap your head around that one

I can't because it doesn't make sense. :pac:

MagicMarker

Rezident wrote: »

It was Dawkin's quote, I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, whatever he meant by 'life' as a biologist. I'm not a biologist but I think we all know that life means living things as opposed to rocks and carbon and inanimate objects?

Dawkins' says that a conservative number for the amount of planets in the Universe would be a billion billion. Supposing the odds of life forming of it's own accord were 1 in a billion, I think we'd all think that is quite absurd, yes? Well even so, that would statistically mean that life would have arisen on 1 BILLION planets, one of which is obviously Earth.

I must remind you that evolution is a fact.

So, before you so readily believe in God, why don't you make sure you know what you're talking about before you start throwing quotes around?

Ush1

What these threads are showing me more than anything, is how ignorant people are to science.

Things that actually have proof and are tangibly relevant in our lives, really suprising to me.

gbee

Rezident wrote: »

If so, you must really not want to believe in God, I think what we're seeing now is the natural backlash to all the religion that was forced on us in the past.

A reasonable argument, however, the 'life' experiment is ongoing across trillions of miles, trillions of star systems and we don't know how many others have life at any level.

Probably there have been trillions of trillions of experiments that all failed, but even today, somewhere the circumstances are just right for that spark of electricity to change molecules in a primordial soup and some day we will be their superior beings as we go to visit them.

Religion should be banned outright, pure and simple. Faith should have nothing to do with religion and IMO parents who bring their children up in a religion should face child abuse charges.

It's not that millions believe in a God around the World, in most cases THEY ARE FORCED to, up to quite recently I'd have had a visit from the inquisition and I'd disappear, women get beheaded in some countries ~you know that, so think, just how can they NOT.

The Bible belt of the USA would have you fed to the alligators after they pumped you full of bird-shot at close range.

Write a book about Islam and you might have a Jihad called upon you and your family ...

There are very few who have a choice, sadly, most will Baptise their children because it's tradition, then the girl will want to make her Communion and wear the dress and collect the money ~ try asking them if they did not believe?

Freedom, we don't live in a free world ~ but some of us are doing pretty OK.

I_AmThe_Walrus

'"God" is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.' - RD

Rezident

Davidius wrote: »

Well if you consider a huge number of trials then it doesn't seem very unwise to bet that the horse that is unlikely to win in one trial will win at least once over course of all those trials.

Yes the argument goes that the odds of life spontaneously appearing are 100 billion billion to one but if there are 100 billion billion planets then it must have happened on one. It's a clever arguement but I'm not convinced by it. It's like saying "it all happened over billions of years" to explain anything you want because anything could happen over billions of years right? It stretches our mental boundaries so much it's like trying to imagine writing down the number googolplex - it's hard to even conceive of because it pushes the limits of our understanding. If it doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense. Holy sh1t it's half six, I'm going to the pub, if anyone's in the barge later, i'm the blonde in the short sleeves white shirt you can poke me with a stick for beleiving in God Happy bank holiday weekend anyway!

Fighting Irish

alwaysadub wrote: »

Can you prove he doesn't exist?

can you prove the easter bunny doesn't exist?

I_AmThe_Walrus

To all the people who believe in God....

Don't you know that your belief is brainwashing you into submitting and sacrificing yourself into a world that "rewards" you for not understanding the truth?

CCCP

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

I can't because it doesn't make sense. :pac:

Its paradoxical to you because you have a very narrow and generalized view of what it is to believe in God.

I'm with science and the facts, evolution is a fact etc.
However I still believe in God, the driving force behind evolution.
Evolution however, is spontaneous and random, the fittest survive to pass on their genes, through this life is perfecting itself, it's how the kingdom of heaven is being built, eventually life will perfect itself and we will have heaven - a perfect state. I believe God intervenes in this process and can intervene upon request and prayer, I have experienced this many many times in my life.
It's all very simple and obvious.

none of you are true atheists, you all have an inherent sense of right and wrong in your hearts, this is the seed Jesus planted. its called love and you cant deny that no matter how atheistic you may feel, how cynical of faith, you will still be ruled by morals in your life, morals that are inbuilt, defy evolutionary logic, but are unavoidable. Only the greatest necessity or corruption of the mind would lead to someone acting against these morals.

For example - 2 people trapped on a desert island
Both are starving to death, both are atheist. one is strong and one is weak.
There is no evolutionary, logical or rational sense to the stronger atheist dying of hunger when he could eat the weaker.
Yet he most likely won't, there is very little chance that he will resort to such a deed.
why?
As an atheist there will be no repercussions for his actions in his belief system.
There would be no reason for guilt.

Yet he knows that he will feel guilty, that he will be committing an awful act, if he were to do such a thing.

why? because we are all subject to the laws of God and this sense is inbuilt and unavoidable. Deniable yes.

But all you atheists must ask yourselves, Why do I love my mother, why do I care for my friends.
What is the Logic or rational for risking myself to protect others.
Where in the scientific world does love come in?
why do I love and help others even when it causes me difficulty and suffering? and why, when I do avoid it, do I feel guilty?

There is a moral fiber that defies empirical reasoning.

The only way to reconcile this is to understand that Logic, reason and science are tools for understanding, navigating and improving our circumstance in the universe. A carpenter uses tools for his craft, but to turn those tools upon himself is foolish, as he knows his tools have a function and a use but there is life and reality above and beyond that function.

Just as there is God above and beyond the functions of the universe.

I understand this, and have experienced it in very real, and normal ways. therefore I believe in God.

Millicent

Ush1 wrote: »

What these threads are showing me more than anything, is how ignorant people are to science.

Things that actually have proof and are tangibly relevant in our lives, really suprising to me.

No they're not. I really don't get where you're getting that from. There have been a lot of people who believe in God here acknowledging the power and wisdom of science.

Millicent

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

To all the people who believe in God....

Don't you know that your belief is brainwashing you into submitting and sacrificing yourself into a world that "rewards" you for not understanding the truth?

Who says we need to know everything? Isn't your certainty brainwashing you into thinking you have all the answers?