How do people still belive in God?

Handsome Bob

SoupyNorman wrote: »

'John 3:16' is it not supposed to be?

kjl wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:7_%28sign%29

Ye are both wrong lads, it's actually this. :pac:

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

Nothing wrong with atheists worrying about what other people believe when it's ingrained into our education system, when it's ingrained into families so much that a couple of posters in A&A were thrown out of the house after "coming out", when it's so worked into *everything*..

You have a point there. A point I'd readily agree with. I was referring more directly to a common poster type on boards who continually puts religion down as holding mankind back etc, so the obvious solution would be to show how mankind could be so much better without religion. I'd love to go to the A&A forum to see suggestions for how an atheistic society could jump forward dragging mankind forward etc.... yet this seems to be notably missing in favour of exploring the ills of religion.

It's getting laughable at this stage. There's already a post on the Irishman on the Moon AH thread that without religion man would already be on Mars by now :pac:. It's a standard answer to everything now.

bluewolf wrote: »

I have no patience for people insulting intelligence but I imagine there are many atheists who would be happy to live and let live if their theist friends would do the same.

True. There are also many atheists (and theists) who seem to thrive on the opposite. These people should be sidelined so the rest of us can get on living and letting live.

Craptacular

bluewolf wrote: »

I imagine there are many atheists who would be happy to live and let live if their theist friends would do the same.

All the atheists I know spend their time trying to convert believers, usually with bullying and/or condescension. I've never seen the believers I know try to force their belief on anyone.

Handsome Bob

Is it just me or does the idea of people being thrown out of their house for being atheists sound comical?

Ush1

Craptacular wrote: »

All the atheists I know spend their time trying to convert believers, usually with bullying and/or condescension. I've never seen the believers I know try to force their belief on anyone.

Every "believer" I talk to, claims what they believe is the truth and what I believe is wrong. I think that's totally fair enough, but if you're going to proclaim what you say as the truth, back it up or keep schtum.

prinz

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Is it just me or does the idea of people being thrown out of their house for being atheists sound comical?

Reminds me of the quote from The Big Lebowski.... "Nihilists! F*** me. Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

thebigbiffo

orourkeda wrote: »

The problem isnt necessarily with the religion though. Isnt it as much a problem that it's practitioners sometimes break their religions rules to suit their own ends.

Everyone likes to cherrypick the nice parts and display a tendency to shirk some of the religious responsibilities that they may have.

the way i look at the quote is that it's a matter of there being no god at all, just a moral code we use to our own ends. the boy prays for a bike forever and doesn't get one. he then realises that stealing one is easier - and god will automatically forgive him.

religion is used as a pacifier of our conscience, there is nothing tangible in religion. i believe religion does not teach us right from wrong, we know that already from a stable, moral upbringing - it's just there to help us balance our emotions and conscience

Raiser

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Is it just me or does the idea of people being thrown out of their house for being atheists sound comical?

I wasn't thrown out of the House but I did have to suffer many, many hours of Mass attendance against my will growing up.

- There's nothing that focusses the mind more keenly on the absurd levels of nonsense involved in these Ceremonies than having to sit reluctantly in the midst of it all on a very regular basis observing and marvelling at each nonsensical, farcical detail as it is proudly trotted out and held up to subsequently fail in the light of logical, reasonable and critical evaluation.

If I feel obliged to attend now for the sake of a Wedding, or Funeral etc. my skin crawls and I choke on the atmosphere within - Most especially because in my opinion any very high proportion of the devout within any Church have minimal real good intentions towards their fellow Man and are more interested in their own selfish notions of salvation or sating whatever appetite that exists Humankind that can only be fed by regular servings of Religious practice.

krudler

orourkeda wrote: »

This man doesnt answer all other questions.

He performs a stand up routine in which he offers his opinion on religion.

You may agree with what he has to say but to say he knows better than people who believe in god is unwise.

But he speaks logically, which is more than most religous types can say about themselves. I'll sleep happily knowing there isnt some boogeyman deity watching over me in case I touch myself (thats a priests job) and you can worry if you're doing the right thing to please your invisible overseer, everybody wins

theg81der

Krudler you`re mixing up God and religion. They are not the same thing!

krudler

theg81der wrote: »

Krudler you`re mixing up God and religion. They are not the same thing!

sure arent we all christians?

prinz

Not the only thing either tbh. I don't go around worrying about doing the right thing to please my "invisible overseer/boogeyman deity".

TheBunk1

"And when we die
Oh will we be that disappointed or sad
If heaven doesn't exist
What will we have missed?
This life is the best we've ever had"

Magical lyrics that sum up my attitude to the whole situation

orourkeda

krudler wrote: »

But he speaks logically, which is more than most religous types can say about themselves. I'll sleep happily knowing there isnt some boogeyman deity watching over me in case I touch myself (thats a priests job) and you can worry if you're doing the right thing to please your invisible overseer, everybody wins

But speaking logically doesnt necessarily make him correct. Again nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god as things stand at the moment and on this basis alone surely the logic is flawed.

On one hand you've chastised people with religious beliefs for not speaking logically then you've said that it's a priests job to touch people up. Are this and the fact that you dont feel the need to worry about god if you feel the urge to touch yourself justifications for non belief in god.

(I've not stated what my stance on religion is so lets not jump to conclusions. )

orourkeda

TheBunk1 wrote: »

"And when we die
Oh will we be that disappointed or sad
If heaven doesn't exist
What will we have missed?
This life is the best we've ever had"

Magical lyrics that sum up my attitude to the whole situation

Indeed. We'll just have to wait until we die to find out what happens

Ush1

orourkeda wrote: »

But speaking logically doesnt necessarily make him correct. Again nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god as things stand at the moment.

On one hand you've chastised people with religious beliefs for not speaking logically then you've said that it's a priests job to touch people up. Are this and the fact that you dont feel the need to worry about god if you feel the urge to touch yourself justifications for non belief in god.

(I've not stated what my stance on religion is so lets not jump to conclusions. )

It makes him logical, reasonable and rational.

o1s1n

Craptacular wrote: »

All the atheists I know spend their time trying to convert believers, usually with bullying and/or condescension. I've never seen the believers I know try to force their belief on anyone.

Convert believers to what though? Athiests aren't trying to convert you to anything.

Any athiests I know who are very vocal about it are just tring to debunk whatever religion a person might be going on about. It's not the same thing as a religious person trying to force beliefs on you. (Which I have experienced many times)

prinz

o1s1n wrote: »

It's not the same thing as a religious person trying to force beliefs on you. (Which I have experienced many times)

Actually it is. Both people are trying to get you to share an idea what they hold to be true, no difference in a JW telling you to think the same way they do and an atheist telling you to do likewise.

orourkeda

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the way i look at the quote is that it's a matter of there being no god at all, just a moral code we use to our own ends. the boy prays for a bike forever and doesn't get one. he then realises that stealing one is easier - and god will automatically forgive him.

religion is used as a pacifier of our conscience, there is nothing tangible in religion. i believe religion does not teach us right from wrong, we know that already from a stable, moral upbringing - it's just there to help us balance our emotions and conscience

But cant a persons moral or ethical code be influenced by their adherence to religion too.

Surely this would lend credence to the argument that sometimes there is something tangible in a religious belief or upbringing.

rossie1977

nbrady20009 wrote: »

Multiple accounts would have you believe that Jesus did exist: http://www.carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

Do your research before you make offensive topics.

yes there is evidence for a jesus like figure around that time, there are multiple accounts of people claiming to be the messiah or son of god outside of the bible itself (unlike moses and the jews in eqypt of which there is no evidence outside the bible).

a lot of historians claim that Apollonius of Tyana was the jesus written about in the bible, the similiarties are striking, he lived between 50 and 100 AD, his followers claimed he healed the sick, raised the dead, was able to walk through walls :eek: was persecuted for his religious beliefs, brought to trial by the romans, was crucified, ascended to heaven and came back where his followers saw him

orourkeda

Ush1 wrote: »

It makes him logical, reasonable and rational.

According to you.

But not necessarily correct. It's just a statement of belief in the non existence of god. Not a statement of fact.

Ush1

prinz wrote: »

Actually it is. Both people are trying to get you to share an idea what they hold to be true, no difference in a JW telling you to think the same way they do and an atheist telling you to do likewise.

You mean converting you to thinking along the lines of logic and science?

See, most Theists have no choice but to accept science anyway. Science works you see. Planes fly, the cars they drive move and work. This is all thanks to science.

o1s1n

prinz wrote: »

Actually it is. Both people are trying to get you to share an idea what they hold to be true, no difference in a JW telling you to think the same way they do and an atheist telling you to do likewise.

One person is using logic, reasoning and science. Things we can test. It's not what they 'feel' or something they 'just know'. It's not a specific belief. It's the world, science and everything around us.

The other is using an old book based on magical beings we can't see.

It's not the same.

orourkeda

o1s1n wrote: »

One person is using logic, reasoning and science. Things we can test. It's not what they 'feel' or something they 'just know'. It's not a specific belief. It's the world, science and everything around us.

The other is using an old book based on magical beings we can't see.

It's not the same.

Can science prove the existence of a god?

Has the person using all this wonderful logic and science got a greater insight into the existence of a god or higher being.

Craptacular

o1s1n wrote: »

Any athiests I know who are very vocal about it are just tring to debunk whatever religion a person might be going on about.

Well why don't they just mind their own business? (Unless the religious people are trying to convert them of course.)

I blame Dawkins and that loathsome self promoter Hitchens for popularising the idea that it's OK to bring up religion just to feel superior by poking holes in it. I've only ever seen atheists start conversations on religion and usually it's based on reading the latest book by one of the aforementioned. (Well done, you read a book, now can we go back to talking about whatever we were talking about before you went off on one?)

orourkeda

Craptacular wrote: »

Well why don't they just mind their own business? (Unless the religious people are trying to convert them of course.)

I blame Dawkins and that loathsome self promoter Hitchens for popularising the idea that it's OK to bring up religion just to feel superior by poking holes in it. I've only ever seen atheists start conversations on religion and usually it's based on reading the latest book by one of the aforementioned. (Well done, you read a book, now can we go back to talking about whatever we were talking about before you went off on one?)

But its so easy for them to regurgitate someone elses work.

Ush1

orourkeda wrote: »

According to you.

But not necessarily correct. It's just a statement of belief in the non existence of god. Not a statement of fact.

No, not according to me, according to science. The principles of how rational people and society governs itself.

Apple Butt

I BELIVE IN FAIRYS

prinz

o1s1n wrote: »

One person is using logic, reasoning and science. Things we can test. It's not what they 'feel' or something they 'just know'. It's not a specific belief. It's the world, science and everything around us. The other is using an old book based on magical beings we can't see.It's not the same.

So it's exactly the same, the only difference is what these people are trying to get you to accept.

genericguy

orourkeda wrote: »

According to you.

But not necessarily correct. It's just a statement of belief in the non existence of god. Not a statement of fact.

using logic to state one's non-belief in something lends far more credence to their argument than the old "it just is" argument presented by the religious.