Belief in God seems to be a natural inference. Atheists are very rare and usually have to be converted to atheism. The reason probably so many believe in God, is the alternative seems absurd. The thought of everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination. The philosopher Aristotle formalized the cosmological argument, but I think it's a natural understand most have at least on some level. It's not so much why we believe in a God, as why would anyone not? The God explanation for our existence just makes logical sense.
Seeing really doesn't tell us much about anything anyway. I've never seen electricity nor George Washington. Seeing is one small part of knowing things.
The problem if evil is solved by freewill. God has given man freedom for a limited time. He saw freedom as more important than preventing all evil and suffering. Personally I'm glad I'm not a robot, even if I have to suffer at the hands of other free agents.
37 comments
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one. And "evil" isn't a problem, it's a subjective concept. And don't argue otherwise, unless you can get me a teaspoon or a liter of evil as empirical evidence. Kthxbye.
Atheists are very rare and usually have to be converted to atheism. Actually, they have to be converted back from theism. Everyone's born an atheist and has to be taught their culture's religion, just like everyone's born naked and has to be taught to dress themselves. But just because everyone wears clothes doesn't make it natural.
1. People believe in your religion because you brainwash them as children to do so. Give them a choice early on and tell them there is a wide range of possibilities and not just one that is right and you will have children who aren't afraid to think against something that they have thought to be true all their lives. The church knows this which is why it insists on getting to children young with the guise of warding off the devil early on.
"everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination"
A universe "popping into existence for no reason" is more absurd than a omnipotent, omniscent God that popped into existence for no reason and then made the universe through an act of magical willpower? Sorry: if n is absurd, then n+1 is absurd and then some.n .
If you convert, you convert, anycase, to another religion. Let´s see, atheism is a new phenomenon for two reasons. One is that the men is a naturally religious man, one can´t use the mind 100%. Second, most atheist are not atheist per se. They just don´t want to follow any particular religion where they picture God in ways that only comply with INTERESTS.
Belief in God seems to be a natural inference.Okay I can almost accept this.
Atheists are very rare and usually have to be converted to atheism.
Really? last time I checked nearly 40% of my country was non-religious and something like 17% of the US is atheistic. Besides one does not convert to atheisim.
FOR THE LAST TIME ITS NOT A RELIGION!
The reason probably so many believe in God, is the alternative seems absurd. The thought of everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination.
Oh yes and some big sky-daddy waving his hand and making it so is much more sensible.
The philosopher Aristotle formalized the cosmological argument, but I think it's a natural understand most have at least on some level. It's not so much why we believe in a God, as why would anyone not? The God explanation for our existence just makes logical sense.
I dunno where the fuck you live but its not in the same universe as the rest of us.
Seeing really doesn't tell us much about anything anyway. I've never seen electricity nor George Washington. Seeing is one small part of knowing things.
Never seen electricity? Seriously WTF.
The problem if evil is solved by freewill. God has given man freedom for a limited time. He saw freedom as more important than preventing all evil and suffering. Personally I'm glad I'm not a robot, even if I have to suffer at the hands of other free agents."
Notice the "im glad im not a robot" part. You may not be but you sure as hell are trying to become one. I doubt you even comprehend the meaning of real suffering.
I see direct evidence of electricity whenever I switch on a light. I see direct evidence of George Washington when I visit Mount Vernon. I have never seen direct evidence of "God."
Well, there is an extant theory (Emile Durkheim) that any sufficiently large collection of people will tend to find some supernatural explanation for the synergy they can get going. I mean, cavemen weren't atheist, they were at least animist, and we find objects of worship in most archeological digs, wherever they were.
"Seeing really doesn't tell us much about anything anyway. I've never seen electricity nor George Washington." lightning? That's a ridiculously sheltered existence -- or just a foolish lie. My money's on the latter. (I love it: He claims to have no reason to believe that electricity exists -- in a post on the freaking INTERNET .)
And while you've never seen George Washington, have you ever seen George Bush? I don't mean just the images of him in the newspapers or on that magic picture box that runs on alleged electricity, but have you seen him personally ?
If not, why should you believe he exists? Because all the myriad photos and telecasts and books and articles concerning him constitute evidence for his existence, just as paintings and written documentations of all sorts constitute evidence for George Washington, and working electric devices constitute evidence for electricity (even if you had never directly observed so much as a spark of static in your life). Pull your head out of your nearly-solipsistic rectum, grow up, and face the world as it IS.
~David D.G.
@Matilde
Let´s see, atheism is a new phenomenon for two reasons. One is that the men is a naturally religious man one can´t use the mind 100%.
You don't use 100% at any one time, but you do use your entire brain in different tasks.
Second most atheist are not atheist per se. They just don´t want to follow any particular religion where they picture God in ways that only comply with INTERESTS.
Not true. If you are not a member of a religion doesn't mean that you do not believe in god. Atheism isn't about not being happy about a religion, but about not believing god exists.
Glazius : "So, in that sense, belief in God is a natural inference. "Calminian : "The problem if evil is solved by freewill. "
That's often said, but I don't see it. Like many other theodicies, heaven seems to just fuck the whole thing up. For example: the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. It makes some sense, but heaven is better, right? If there is a heaven, then this can't be the best of all possible worlds. That theodicy == fatally screwed!
Now, in heaven, is there free will? If there is free will in heaven, then we can see God; get feedback, like clear rewards and punishments, from God; and be transformed by God, yet still retain our free will. If this can all happen in heaven, yet we still maintain our free will, then the expense you're trying to justify doesn't seem to exist. God can act, dish out his justice in the moment, and we still have free will. So, where the hell is He? Why is there still evil?
What if there is no free will in heaven? Well, then, why does God value free will so much that He'd put up with all the evil in the world to preserve it?--just to throw it away !
Belief in God seems to be a natural inference. The thought of everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination.
Then how are we supposed to believe a being even more complex than the universe itself can "pop" into existence for no reason without a cause? (If you respond that God is eternal, why can't the same response apply to the universe itself?)
It's not so much why we believe in a God, as why would anyone not?
Hm ... no evidence whatsoever, for a start?
"Personally I'm glad I'm not a robot ... ."
I gave up on religion when I was in Junior High. Up until that point I had gone to Catholic schools (in Quebec and Ontario). The brainwashing didn't take.
The problem [of] evil is solved by free will. ... He saw freedom as more important than preventing all evil and suffering. created by free will. If free will allows us to determine the future independent of God, then God can't know the future. But if God knows the future, then we can't deviate from His predetermined knowledge of it, so we can't have free will. Therefore, free will and God's omniscience, at least as regards the ability to see the future, are incompatible.
Finally, evil is also compatible with "God doesn't exist" or "God doesn't give a shit". Why choose one over the other?
Belief in God seems to be a natural inference. Atheists are very rare and usually have to be converted to atheism.
Au contraire. Everyone is born an atheist. People have to be brainwashed into a religion. Although one can be indoctrinated into a certain religious belief and deconverted back to atheism, most ex-theists simply figured out for themselves that religion was bunk. After all, there are no atheist organizations handing out pamphlets or sending missionaries to far-off cultures in order to save their souls and take their money.
The reason probably so many believe in God, is the alternative seems absurd.
People believe in God because you can't understand why they wouldn't? Please write 100 times: "Personal incredulity does not constitute evidence to support my point."
The thought of everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination.
No one says it does. We may not understand why or how the universe began, and we may never. This doesn't mean that your idea has any validity.
I'm still somewhat baffled by people who can say in all seriousness: "We don't know, therefore we do know that my idea is right."
The philosopher Aristotle formalized the cosmological argument...
The cosmological argument is as follows:
1. Every effect has a cause(s).
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.
You'll notice that this does not prove God. It only proves that there was something (not necessarily someone ) in the beginning of the universe that wasn't caused, such as the big bang, and even that depends on the first premise (all events have a cause) being true, which quantum physics may disprove.
...but I think it's a natural understand most have at least on some level.
So? The fact that you think this does not make it true.
It's not so much why we believe in a God, as why would anyone not?
Burden of proof on the positive assertion, you nitwit. Burden of proof on the positive assertion.
The God explanation for our existence just makes logical sense.
The "God made everything" idea isn't an explanation. It's merely a coverup for our lack of knowledge. It's a surrender; it turns a difficult question into an unsolvable problem. Saying "God did it" is nothing more than saying: "We'll never figure this out, so let's not bother trying."
Seeing really doesn't tell us much about anything anyway.
Seeing doesn't tell us much about anything? Would you be willing to wear a blindfold for the rest of your life? If you tried, you may reconsider.
Of course, you're already wearing a metaphorical blindfold.
I've never seen electricity...
Well, no. You can't "see" electricity; you can only see its effects on the world when they create visible light or other observable changes.
I can't prove to you that electricity exists, and nor can anyone else. If you believe it doesn't, then hold these two bare wires for me.
,,,nor George Washington.
No one today can see George Washington in person, but we have written records, documents, portraits, and a lot of other evidence.
Seeing is one small part of knowing things.
I agree, to some extent. Once you see something, you have to interpret it. You can see a flash of lightning and say: "It's God's wrath," (as you must do, since you don't believe in electricity), or you can study how it works and eventually figure out what it is.
The problem if evil is solved by freewill.
No it isn't. If God existed, he could grant people free will and still prevent suffering. If someone wanted to hit me, God could stop his fist an inch from me, and remark: "That wasn't very nice. Don't do it again."
Of course, the free will argument doesn't jive very well with Christian theology, creating even more problems than you would have otherwise. Christians believe there are prophets who predict the future, and if anyone can predict the future, then no one has free will. I once spent several minutes trying to explain this to a fundie who simply couldn't see the contradiction involved. (She kept insisting that we can have free will and a predetermined future because of God's love.
If that barrier is removed by rationalizing away the prophets (which some Christians may be disinclined to do), then the "free will" argument still runs into the problem of heaven and hell. If God gives us a choice of actions but tortures us forever if we make one of the two choices, then we have no meaningful free will that's the "free will" of a person with a gun against his head. Furthermore, since God doesn't tell us which the right choices are, it makes him a sadist.
Even if hell were rationalized away and "sinners" simply died, the free will argument doesn't work. The implication is that suffering is the result of people excersizing their free will. This brings up the question: Is there free will in heaven? If there is, then there is suffering in heaven and it's not a paradise after all. If no, then free will isn't a good thing and God obviously doesn't have our best interests in mind.
There is a question I would like to ask any religious person who subscribes to the free will argument. According to the free will argument, God gives us free will, including the ability to kill each other. Society (or, rather, the people who make up society) declare it prudent to place restrictions on individuals' actions, preventing them from killing. Does this mean that people know better than God? Or does it mean that laws against murder are wrong?
God has given man freedom for a limited time.
Assuming this "freedom" means the right or ability to cause suffering, then why doesn't God take it away now?
He saw freedom as more important than preventing all evil and suffering.
Wait, are you really telling me that suffering exists in the world today because God cares more about people's "right" to cause suffering than our fundamental right to be free from suffering? That's not exactly a nice guy you're worshipping.
Personally I'm glad I'm not a robot, even if I have to suffer at the hands of other free agents.
You may not be a robot, but damn it, you're trying.
You're also charged with a Class 2 False Dichotomy for suggesting that we must either be mindless robots or capable of causing massive pain to others.
@MatildeLet´s see, atheism is a new phenomenon for two reasons.
Atheism is not a new phenomenon. There have always been atheists.
One is that the men is a naturally religious man...
I can agree that it might be natural for religions to form.
...one can´t use the mind 100%.
Actually, this has been Snopes'd and is clearly false. We use all of our brains.
Technically, you said "mind" and I assumed you meant "brain," but trying to use "mind" instead would make no sense. It's impossible to have an aspect of your mind that you never use; your "mind" is the combination of your thoughts, preferences, and memories, and these are all used at some point. After all, if you never use a memory, you've forgotten it and it's no longer a memory.
Second, most atheist are not atheist per se. They just don´t want to follow any particular religion where they picture God in ways that only comply with INTERESTS
Sorry, this is not true. Most people who claim to be atheists are atheists. I doubt that there are many people who say they don't believe in any gods, but actually do believe in a god without belonging to an organized religion. In fact, I sort of resent your remark that most atheists are really theists who just don't belong to a specific temple, church, synagogue, or mosque.
"The thought of everything popping into existence for no reason without a cause strains the imagination"
As opposed to the thought of everything popping into existence for no reason WITH a cause, I suppose?
Most people are taught a religion while they grow up, by their parents.
Atheists are not particulary rare, and the number is growing.
Believing in a magic pixie in the sky, an imaginary "friend" who will send me to hell if I think the wrong things, that seems very absurd to me.
God makes about as much sense as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and slightly less sense than the Flying Spagetti Monster.
There is tangible evidence for electricity, and for the former existence of George Washington.
Many atheists follow the Golden Rule; treat others as you want to be treated. Many atheists became atheists due to all the evil things God is supposed to have done, and ordered his people to do.
There were good comments.
"The problem if evil is solved by freewill. God has given man freedom for a limited time. He saw freedom as more important than preventing all evil and suffering. Personally I'm glad I'm not a robot, even if I have to suffer at the hands of other free agents."
This classical theodicy argument is flawed and doesn't solve anything, especially if it's used for science denial. But the part I wanted to highight is that this particular version also promotes a potentially harmful ideology: "suffering is justifiable if I claim that it's freedom". And this can mean anything, it's just an irrational relationship claim. Divine judgment also conflicts with free choice.
Similarly, your divinity must also have strangely popped into existence. Claiming that it's eternal is just another irrational justification to entertain its existence without support from any evidence for it.
"The reason probably so many believe in God, is the alternative seems absurd"
As far as we know, it's a result of the brain, side effects of intelligence and symbolic thinking, then the fact that it's unreliable and easily tricks itself. There is a tendency to simplify awe and have emotions or experiences that we can perceive as overwhelming and perhaps divine. In animism for instance, objects can feel personalized. Then culture and indoctrination, the reason why you believe in a particular God and tradition.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
