why do u most pple still believe in GOD?
-
Atheism doesn't really have a message. It's just a lack of belief in a god.Originally posted by january:i agree with you. But that does not mean that i just let believers be believers and non believers be non believers. I have to choose and decide whether i want to spread atheism message or not.
Frankly speaking, i only come to my forum and talk atheistic stuff once in a while. i wonder it more of a hobby or really a intention to spread atheism. generally speaking, i believe more atheist in the world is a good thing.
There are philosophies like secular humanism that you could promote.
I think all it boils down to is that we should believe in things when there is a reason to - not because of faith. -
Originally posted by Phaze:The difference is that Ang Mo Kio actually exists. We have evidence that Ang Mo Kio exists. We can experience Ang Mo Kio for ourselves. Different people may experience Ang Mo Kio in different ways but ultimately there is overwhelming evidence that Ang Mo Kio exists.
"ang mo kio" exists to you and me because someone (i.e the government) 'made' it and 'named' it... say if you are a foreigner, u won't know where it is? unless you find the road/area signs and choose to recognise and accept it
A more accurate analogy would be if you are looking for a place like Mount Olympus. We can't find it because it doesn't exist.
mt olympus does exist , it is the greek mythlogy of it being the gods' home that is remains a mythology.. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Olympus
Your definition of humility is beating yourself down so you are forced to ask others who claim to know the way so you can be led around like sheep.
No one is forcing .. it is free will
Arrogance is when Christians believe the whole universe, in all its splendor, was created just for them.
actually no, the whole universe was created for ALL God's creatures, not just Christians.. unfortunately this world is just not meant to last eternally; if u just want a 'one-day' pass no one can stop you... it's just Christians have decided to choose a "no-expiry" pass...
Arrogance is when Christians believe that whoever doesn't subscribe to their religion is damned to hell.
we are not boasting about it.. it is just an unfortunate truth.. don't u think that scares us/saddens us too especially our own unsaved family members?
Arrogance is when Christians whine and complain that they are being persecuted when anyone points out their fallacies, while at the same time, preaching their beliefs to everyone.
as far as i know alot of pple whine, so do a lot of Christians sadly.. but that does not mean God doesn't exist. like many non believers, many Christians go through often times of weakness too cos' we are still so imperfect in many ways.
Arrogance is when Christians believe that they are right, and everyone else is wrong when they have no evidence. "Believe us!" they say. "Not for any reason, but take it on faith."
If you see danger before you, would you tell your fellow friend to avoid? or pretend and let him go ahead? If concern/love is taken as arrogance , thats' unfortunate. ?evidence is a matter of choice to acknowledge unfortunately. i do not deny that FAITH is not an easy option at all, many Christians still struggle with that daily.[/color]
When given a choice between faith and reason, give me reason any day.
honestly i agree with you on the last one cos' it is so much easier... But reason does not give you hope, while faith does in fact many times it is the lack of reason that pushes us to greater faith
u sound like someone who's been really pissed off by many Christians. i empathise with that, cos' i was once too..in fact still often am. But that doesn't change WHO i believe in. -
Originally posted by january:your reply is quite a common christian reply. you have to go back to your belief system, send them through thorough reasoning check using standard philosophical system and psychological errors, then you will see the light of knowledge.
you are talking of using created finite worldly systems to 'reason' infinite Godly principles ....
honestly a waste of time... have tried doing that more than 20 years ago.
all that in this world is in vain... Christianity is not merely a teaching, it is an experience and a relationship
it is like u can talk about how good and great disneyland is, but if you never been there , how can u really assess how good it really is?.. in fact u can only assume based on what you read in the papers or see on TV...hahha... isn't that sad? -
so what have God teach you recently? i curious. what advice has he pass down to you? pls share. Also, Did your god tell you about our chinese god, what is his opinions of the truth of chinese god like guan yin.Originally posted by jljl:
you are talking of using created finite worldly systems to 'reason' infinite Godly principles ....
honestly a waste of time... have tried doing that more than 20 years ago.
all that in this world is in vain... Christianity is not merely a teaching, it is an experience and a relationship
it is like u can talk about how good and great disneyland is, but if you never been there , how can u really assess how good it really is?.. in fact u can only assume based on what you read in the papers or see on TV...hahha... isn't that sad?
What did god teach you about heaven. what happens in heaven. how does it look like? why is it that there is not picture of heaven? perhaps he can email us and put it in sgforum? Why does atheism occur in god's world, is it due to satan? So how can god defeat satan if satan causes many bad things?
and for adam and eve. did god make a mistake regarding adam and eve, which cause them to choose to break the rule and eat the apple.
pls share with us.tks -
are you really serious about your questions? or are u simply waiting for a good taunting experience? some of the answers to the above has already been compiled into books literally.if u are truly serious, i can share a lil' more on my personal stuff (which u can't find in books)Originally posted by january:so what have God teach you recently? i curious. what advice has he pass down to you? pls share. Also, Did your god tell you about our chinese god, what is his opinions of the truth of chinese god like guan yin.
What did god teach you about heaven. what happens in heaven. how does it look like? why is it that there is not picture of heaven? perhaps he can email us and put it in sgforum? Why does atheism occur in god's world, is it due to satan? So how can god defeat satan if satan causes many bad things?
and for adam and eve. did god make a mistake regarding adam and eve, which cause them to choose to break the rule and eat the apple.
pls share with us.tks; but of course in exchange for some your personal stuff - as to what led you to your choices ... and your firm belief of 'atheism'...
whichever the case the Truth always sets us free
are u ready for that?
to know and understand these 'answers', the key is to understand God' s character;or else the answer is meaningless anyway. -
To answer your questions, God has taught us all that we need, and most of it can be found in documentations all over the web. Besides, God does not commune directly, unless you are the next Prophet, which I seriously doubt.Originally posted by january:so what have God teach you recently? i curious. what advice has he pass down to you? pls share. Also, Did your god tell you about our chinese god, what is his opinions of the truth of chinese god like guan yin.
What did god teach you about heaven. what happens in heaven. how does it look like? why is it that there is not picture of heaven? perhaps he can email us and put it in sgforum? Why does atheism occur in god's world, is it due to satan? So how can god defeat satan if satan causes many bad things?
and for adam and eve. did god make a mistake regarding adam and eve, which cause them to choose to break the rule and eat the apple.
pls share with us.tks
Come to think of it, jljl is right. All your questions can be answered by many other capable people elsewhere. Are you just baiting people?
And for the last part, it doesn't help a lot that it doesn't seem very logical. Either God knew already that they were going to take the Forbidden Fruit, or He was the one who made them take it. We can never know, because the actions of God are unfathomable by human minds. -
Hi jljl,
Thank you for your comments. I will write a more considered reply at a later time but I would like to point out that your arguments are only compelling if one first accepts the existence of god and the validity of scripture.
I have read many apologetics books. Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", "The Case for Christ", and "The Case for a Creator". I have also read C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as well as countless others. (No choice, my Christian friends keep making the effort of lending me the books so I sort of feel I owe it to them to read. It does take up a lot of time though.)
One problem with all those books is that they use scripture as evidence. Even in Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" which argues simply that the universe exhibits signs of intelligent design and implies a creator, it is clear that all the authors believe the creator is the christian god. I find it's a bit dishonest actually and it's another example of the "wedge" strategy where they first try to get you to agree on one thing so they can pull you further.
SturmDerSchatten,
I feel that God is beyond understanding is a weak argument, though of course, you disagree (or you wouldn't use that argument). Answering a mystery with another mystery is no answer at all.
Attempts to reconcile the nature of god has resulted in thousands of judeo-christian denominations. I would even argue there are millions of christian denominations as I have yet to met two christians who share the same exact belief.
The most common response to questions I raise is, "oh that's not TRUE christianity", or "oh but that's not what I believe." So what is the truth then? Who am I to believe?
If you accept the Calvinist view, I'm not one of the 'elect' chosen to be saved. How does one reconcile that with an all loving god? Oh right. We can't understand god.
Yet you want me to believe that god gave me the ability to reason, but at the same time denied me the ability to understand him. God wants me to worship him even though he has given me no evidence that he exists. God wants blind obedience and faith.
You want me to believe God revealed himself to us in a book so badly written that countless wars and untold amounts of blood have been spilled over it. You want me to believe that God, after thousands of years of blood and slaughter that he commanded, decided to forgive us. But no, he couldn't just forgive us. He has to send himself down to Earth and sacrifice himself to himself so wash away our sins.
My friends often ask me, "why are you angry with god?" or "what prayer did god not answer?" or "why do you resent god so much?"
I find it hard to answer that question because the answer is obvious to me but they cannot understand it.
I don't resent god. I don't believe that god exists. Simple as that. I don't hate or resent what does not exist. I don't deny god any more than I deny Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the flying spaghetti monster.
Why then, they ask, do you study the bible and read so much about Christianity? Doesn't that show that you believe? Doesn't that show that you are at least searching for god?
I read to understand why people believe and because I know my friends are sincere. I want to understand why they believe what they do. I want to understand why people make decisions based on an ancient book written by an ancient culture, instead of fully relying on critical thinking and reason that the modern age has brought us.
But, they ask, in your discussions, you often assume that god exists. Doesn't that mean you at least believe in god in some way? Aren't you at least accepting the possibility that god exists?
God, as defined by Christians, is unfalsifiable. By definition, God cannot be proven not to exist. You cannot prove a negative. You can only disprove positive claims. I always accept the possibility that god exists but you have to put it in context that I feel that possibility is lower than the possibility of a flying teapot orbiting jupiter.
It's also obvious to me that assuming that god exists for the sake of argument is in no way indicative of belief in god. It's just the logical argument technique of reductio ad absurdum.
Okay. I went on longer than I intended. Time for bed. -
why is this the same explanation that christian always use when talking about christians?Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:We can never know, because the actions of God are unfathomable by human minds.
isn't the logic like this .. we can never know --> so we hold back our judgment and dun make conclusion
"the actions of god are unfathomable by human minds" this is another common reply of christians.
Why is the actions of god unfathomable?
i think christianity can make people believe because its explanation somehow have a 'convincing effect' to people who is not too sharp in reasoning which is very common trait.
Second point. Ok. so i have a inspiration. Religion occurs because human is ignorance. The more wisdom you have, the less igonrance you have, and the more athetistic you will be.
Human ignorance is inevitable. We are evolved animal that has differentiated greatly from the animal in some aspects but still out brain is suspectible to certain percetual errors in life.
Such error leads to ignorance, especially with the rise of materialistic lifestyle that focuses on material happiness, out human ignorance is still there, such level of ignorance, or such not so high level of wisdom or reasoning is the reason why religion is able to survive.
unless we have all people going to read a basic course on philosophy, logic fallacies, psychology, atheism, science, history of all these subjects and finally make people to a person keen to improve his knowledge by himself
then our human ignorance level will not drop to the point where religion could no longer sustain itself.
i know religion also teach good things also in them like be kind and loving towards others, dun kill. but it contains errors also which has bad repercussion. therefore, as a whole, religion teaching is not efficient, particularly in creating in critical thinking students, and because religions believe in God , which is false for atheist, and this error in belief will then have repercussion.
so its better to teach good values to kids and people directly without religion perspective and encourage that to be skeptical thinker themselves. -
i would like to teach fellow non god believers that i think socratic way of conversation is very useful in fishing out the errors of other.
arguing is itself a skill which has endless room for improvement. I guess a very good arguing person, can make opponent feel unstable about his stance within a short span of time.
there are many way of arguing and for me, i dun profess to know alot about arguing. i have read abit of how socrates argue in philosophy though. he seems to be able to lead people to doubt their own belief following his questioning. -
from AP press:
In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God.
with endorsment from such public figure. the word 'faith' will keep going.
well well.
apparently, 'faith' seems to have the cool, hip and trendy factor that reason does not have, which explains its high volume of usage by people.
as usual, science its not gaining popularity due to its technicality.
i think science, atheism needs to hire marketing and branding experts to advertise for them. -
Yeah well, the thing with science is that because it builds itself up with so much meritocracy, it has become elitist. If you're not a higher-up professor or specialist, no one's going to take you seriously. That's what puts off most people, I think.Originally posted by january:from AP press:
In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God.
with endorsment from such public figure. the word 'faith' will keep going.
well well.
apparently, 'faith' seems to have the cool, hip and trendy factor that reason does not have, which explains its high volume of usage by people.
as usual, science its not gaining popularity due to its technicality.
i think science, atheism needs to hire marketing and branding experts to advertise for them. -
here's a counter argument..
why do people still do not believe in God?
seriously... do think about this...
it's not a flame but a serious question... -
Because they still need a psychological bolster against the unknown?Originally posted by the Bear:here's a counter argument..
why do people still do not believe in God?
seriously... do think about this...
it's not a flame but a serious question... -
Hmm.. relatively they consider, God, spirit, and other supernatural being link to superstitious..Others choose not to believe due to the commitment needed.. In this generation most people are educated so they want thing to be prove in a sciencetific manner..Originally posted by the Bear:here's a counter argument..
why do people still do not believe in God?
seriously... do think about this...
it's not a flame but a serious question... -
this is what science and technology contributes to life and reality.. there are many examples if u read newspaper and think about how science and tech saves life and brings new invention
from the new paper:
They were born joined at the stomach and they shared a liver.
The twins' 25-year-old mother, labourer Premwati Kohl, who earns less than 30 rupees (about $1.15) a day, gave birth naturally at home, but without medical help.
But in spite of the primitive circumstances of their birth, help was at hand. Thanks to modern-day means - the internet.
On Tuesday, the now 10-month-old boys, Ram and Laxman, were successfully separated by Indian surgeons at a government-run hospital in Raipur, the capital of Chhattisgarh, one of India's poorest states.
The doctors apparently researched the operation on the Internet and borrowed equipment to do the job.
Indian Express reported that the operation, which lasted almost seven hours, was a first of its kind in Chhattisgarh. -
It's just a political thing. An overwhelming number of Americans identify themselves as Christian. So almost every political candidate will speak of faith.Originally posted by january:from AP press:
In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God. -
Because there is no evidence for God (depending on how you define God of course).Originally posted by the Bear:here's a counter argument..
why do people still do not believe in God?
seriously... do think about this...
it's not a flame but a serious question...
I should say "there is no evidence for the God of Christianity, the God of Islam and the God of Judaism" -
Originally posted by january:
The Singapore Dept of Statistics 2000 population census gives the following breakdown of the resident population (Singaporeans/PRs) aged 15 and above by religion:
Atheist population in singapore? i dunno.. there never really have a statistics in singapore about the beliefs of GOD....
TOTAL 2,494,630
Buddhism 1,060,662
Taoism 212,344
Islam 371,660
Hinduism 99,904
Sikhism 9,733
Christianity (Catholicism) 118,980
Christianity (All Others) 245,107
Other religions 6,146
No religion 370,094
Note that the stats may not be fully representative of their beliefs of God but it's better than nothing.
Originally posted by january:
It is only natural that you do not understand why most people still believe in God. That is because your assumption and belief is that there is no God. If that was really the case, of course it would be amusing and sad to see so many 'deluded' people praying fervantly to something that does not exist.
sometimes i dun understand.
the evidence is quite clear and abundant there is no GOD or no benevolant GOD to make sure everyone is safe and happy.
But what if there was truly a God ? Then believing and worshipping God makes absolute sense and it would be sad to see people living in denial of God's existence (might not even be their fault, might have been because of bad experiences or bad role models). I have yet to read anything so far in this forum that proves conclusively that there is no God and I don't think I ever will (that's the nature of these things, we will only know for sure when we die; but that will be a little too late for us to post the answer in sgForums).
This reminds me of Pascal's Wager which is a simple but rather interesting argument from a Christian persepctive. Not sure if it has been posted before but it goes something like this.
Pascal's Wager
Either there is a God or there is no God. So we have two options, to believe in God or not to believe, what will our wager be ? For self preservation, the only logical course of action is to bet that God exists because you have nothing to lose; Atheism is a bad bet.
Why ? Because if God does not exist, it wouldn't matter how we bet - whether we believe or not; there is no existence after death anyway. BUT if there is indeed a God, we risk losing eternal happiness by refusing to believe. (Remember that Pascal was coming from a Christian perspective of God and life/death)
And we cannot put this decision off forever as all of us will die one day.
But is it worth the price to bet that God exists ? Well, it is reasonable to place a finite bet (giving up some autonomy, illicit pleasures etc while we are on this planet) on the chance of winning an infinite prize - happiness in eternity.
But what if you find it impossible to believe in the 'nonsense' of God ? Pascal suggested that the prospective convert "act into" his belief if he cannot yet "act out" of it. In other words, live good lives and be open to God; living the faith can be a way of eventually getting the faith.
I am certainly not suggesting that we should believe in God only as a 'bet'. It is neither a mature nor an adequate faith, but for those in the deepest pits of unbelief, it offers a first step out of that pit and we can only pray that they will eventually respond positively to God's love.
(Some material reproduced from www.catholiceducation.org) -
check out this wiki article, esp the rebuttal part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
its interesting how believers don't post or read about what non-believers say.
-
Hey, I resent that!Originally posted by sgquitter:check out this wiki article, esp the rebuttal part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
its interesting how believers don't post or read about what non-believers say. Nah, it's probably because they're not so confident to argue their point. -
actually when i was younger, my friend proposed the same idea as pascal's wager, of coz we didn't have access to internet that time, and is purely coincidental and natural that such a question will arise. He commented it is "better" to put faith in Christianity because there is only one chance of life, whereas Buddhism (even if it turns out to be true) you get countless chances of life becoz of rebirth. So Christianity is a "safer bet".Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Hey, I resent that! Nah, it's probably because they're not so confident to argue their point.
it didnt take me more than a minute to counter-propose the possibility of other gods/religions as the "true religion".
"Why not consider Hinduism? Or Zeus? etc etc"...
"Weighing Pros and Cons does not constitute or prove a religion to be true"...
These are the 2 answers i gave him.
(of coz the article above provided more rebuttals)
Is it because people who are very immersed in their own religion fail to see there are countless others? Pascal must've been a very very staunch Christian so much that he is obscured by his own limited vision. -
Taking on a religion just to be on the "safe side" is not a good reason at all. I quote something from Pirates of the Carribean: "If a decision is made for the wrong reasons, then it is a bad decision."Originally posted by sgquitter:actually when i was younger, my friend proposed the same idea as pascal's wager, of coz we didn't have access to internet that time, and is purely coincidental and natural that such a question will arise. He commented it is "better" to put faith in Christianity because there is only one chance of life, whereas Buddhism (even if it turns out to be true) you get countless chances of life becoz of rebirth. So Christianity is a "safer bet".
it didnt take me more than a minute to counter-propose the possibility of other gods/religions as the "true religion".
"Why not consider Hinduism? Or Zeus? etc etc"...
"Weighing Pros and Cons does not constitute or prove a religion to be true"...
These are the 2 answers i gave him.
(of coz the article above provided more rebuttals)
Is it because people who are very immersed in their own religion fail to see there are countless others? Pascal must've been a very very staunch Christian so much that he is obscured by his own limited vision.
Of course, that argument is valid. Take a moment, however, to think about how the three most influential monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Jewism still exist till today, whereas the gods of what we call "mythology" have faded into antiquity.
Now, you may argue that it's because of politics and state policies that keep those three in place, but let's consider for a moment religion untainted by politics and social manipulation. For them to still exist, there has to be some other reason that keeps them alive and so powerful even till today, right?
And another thing, I notice plenty of atheists (note: I didn't say ALL) like to use words like "limited vision", "uneducated", "guesswork" and "stunted logic". Now, really, it's not up to anyone to pigeon-hole anyone else with derogative terms like this. -
This reminds me of Pascal's Wager which is a simple but rather interesting argument from a Christian persepctive. Not sure if it has been posted before but it goes something like this.
the pascal wager is a common tactic that makes people think its safer to choose to believe in god.
Pascal's Wager
Either there is a God or there is no God. So we have two options, to believe in God or not to believe, what will our wager be ? For self preservation, the only logical course of action is to bet that God exists because you have nothing to lose; Atheism is a bad bet.
to counter it lets instead use my january wager.
"do you think if god exist, he would let human so easily go to heaven by just believeing in him. believing is easy and convinent to the uncritical mind. Choosing not to believe in god because there is no good reasons and evidence and staying not to believe reflects courage.
If god exist, he would certainly choose those that do not believe in god due to lack of evidence to be with him because god needs courage and wise people to be with him.
Do you think choosing to believe in god means that you have a 99 percent chance of going to heaven.
bewteen believing and not believing. the chance is actually 50 percent of each of going to heaven if god exist . -
i was slightly trick by the pascal wager and luckily i was relatively atheistic when i read his argument few years ago.
-
Originally posted by january:
Nice answer.
the pascal wager is a common tactic that makes people think its safer to choose to believe in god.
to counter it lets instead use my january wager.
"do you think if god exist, he would let human so easily go to heaven by just believeing in him. believing is easy and convinent to the uncritical mind. Choosing not to believe in god because there is no good reasons and evidence and staying not to believe reflects courage.
If god exist, he would certainly choose those that do not believe in god due to lack of evidence to be with him because god needs courage and wise people to be with him.
Do you think choosing to believe in god means that you have a 99 percent chance of going to heaven.
bewteen believing and not believing. the chance is actually 50 percent of each of going to heaven [b]if god exist .
[/b]