Why you do or don't believe in God?

[summerbloom]

Interested to hear people's views on why they do believe in God or on why you don't believe in God.....

I just had something in me from a young age, I wasn't ever taken to church or anything, I was deterred if anything from going. They thought it was crazy, but something in me made me believe no matter what anyone said from school bullies to family members.

I got both DC baptised, people obviously came to that, but it was a whole new experience for them.

I can't really justify my beliefs to a person who doesn't believe, if you don't believe you must have your reasons. I would never force my beliefs down someone else's throat. It's really personal.

There's just something about sitting in a quiet emptyish church for me. Can't really say what.

TitsalinaBumSquash and others.

mollyblack

Yes, I feel exactly the same!

It's as weird to me as an adult believing in Santa.

Dawn, repeatedly posting gobbeldygook purporting to be science is not proof that any god exists, it's just proof that your understanding of science and maths is inadequate for the purposes of this debate.

Believing that there is a God because we live on a planet that is suited to life, around a stable sun, in a stable solar system, in a stable part of a galaxy, in a stable part of the universe just demonstrates the remarkable arrogance of human beings.

The attached image shows the Hubble Deep Field. In the wee red box beside the moon, the hubble telescope took a picture. It collected all of the light it could see. The image that is attached shows both galaxies and little dots of light. Every bit of light in this picture is a galaxy. Galaxies are full of billions of solar systems and billions of planets.

@ontopofthesunset, the doctrine of Jesus took our sins upon him is the substitution theory and I agree I find it abhorrent. Not all those of the Christian faith subscribe to it and there are other theories. Sorry unable to discuss more today.

Should anyone be interested in exploring further arguments for and against God in the wide sense (I appreciate each religion has their own interpretation and beliefs about who God is or in a non monotheistic religion not one personal God) this weekly show hosts a discussion each week between an atheist and theist on various issues. It's a Christian radio station but the host aims for impartiality and is there to facilatate the debate. They have many high caliber speakers, atheist and theist, and I find it a great platform to hear views from all sides.

www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable

but its mad to think any creator/force would just create this perfect utopia where we live on fluffy clouds, sing, dance, hug and drink champagne and eat cream cream all day.

Why is it any 'madder' than a world of murderous cruelty, suffering and inequality, with a creator who can't or won't intervene despite being worshipped by his followers as omnipotent and loving? Oh, and whose best effort at rectifying wrong was to send his son 2000 years ago and allow him to die ignominiously as some kind of magic scapegoat to take away the sins of humanity?

Cue millennia of theologians and apologists and ordinary believers desperately trying to do mental gymnastics that simply don't add up to anything other than wishful thinking.

I wish I was a believer - God and Heaven and all that are such a lovely concept.

I was brought up as a Christian but lost my faith aged around 15. I can't see myself ever getting it back again.

An interesting thing about religions is how they change.

A Christian today is not the same as one 500, 1000 or 1500 years ago. Understanding changes. Theologians (human beings) drive change and understanding.

Just as human beings change. The rights and responsibilities of humans have changed over the last 500, 1000 and 1500 years.

If you look closely though, its religions that change to match human changes. More freedoms and rights gained in the face of less control by religions.

Its one of many points that show religions are man made. If the truth had been revealed, it would not have changed.

I don't, largely because I find it all extremely implausible, and because the scientific explanation for how the world came to be is much more interesting and richer than the theological one IMO. Making any religious narrative work means blinding yourself to the endless examples that don't fit.

Also, I'm a psychologist, and from my perspective all religions arise, basically, from the glitches built by evolution into our brains. We spot patterns that aren't really there, we ascribe meaning to things that are random, we can't help but try to make events conform to some sort of narrative, and we can't cope with meaninglessness. Basically, we developed religion to stand between us and the fact that our lives are random and have no real meaning. I don't find that depressing, but freeing. It means the meaning my life has is the meaning I create for it.

I know many people for whom faith, of whatever kind, plays an important role in their lives and helps them to be better people every day, and I respect and admire that. I don't find it works for me, but I have 0% problem with the way that personal faith helps many people to keep going and strive to be better.

I think god is unnecessary. Nice to have conceptually but not required to explain things.

Religion is useful as it provides a lot of support for people and a framework for discussing important questions about life.

But overall I don't really care since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a god's involvement in the world so it's bit irrelevant if there is one or not. I think that makes me apathetic agnostic.

Is it necessary to say him/her or he/she. After all God has always been referred to as God the father. All the hymns and carols refer to He, as do priests and vicars in the pulpit. Just seems a bit silly imo.

Semaphorically you could be an apatheist :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

No I don't believe in any of the gods, I decided at the age of 7 that none of it made sense.

I don't understand why people say that the universe can not just have happened but god can.

Is it necessary to say him/her or he/she. After all God has always been referred to as God the father. All the hymns and carols refer to He, as do priests and vicars in the pulpit. Just seems a bit silly imo.

Thinking about a deity's imaginary genitals is more than a 'bit silly', imo. As is thinking that God must be male because 'hymns and carols' and 'priests and vicars in the pulpit' say so.

@Scottishdiem, It Is certainly true that religions develop and change their interpretations of their holy texts over time. In Christianity for example (sorry only know a bit about Christianity) many denominations believe scripture can inform yet time, tradition and reason should also be deployed when interpreting scripture. This would allow for developing and changing interpretations as human thinking changes and develops over centuries. . So essential truths such as there is one God, who loves humanity and wishes to be involved in a person's life if they desire and for us to each to love God and each other remains, but interpretation and approaches on how this is achieved develops over centuries as human understanding grows and develops. Of course I understand this argument might not be accepted, but it is one approach

Also it is estimated the bible was written by various people across 1400 to 1800 years in different genres. Most denominations do not take the view that the bible is the literal word of God. It is believed it is inspired by God but is written by man who is a product of their culture and time. When the bible is approached literally, which some people do, with no thought to context and who wrote it all kinds of problems arise. Of course a person could ask well how do we know that interpretation is right over the other one. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that. Again there is the view basic principles should be applied along with reason and prayer.

Mortal it's less about the genitals and more about power that people assume god is a man.

And if everything you read or hear repeats 'him' then you assume that's correct don't you? What's silly about that?

Without the baggage of Western Christian upbringing or culture, would people "come to God" or "encounter God" in the same way? Chances are they'd ascribe events or feelings to something totally different. I am always reminded of the Cargo Cults in this sort of discussion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Would it be throwing an unnecessary grenade into the debate to suggest that god could identify as a man and claim themselves some male privilege regardless of the type of genitals he/she/they own..? 😉

Disclaimer: I'm poorly and a bit delirious therefore prone to chatting bollocks so to speak.

Given that the clergy has sought to exclude women for centuries and that Eve is responsible for the downfall of mankind ( and as a punishment made to suffer in childbirth forevermore) it's a safe bet that god is a bloke.

@sleepyowl12

Your argument would have merit if we could track religion driving the change for humanity to become better and more informed (as it were). Yet the social changes that have come about had nothing to do with (and sometimes in spite of, Christianity). Some of the greatest philosophers whose writings underpin the ideas of democracy, human rights, equality, etc. did not believe in God (some were theists etc but this thinking came from outside the church). Some, like David Hume, even wrote under a pseudonym in a foreign country because of his fear about what he was writing and the reaction of the church. It cant even be argued that the Church allowed people in society the space to have these thoughts. Thomas Aitkenhead, a mere generation or two prior to Hume was killed for blasphemy at the instigation of the Church of Scotland.

Most denominations do not take the view that the bible is the literal word of God.

Yet it is the vocal ones who do that resist social change, resist equality and even try to have things like complementarianism.

reason and prayer

Two very very very very very very very very very very very different things.

The three things that have led me to be a non-believer are:

(1) the fact that I realised I was pick and choosing my version of who god would be on the basis of pretty much nothing - if there is a god who says it's a nice good who is good and great? I get the free-will point but I really can't understand why a god would (in theory) hear individual pleas from some people but let others suffer dreadfully through no fault of their own. It sort of makes a bit of sense in the concept of the Roman or Greek gods where they weren't infallible but it makes so sense in the concept of a Christian, Muslim or Jewish god as I understand it.
(2) if god actually cares about whether people believe in him or not why leave it down to blind faith without providing any form of proof? Why would a (benevolent) god not want people who want proof? Why is 'he' so hung up on blind faith? If he doesn't care that much about whether people believe in him, what does it matter whether I do or not.
(3) as others have said - I just can't reconcile the multiple different religions in the world with a concrete idea of a god. If there is just one god who cares about how 'he' is worshiped, I've probably got more chance of choosing the wrong religion than the right one so, hey, why bother.

I'm probably a very very very strong agnostic rather than atheist as if some one provides me with decent proof I'll believe in god, in the same way that I'll believe that ghosts exist.

I'll just leave this here - for the non-believers