Do you believe in God?

[VirtualPA]

I am interested to know what the majority of people belive.

I personally believe in a Christian God, Heaven and hell etc.

I raised a strict an athiest

Someguy

It wouldn't have made much sense if I had posted a letter starting with "Dear Laura"

Well I thought it was from 'The West Wing'...

robberbutton, thanks for your droopy eyelids 2 am effort!

so, believers 36%

This is very high considering we're talking about the Brits ( with only a few of exeptions, myself included ) taking part in this discussion.

When still in my native country, I studied the culture of the British Isles ( 16 years ago ) and remember being quite fascinated to learn that UK was the least 'godly' country in Europe, given the statistics on church attendance and opinion polls.

So I presume figures would come up significantly boosted had it been Europe wide mumsnet pool.

Hi all.
just a quick one about the morals thing. In the UK/US it would be immoral to have sex with someone under 16. Yet in many countries this would be perfectly normal. It would have been here too at some point.

I don't normally mention this part because using it against Muslims is unfair for that reason, but of course their prophet had a very young wife.
But it wasn't an immoral act then and there so we can't really criticise him for it

However I'm pretty sure Christians would say under-age sex was wrong. Presumably this comes from their god.

But Allah was ok with it wasn't he? So that poses a problem for anyone who thinks both are really the same god AND thinks that morals come from god.

This is for MerryMarigold

Merry, you say ' I think biblically it seems there is currently no heaven, though there will be at the end of this world'

Please don't forget what Jesus said to the repentant criminal crucified next to Him,
Luke 23:43

' In truth I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise '

marriage != sex.

Mumsnet poll of course, not pool !

and exceptions

seraphine3stars - There is a MASSIVE sampling bias though, of 'people who can be bothered to talk about this'.

Mind you, a Europe wide mumsnet pool would be welcome in this weather, and quite interesting, you could have a swim and an interesting debate. And if it boosted belevers' numbers, all the better

See what you mean, coalition, you're right.
This type of thread would naturally attract mnetters with faith to respond.

Still, no hope lost as I can't fail to observe that in my South East England town of only 10,000 population count, there seem to be a church on every corner ! And I'm talking about Christian churches only.

Actually I understand that the prophet's marriage took place when the girl was 6 but wasn't consummated until she was 9.

Like I say I'm not really saying it was wrong and the fact that he waited 3 years means that this wasn't casual, but within some moral framework.

But a different set of morals there from Allah? Does the christian god say 9 is ok?

If not doesn't that mean he isn't the same god?

.. or morals don't come from god?

That was supposed to be in the last post

Onagar, I don't think Christians would endorse all the morality (or putative morality) of Islam, that would be absurd.

But if they don't then surely they have to either say that morality doesn't come from god or that Allah is not god.

'Allah is not god' is a controversial statement for a Muslim, not a Christian.

No problem with saying that as a Christian; the other alternative is that 'Allah is god, but Muslims have got him wrong, and that he does not say many of the things they think'

That's why I used their prophet as an example. If anyone knew what their god wanted he must have.

So if the Christian god wants something different from Allah than they can't be the same.

There is a problem for any christian who claims that allah isn't real. Every supposed proof presented for the existence of the christian god applies equally well to Allah. If Allah can be dismissed then so can the christian god.

Onagar and SGB, my point is not to argue whether this or that is right or wrong, but to show that we all hold at least something to be right or wrong, irrespective of the views of others.

The choice to be made is between:

1. There is no such thing as objective right or wrong, only majority opinion within a society. Deciding what is appropriate is solely dependent on public opinion.

or

2. There is such a thing as objective right or wrong in at least one instance. This thing is right/wrong by its very nature and irrespective of the views of others.

If you assert (1) then you have to accept the logical corollary that should enough people change their minds on the acceptability of something previously deemed wrong then anything is theoretically approvable. Hence my illustrations of things that most people seem to think are wrong no matter what public opinion says. From (1) we have to conclude that all actions are, in themselves, morally neutral. Even the really evil ones that we personally abhor. Imagine if someone could persuade society that a given action (e.g. war in Iraq, the Holocaust, the Crusades, repressive legislation, etc.) was a good thing, would that make it good? I don't think so, and when you explore it enough none of us do. Would you find it acceptable for someone to do serious harm to your family for their own sadistic pleasure if public opinion supported them? Of course you wouldn't. There would be something objectively wrong about such an act, even if the majority were manipulated to think otherwise.

So we must take (2) seriously. I am not making specific claims for any particular moral stance here, neither am I arguing a case about the nature of any particular God, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. What I am doing is showing that once you accept that there is more to the ethical validity of an action than the whim of public opinion then you have to go beyond human sentience to find it. And as this thread has asked for evidence that there may be a God, I am using this as evidence. Not necessarily for a Christian God, and I am certainly not trying to gain approval for 2000 years of Christian moralising (I say this as a supporter of gay rights). But the existence of just one act which is objectively right or wrong, irrespective of the vagaries of human opinion, logically entails a source of non-human intelligence to verify it.

To put it bluntly you can either live in a universe where the Holocaust could become acceptable, or you live in a universe with a higher authority than humanity which will always hold the Holocaust to be wrong. I know which universe I live in.

"There is a MASSIVE sampling bias though, of 'people who can be bothered to talk about this'..."

Exactly. The people for whom "god" is such a daft idea that their lack of one doesn't even need defending won't even have come in the door.

I know what you mean, but I'm pointing out that the two most popular gods deliver different moral codes. Perhaps they are both false and a higher being called 'X' exists that no one worships that puts the idea into people's heads that certain things are wrong.
If that is the case then X is not putting it very strongly as people do have different morals. Some people did approve of the crusades btw and the holocaust.

You can't believe that god delivers the moral code AND that the Christian God and Allah who deliver different codes are both real.

Onagar, as I said, I am not arguing about the specific nature of God. This thread has asked for arguments and evidence in favour, and some have claimed there is no evidence.

I am arguing that the existence of a single objectively moral act, just one, which is resistant to the changing views of public opinion, points to something higher than ourselves. And given that the alternative (no objective morality, and therefore the theoretical possibility that the Holocaust was OK) is a difficult position to stand up, I take this as a reasonable argument in favour of some sort of God.

You are right to say the same God can't have delivered all of the different codes that different religions adhere to. These codes include much that is cultural or provisional, and good religion recognises this.

But I also believe that religion is much smaller than God. God, by nature, is infinite and there is much about God which is beyond the experience or language of religion. That is not to say that religion is useless, from our limited human perspective it can provide a very fruitful framework within which to live. Rather I am pointing to the infinite nature of God and the need for everyone to have humility about the limits of our understanding, and to recognise that our human frameworks of understanding (theist, non-theist or otherwise) may not be the final story.

PermanentVacation:
Yes, all morality is subjective ie while everyone has their own ideas of what is right and wrong, there is no outside authority available.
That the majority of people share certain views (that property, life and wellbeing should be respected) is simply evolutionary - human beings are co-operative, social animals up to a point - most human beings are also tribal hence the ease with which many human societies designate outsiders or 'lower' classes of people as legitimate targets.

So no, there isn't anything which is objectively right/wrong. I have no problem with that.

permanentvacation, your point is a reasonable one. if there were some objective morality than your claim that an outside force provided it works. Though as SGB points out the force could be evolution.

However that led me to my point that may apply to other Christians.

The claim that a god/higher power supplies the morality invalidates all other proofs of the christian god's existence offered in this thread because we see two (or more) gods supplying two different moralities.

One then has to be false and there is no basis to choose. If a Christian chooses to say that Allah is imaginary than they dismiss all proofs for his existence which of course are the same proofs they are relying on to prove their god exists.

So SGB, you would have no problem with the Holocaust, should enough people agree that it was a good thing? Child abuse is morally neutral? Ethics is merely what we can get away with while not destroying the tribe?

For someone who likes to complain a lot about religion, which you describe as crap peddling, you clearly do believe some things are wrong, no matter what I or the majority religious citizens of this world think about it. If you want to maintain that view, that some forms of religion are objectively wrong, not just your opinion, but actually wrong then your statement about no objective right or wrong is unsustainable.

So which is it - objective right/wrong (in which case you can keep going arguing that religion is a bad thing) or no objective right/wrong (in which case you have no grounds to criticise others in the way you do).

permanentvacation, take your sword and start a new crusade slaughtering all forriners. They do things differently too. If it's not your god's word it's wrong. That was the crusade's justification wasn't it?

Onagar - I accept that different religions/worldviews (I class atheism as a worldview but not a religion) trying to utterly disprove each other is nigh on impossible. That is why I personally believe there needs to be respect between faiths and a willingness to engage with the realities of each others views. I also believe in the right for different religions/worldviews to criticise each others practices as they relate to how people of different outlooks live together in a multicultural world. I am not an apologist for every faith under the sun, and have question marks about most of them, as well as critical question marks for different Christian expressions.

To try and construct an "either/or" argument of exclusivism will not work. I am a Christian because there is enough of it that works as a framework for me living my life. My experience, coming to Christianity from an atheist/agnostic background, is a positive one. It has given me a greater sense of peace, a direction in life, brought me into contact with a community of deeply caring people, given me a sense of belonging in this world, and it gives me resources to tackle the big questions of life that we all ask from time to time. I recognise deficiencies in many ways that people have tried to live their Christianity, but I have also found enough more than enough goodness within it to compensate.

As you can see, I am passionately in favour of a reasoned, thoughtful Christianity that respects others. I am happy to explain my faith to others, usually only when they ask (such as on this thread). I am happy to defend it when people call it into question. But my positive experience of the Christian way of life does not mean that I think it is the only way, neither does it commit me to trying to disprove other religions/worldviews which may be equally fruitful for others.