# Reasons for belief and disbelief in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964 "2006-01-28T07:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/201 "2006-02-01T16:06:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I didn’t say I _completely_ understand anything. I said I understand it _enough_ to consider that God is no longer a **necessary** element in cosmology, _ie._ that the universe can be explained without Him. > The nature of spacetime, _ie._ that it can be “[bent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Astronomy)”, and even that it can be [infinitely](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Have_we_found_them.3F) bent such that it can;t be _more_ bent, is not merely a “concept”: it has _observable consequences_ which have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. > Like I say, I hope never to be _completely_ satisfied in my lifetime - how dull that would be, to lose one’s curiosity so! But from my 32 years so far I am satisfied _enough_ by the **natural** explanations for the universe (and everything in it, including human thought) that supernatural or divine entities are **unnecessary** , and thus to be parsimoniously shaven off. > > Indeed, this entire thread appears to revolve around disagreement over the premise that _God is necessary_, for one reason or other (mainly cosmological so far). I reject this premise: I think God is **optional**. Optional things _might_ exist, but I personally prefer getting rid of such clutter. I have no problem whatsoever with your reasoning because you use logic. I completely see your point and you completely see my point. Of coarse we do not agree. But at least we are on the same page. Now my entire reason for not just saying that your right and be done with it is the whole argument behind something being optional. Just because it is optional, does not mean that it is unneeded (yes I am just repeating you). Where I find that it is not optional is for things after this life or things we do not even come close to knowing about. For instance, what happens after this life? If God exists, then it is completely **necessary** for us to have a relationship with God. I would argue that everything comes down to faith because that is the only discernable way of discriminating the attitudes of the heart. We are in a huge predicament with negative consequences both ways. If I am being honest, I still feel it comes down to whichever viewpoint you have a propensity to believe. One things for sure, The consequences of each viewpoint is so incredibly important and at the same time almost unproveable, that it is the most important decision we will probably ever make. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/202 "2006-02-01T16:15:58Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Just because it is optional, does not mean that it is unneeded (yes I am just repeating you). Actually, I’m saying _precisely_ that “optional” and “unnecessary” are synonymous, so you’re not repeating me at all. > [@](#): > > Where I find that it is not optional is for things after this life or things we do not even come close to knowing about. For instance, what happens after this life? I say: biological death, wherein our atoms return to being dispersed throughout the universe just as they were _before_ this life. Again, I consider that the afterlife (or even _before_life) is **optional** , not **necessary**. Unless you are proposing some reason why there absolutely _must_ be an afterlife, rather than simply believing in it yourself as a personal opinion, then you’re saying that even the afterlife is merely optional, not necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/203 "2006-02-01T16:22:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If we assume God then we assume that we are spiritual beings rather than physical right? Assuming that the death of our bodies is only change rather than any loss or suffering. No. Whether we have a soul or not, we have bodies, and the suffering is just as real. You also keep assuming that your hypothetical afterlife will be better; you are assuming things without evidence about things for which you have no evidence. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I realize how this seems to minimize human suffering but it is merely an exercise in logic. Ever watch a movie where people suffer? Do you consider yourself or anyone who watches that movie a sick bastard because they watched suffering and horrible deaths for entertainment? We can enjoy getting into a movie because we know it’s fleeting and when we leave the theater we put it behind us. That’s the principle I’m talking about. Ohhh, garbage. Comparing _real_ suffering to _fictional_ suffering is just sick. You sound like an apologist for the Inquisition. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Either you missed the point or this is complete bullshit. No, I’m pointing out that you are engaging in the common twin religious practice of sneering at how evil/sinful/self destructive humans are, while absolving God of all responsibility for his creations. > [@Trust](#): > > Non-modern day religions that worshipped false idols are for example, the religions that worshipped the sun gods and the moon gods etc. According to our present knowledge, this is not a very likely (to say the least) possibility. There is a reason when you look up at the sky, there is nothing to worship falsely imo. It’s still more plausible than your religion. At least we know the Sun and moon exist. > [@Trust](#): > > Faith cannot be proven either false or true. Nonsense. If I have faith I can fly, I can step off a cliff. Whatever happens next will prove or disprove my faith. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/204 "2006-02-01T16:27:48Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > For instance, what happens after this life? If God exists, then it is completely **necessary** for us to have a relationship with God. No, it’s not. Even if God exists, I want nothing to do with him ( and why would a singular God be male, anyway ? Wouldn’t God be an “It” ? ). > [@Trust](#): > > One things for sure, The consequences of each viewpoint is so incredibly important and at the same time almost unproveable, that it is the most important decision we will probably ever make. Only if someone agrees with you. In the view of a materialist/atheist like me, it’s less important than, say, getting married or having kids or choosing a career. After all, they are all real. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/205 "2006-02-01T16:43:12Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Actually, I’m saying _precisely_ that “optional” and “unnecessary” are synonymous, so you’re not repeating me at all. > I say: biological death, wherein our atoms return to being dispersed throughout the universe just as they were _before_ this life. Again, I consider that the afterlife (or even _before_life) is **optional** , not **necessary**. Unless you are proposing some reason why there absolutely _must_ be an afterlife, rather than simply believing in it yourself as a personal opinion, then you’re saying that even the afterlife is merely optional, not necessary. You are an interesting fellow. Your utilitarian view is quite consistent, but I think deeply flawed. Our atoms are redispersed throughout the universe without our death as well, ever shed any skin cells? Ever burn any fat? Ever take a shit or cut your hair? Are you your atoms, or are you the pattern that holds the atoms together by a force of will? The problem with the word afterlife is that it creates a very distinct idea of life and death. It’s kind of an oxymoron, because if you are still conscious then it is during life, and not really after it at all. Does a Caterpillar die when it makes it’s cocoon? What is the self? Is the self the cause or is it the effect? You hold a very materialistic view of this, and tend to ignore most arguments that don’t fit seemlessly within your very rigid worldview. So if you are consistantly shedding atoms throughout life, then what are you, being as you’re not the same atoms you started out with? You claim not to believe in metaphysics, but the idea of the self is a metaphyiscal concept. Consciousness is a metaphysical concept. Sure you can describe the physical mechanism by which these metaphysical concepts are manifested, but that doesn’t change their inherently metaphysical nature. As I’ve said before “Red” is a metaphysical concept. Light of a certain amplitude and frequency is physical energy, but Red exists only in our perception of that light. We in our consciousness change the light that we experienced into a monosyllabic package in order to communicate it verbally. On my screen the word “red” is actually black, because my font is black. When I speak it, it’s in a different wavelength of energy than red light is, but still it’s red, still it communicates the idea of that particular waveform of light energy. So “Red” lives on long after the experience of the color has gone away. So what exactly is the self, and what constitutes “after-life”, you’ve said that brain activity is what determines life function, but how do you determine that the self is maintained merely in the brain? First off it diminishes the rest of the body as part of the cognitive apparatus, it eliminates that which is being experienced as part of the conscious being, and it fairly arbitrarily chooses one physical process out of many that goes into the whole human being. Why is that physical process the consciousness, why not my beating heart or my erection? What about my feet as they test the ground I walk on? Then why is it that my feet are part of me and not the ground that I actually put my feet down upon, which is equally part of the experience of walking as my feet are? Erek ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/206 "2006-02-01T17:05:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A just judge metes out punishment to suit the crime. Would you consider it justice if a mass murderer were given the same punishment as a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child? But that is exactly your god does. Thus, your premise that god is just is contradicted. This is part of traditional Christian doctrine I didn’t agree with or understand when I was a Christian. {the church I belonged didn’t teach this} When I have this discussion with folks it results in “we can’t really understand God’s ways” My take on it is if I in my imperfect understanding of justice sees the blatent injustice in this how can you attribute this to a being to whom you attribute perfect justice? > [@](#): > > Bullshit. Why is this logical, or even necessary? God told Abraham to spare Isaac and sacrifice a lamb instead, proving that a lamb is good enough. You have given absolutely no reason why god cannot do that now. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent, and your second premise is contradicted. If we are spiritual beings I don’t see how a physical sacrifice can atone for anything, any more than putting sins on a goat will help. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/207 "2006-02-01T17:28:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your utilitarian view is quite consistent, but I think deeply flawed. Utilitarianism is indeed my preferred moral framework and I’m glad you think it’s logically consistent, but it has very little to do with this thread. > [@](#): > > Our atoms are redispersed throughout the universe without our death as well, ever shed any skin cells? Ever burn any fat? Ever take a shit or cut your hair? Of course. I didn’t deny this in my answer to the question “What happens after this life”, which I will now further clarify. > [@](#): > > Are you your atoms, or are you the pattern that holds the atoms together by a force of will? We are the temporal arrangement of those atoms, specifically the unique collection of memories encoded into our neural computer. Just like a hard-drive which is copied completely into another hard drive (instantly, whereas ours is a _gradual_ process), those memories survive the replacement of the atoms whose arrangement encodes them. Even then, there may well be some atoms which remain in our brains for our entire lifetime since neurons are so long-lived as cells go. > [@](#): > > Does a Caterpillar die when it makes it’s cocoon? It is no longer a caterpillar, but a pupa. So yes, I suppose the caterpillar does ‘die’ in a way, but note that I will not waste time playing Write-Your-Own-Dictionary here. > [@](#): > > What is the self? My position is that it is the unique string of memories encoded within our neural structure, and the preferences and typical reactions to sensory stimulus those memories comprise. > [@](#): > > Is the self the cause or is it the effect? The effect of years of sensory input, together with whatever innate modules or cognition _homo sapiens_ is born with. > [@](#): > > You hold a very materialistic view of this, and tend to ignore most arguments that don’t fit seemlessly within your very rigid worldview. I don’t ignore them, I answer them as best I can. If you don’t like those answers or consider them evasive or non sequiturs, so be it. > [@](#): > > So if you are consistantly shedding atoms throughout life, then what are you, being as you’re not the same atoms you started out with? The **temporal arrangement** of continually-exchanged atoms. > [@](#): > > You claim not to believe in metaphysics, but the idea of the self is a metaphyiscal concept. Consciousness is a metaphysical concept. I propose a _physical_ definition of ‘self’ and ‘consciousness’. Again, do with them as you will. > [@](#): > > Sure you can describe the physical mechanism by which these metaphysical concepts are manifested, but that doesn’t change their inherently metaphysical nature. If I decribe the physical mechanism and thereby yield observable consequences with which to _test_ the hypotheses, I have a [scientific explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/) for those “metaphysical” entities. Again, call them and their “inherent nature” whatever you like. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said before “Red” is a metaphysical concept. And as I’ve said before, it is light with a wavelength of between 630-760 nm, which excites photosensitive cells in the retina causing an action potential to propagate a signal via the optic nerve, chiasm and tract and the lateral geniculate nucleus to the visual cortex whose activity in “cross-filing” the signal with the linguistic label comprising the sound ‘r-e-d’ (or shapes ‘r’ ‘e’ and ‘d’) **is** our perception of red. > [@](#): > > When I speak it, it’s in a different wavelength of energy than red light is, but still it’s red, still it communicates the idea of that particular waveform of light energy. The outputs of your vocal tract **label** the property of comprising wavelengths 630-760 nm just like files in your home computer might be labelled “red”. > [@](#): > > So “Red” lives on long after the experience of the color has gone away. Yes, like I said: in our _memories_, which are labelled by linguistic tags. > [@](#): > > So what exactly is the self A unique set of memories. > [@](#): > > and what constitutes “after-life” Access to those memories despite our brain cells having undergone irreversible necrosis such that the organ can no longer function. > [@](#): > > you’ve said that brain activity is what determines life function, but how do you determine that the self is maintained merely in the brain? By asking dead bodies how they’re feeling, and examining claimed instances of consciousness during brain inactivity and finding that they are extremely flimsy in terms of scientific evidence. > [@](#): > > First off it diminishes the rest of the body as part of the cognitive apparatus I’ve heard of “thinking with your dick”, but that strikes me merely as a metaphor. > [@](#): > > it eliminates that which is being experienced as part of the conscious being The photons incident on my retina having been emitted by an obeject do not make the object _part of me_, any more than sunbathing makes me a class II stellar object. > [@](#): > > it fairly arbitrarily chooses one physical process out of many that goes into the whole human being. Eating food isn’t thinking, although for some the outputs are similar. > [@](#): > > Why is that physical process the consciousness, why not my beating heart or my erection? What about my feet as they test the ground I walk on? Where are the signals from those organs _being sent_? If I chop off the receiving organ at the neck, can the body still be said to be “conscious”? Again, note that I’ve no interest in playing WYOD with you. I’ll set out my position, you say what you like about it. > [@](#): > > Then why is it that my feet are part of me and not the ground that I actually put my feet down upon, which is equally part of the experience of walking as my feet are? I’ll say “because your feet are permanently in communication with the memory-apparatus, while the ground isn’t.” Heck, why do we even use language to arbitrarily distinguish one thing from another _at all_? Without such distinctions, “you” are not even distinct from “me”, and so I’m currently _talking to myself_. It sure feels like it sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/208 "2006-02-01T17:35:41Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Reasons for not believing in God: > 6) I genuinely feel like God does not exist. > > Now I will go through and analyze each reason for not believing in God: > > 1. This is the only cited reason that is justified in its reasoning. A huge part of this would probably take into account a lack of repeatable scientific evidence. Not to mention learning that religion is nothing more than a scam, a very well-organized con game. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/209 "2006-02-01T17:39:15Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve read the NT a lot but not the OT. I did read Leviticus once because someone suggested it might help me understand the sacrifice of Jesus and atonement. Boy were they wrong. It only made me amazed that anyone could read it and still think of the Bible as the word of God. It also changed my view of the blood atonement doctrine. It went from something I never really understood to something I decided I didn’t believe , to something that I found slightly offensive. Thanks Leviticus. You really should read it. (Here is an atheist telling a theist to read his Bible.) Reading Genesis, in particular, is like going to a museum of natural history, where the primitive roots of today’s religion is exposed for all to see. Here is where the patchwork nature of the Bible is most evident. Here is where you see the ancient concept of god as tribal deity begin to evolve into the modern concept. So much of people’s understanding of these stories come from popular culture, children’s bibles, movies. They are all inferior to the real thing. I also found that reading Genesis to my kids, and having them analyze it for contradictions and absurdities, was a great education in both critical thinking and atheism. I read them great literature, like Alice in Wonderland and the Oz books, but I also read them not so great literature (1950’s Nancy Drews) and we found plot holes and inconsistencies together. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/210 "2006-02-01T17:48:04Z")
For those who are accusing me of being illogical. Picture that you are a police officer at a KKK meeting. The KKK member giving the speech talks about how black people are the scum of the earth, don’t deserve to live, and are a disgrace to all humans. Every fiber in your body as a police officer wants to tackle the son of a bitch and haul his ass off to jail. You cannot do this however to preserve freedom of speech. You know that protecting freedom of speech is much more important than losing your cool. In this same way, you should value truth. Even though you may not agree with me, you cannot accuse people of being illogical when you have no proof of the fact. For every logical inconsistency you see, I can give you a premise that erases the inconsistency. Admit when we are wrong. We will never get anywhere unless we let our pride go. Really I don’t consider believers and non-believers all that different. The very essence of the argument is simple. Believers do not think that it is very likely that we will find a mechanism for the important things in life. Instead we rely on faith that God will work out the mechanisms for us. If science clears new paths, then we use this evidence as it becomes available. We simply are not counting on it during our lifetimes. A believer does not assume either way; whether we are going to find enough evidence during our lifetimes for how the mechanisms of the important things work or not. The key note to make is that neither of these arguments are invalid. You simply choose what you believe is the most plausible. I choose faith because it is the **perfect** way to give us a choice and is a **perfect** way to discern whether we are for God , neutral, or against God. Others choose not to believe because there is no testable evidence that says so which is equally valid. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/211 "2006-02-01T17:59:21Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Absolutely not. > > I understand how it seems that way and I am always somewhat reluctant to have the discussion because of it, but I assure you that is not my point. As timeless beings our eternity exists within each moment and our choice about what to do with it. I do not trivialize the life that exists within the flesh. We are called to revere that life and in doing so we must care for the flesh which reflects it, not only ourselves but others as well. We also must not place the fleeting above the eternal. When we deny or sacrifice the spiritual to protect the fleeting then we must deal with the consequences of our choices. It’s not an easy balance to find, but consider this. Is there more, you or I or anyone can do to revere that life and alliviate suffering. Of course there is, but situations have variables. First of all, I’m sure it is not your point, and I actually worried that you would take my words somehow as an attack on you, which was not the case. You’re my favorite theist around here. 🙂 And I agree that we have or should have absolute personal authority over our own choices for our destiny. Salvation is just one part of this. Since none of us know what is best for our future spiritual life, if there is one, we should all have the absolute right to make our own moral choices on this, whether it involves nothing at all, or going to the desert, or going to Church each Sunday. Suffering, self-imposed, is included in this. Thomas More had a perfect right to wear his hair shirt. The problem is when another person decides that he knows the answer, and for the long term good of you or me feels free to impose suffering upon us - or forced conversion, or any type of coercion. This person feels that we’ll thank him in the long run, but even if he is correct about the future, he is still morally wrong. If he can prove his contention about a future life, we could have a debate on the moral justification of this, but faith don’t cut it. Absolute confidence in his view of a future life gives him, he thinks, absolute moral authority to force us to improve our chances in it. You have some opinions about spiritual life, and they give you absolute authority to live your life around them. They don’t give you any authority to make me live my life around them, and vice versa, of course. > [@](#): > > At what point would I allow someone to starve if they refused to make any effort to provide for themselves. Would I be benevolent to aide them in their lack of responsibility? We must make choices about where this balance lies. God already knows. If they have mental capacity to make the decision, they should be given the right to make it. That’s why I am in favor of assisted suicide, given the proper checks and balances. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/212 "2006-02-01T18:10:13Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > In a strict sense, sure. However, I believe that God allows evil to exist for a purpose so this does not make a difference based on my viewpoint of God. If you can show me that evil does not serve a purpose than you could persuade me to see your point. Otherwise this does not go against my view of God. Besides, if God did not make a concept in the world of “bad” and “good” then there is no discernable way for us to make correct decision in His eyes. This goes completely against other premises of God. Any “purpose” that God can accomplish by allowing evil to exist he can also accomplish _without_ allowing evil to exist. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require _any_ mechanism to accomplish his purposes. All he has to do is blink. Alos, you’re still really missing the boat on the Free Will argument. Free will is impossible. Choices are either caused by something inherent (which means they’re not free) or they are random. > [@](#): > > Who said it is required? Christian doctrine. > [@](#): > > What we are saying is that it is required if we are going to be able to be saved. Here is the reasoning: It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require anything in order to save people. > [@](#): > > Premise 1: God is a just God. > Premise 2: God is omnipotent. > (Premise 3: God cares for His creation.) > > Option A: God simply forgives us for everything we have done and allow us to live. _This is invalid because it goes against the premise that God is a just God. All the injustice that other people caused us would go unpunished._ What’s unjust about this? Why do people have to be punished? Does all punishment have to be equal and eternal? Is it just to give a pickpocet the same punishment as Pol Pot? How is it UNjust to let everybody into Heaven? Who is hurt by that? Why does God create bad people if he doesn’t have to? > [@](#): > > (Option B: God simply forgives us for everything we have done but still kills us_This is not logical since it goes against premise 3 that God cares about us._) I don’t see why this would be a bad thing. What’s unjust about everybody dying? Why is that a bad thing? > [@](#): > > Option C: God gives a human sacrifice. \*This is logical since he a)uses His power, and b) does not go against being a just God. There is no other possible way for us to be saved AND for God to be just. \* See, now this is insane. How does killing an innocent person punish bad people? What does God get out of a sacrifice? What can God do with a human sacrifice that he can’t do _without_ a human sacrifice? > [@](#): > > If you see anything wrong with my logic please explain. For whatever reason you think that God is not allowed to make decisions. It’s not a question of being “allowed” to, it’s a question of _necesity_. It is logically impossible for a human sacrifice to be _necessary_ in order for an omnipotent God to be able to forgive people. Moreover, the crucifixion is manifestly unjust not only for the victim but also because it (somehow) allows evil people to get off the hook with no punishment. > [@](#): > > **Everyone** who has free will, causes suffering. Cite? > [@](#): > > You are proposing that a line be drawn at random to decide how “bad” and “good” people are when you have no way of comparing how God defines “bad” and “good”. Does good and evil mean something different to God than to humans? Are you saying that Hitler might really be “good” by God’s definition? Do people know right from wrong o don’t they? If they do, then they can recognize evil when they see it, if not then free will is (even more of) a joke. > [@](#): > > Might I point out that essentially you’re trying to justify your point of view by saying that simply because we do not have a mechanism by how something works, that it does not work. This is completely illogical. It could work, it could not work. We do not know. Is it possible for something to be true, but we do not have a mechanism by how it is true? Quantum mechanics is not true huh? A mechanism for what? I don’t know what you’re getting at here. The existence of ANY inherent mechanism behind human choices makes free will logically impossible. > [@](#): > > My friend. If there was no way of anyone knowing that Jesus was our savior, then we would have no concept of Him. Anyone can make up a story. That’s neither here nor there. The problem is that your God has not bothered to give anybody any way to know that this story is TRUE. > [@](#): > > We are talking about Him right now and the fact that He is a “saviour”, therefore He has given a “shed of evidence”. Um…no, dude. That’s not evidence. If we were talking about Quetzalcoatl would that be evidence that the Qutzalcoatl myth was true? > [@](#): > > have a concept of Him and it is completely clear what is expected of us. This is just silly. I can make up any myth I want containing “concepts” and “expectations.” That’s completely meaningless. Your religion is one among thousands and all of them have the exact same amount of evidence. In what way is it possible to know that your own myth is the true one without a purely random guess (and even then, you don’t know, you just happened to make a correct random guess). > [@](#): > > No. I think that if you could say that A implies B then 3 out of 4 people in the US would not believe it. It’s that simple. This is just silly. It’s already been pointed out to you that _ad populum_ arguments are fallacious. When it comes to religious culture, the vast majority of people never bother to critically examine their own religious beliefs and even the ones that do simply choose to find ways to avoid or rationalize uncomfortable questions. Logical method has very little to do with religious assumptions. > [@](#): > > This is exactly what I am saying. It is also the exact same when you apply this to Christian doctrine. I can always find an example that shows that you are being invalid for everything that I believe about God. No, it isn’t the same. The problems I’ve pointed out with Christian doctrine are not about incompatibility with physical evidence (although those problems exist as well) but about logically conflicting _premises_. > [@](#): > > Of coarse it is “necessary”. If God’s plan is to have a relationship with us, then it is “necessary” to have a relationship with us. What kind of statement is that anyway. What you don’t get is that simply because God is not required to do anything, it does not mean that he cannot do anything. This is not a fallacy. It is logically impossible for ANYTHING to be “necessary” for an omnipotent God. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/213 "2006-02-01T18:14:29Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > In this same way, you should value truth. Even though you may not agree with me, you cannot accuse people of being illogical when you have no proof of the fact. For every logical inconsistency you see, I can give you a premise that erases the inconsistency. Admit when we are wrong. We will never get anywhere unless we let our pride go. Your posts give ample evidence of illogic. Your inability to address other people’s logical points give more such evidence. Where the KKK comes from is beyond me. > [@](#): > > Really I don’t consider believers and non-believers all that different. The very essence of the argument is simple. Believers do not think that it is very likely that we will find a mechanism for the important things in life. Instead we rely on faith that God will work out the mechanisms for us. If science clears new paths, then we use this evidence as it becomes available. We simply are not counting on it during our lifetimes. A believer does not assume either way; whether we are going to find enough evidence during our lifetimes for how the mechanisms of the important things work or not. The key note to make is that neither of these arguments are invalid. You simply choose what you believe is the most plausible. I choose faith because it is the **perfect** way to give us a choice and is a **perfect** way to discern whether we are for God , neutral, or against God. Others choose not to believe because there is no testable evidence that says so which is equally valid. First of all, what do you consider important things? Science does not cover all that is important, nor does it pretend to. Second, the reason you think there is a god to be for is faith. You started this thread to explore reasons for belief - if the only reason you have is faith, fine. I’ve got nonfaith reasons for lack of belief. If you choose to believe despite evidence against (and I’m repeating myself) fine also, just don’t pretend this is logical. You are free to do things that are not logical, after all. We all have. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/214 "2006-02-01T18:15:22Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > See, opinnions and prejudices, are not necesarily logical. Thank you for pointing that out, > > In reality,\*\* Budism and Christianity are nothing alike\*\*, on the surface or otherwise. In addition, older religions have not been disproved in any way that does not also apply to Christianity. The fact that you believe that oposite, however, does not reflect on the reality of the situation, but simply reflects _your_ shallow judgments of the situations. You are incorrect. There are many parallels in what Buddha taught and what Jesus taught. There are many differences too but to say they are \*nothing \*alike is incorrect. See [Jesus and Buddha](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569751692/103-6172111-3899061?v=glance&n=283155) and [Going Home](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573228303/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-6172111-3899061?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/215 "2006-02-01T18:37:50Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > That reminds me of a Bill Hicks joke about the pope: > > I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That’s faith in action folks! You know he’s got God on his side. AS a brief interlude here’s another Pope joke. The Pope was coming to town and as a devout Catholic, Bob was excited and wanting very much to have some contact with him. When He got to the airport the place was mobbed and he could only get close enough to see the Pope from a distance. As the Pope’s procession moved through the gathered crowd Bob saw the Pope raise his hand to halt his entourage. There on the edge of the crowd sat a ragged begger. The Pope appraoached the begger and knelt before him taking his face in his hands and speaking softly to him. Ahah! thought Bob. After the Pope moved on Bob appraoched the begger and offered him $100 for his ragged coat and hat. Putting them on he raced ahead of the Pope’s procession and wormed his way to the front and sat on the curb. AS the Pope passed by he again rasied his hand and halted the procession. As he approached Bob’s heart raced with joy and anticipation. Kneeling before Bob’s ragged figure the Pope reached out and took his face in his hands and softly spoke…“I thought I told you to get the _fuck_ out of here” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/216 "2006-02-01T18:42:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Of course. I didn’t deny this in my answer to the question “What happens after this life”, which I will now further clarify.We are the temporal arrangement of those atoms, specifically the unique collection of memories encoded into our neural computer. Just like a hard-drive which is copied completely into another hard drive (instantly, whereas ours is a _gradual_ process), those memories survive the replacement of the atoms whose arrangement encodes them. Even then, there may well be some atoms which remain in our brains for our entire lifetime since neurons are so long-lived as cells go. You are more right about this then you might realize. Advanced servers today have multiple processor board, disk shadowing, the ability to hot swap components in. If you are running a process (analogous to a mind) you can theoretically force it out of a particular processor board, replace it, then let it back in. You can switch disk access to one of the pair of shadowed disks, replace that, and then copy the other disk over, switch to the first, and then replace that. You can of course replace monitors and printers. So, you can pretty much replace all the hardware that amounts to anything while keeping the same software running. No one would ever do this, but it is theoretically possible. The solution to the mind body problem for computers is pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/217 "2006-02-01T18:48:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Of course. I didn’t deny this in my answer to the question “What happens after this life”, which I will now further clarify.We are the temporal arrangement of those atoms, specifically the unique collection of memories encoded into our neural computer. Just like a hard-drive which is copied completely into another hard drive (instantly, whereas ours is a _gradual_ process), those memories survive the replacement of the atoms whose arrangement encodes them. Even then, there may well be some atoms which remain in our brains for our entire lifetime since neurons are so long-lived as cells go. You are more right about this then you might realize. Advanced servers today have multiple processor board, disk shadowing, the ability to hot swap components in. If you are running a process (analogous to a mind) you can theoretically force it out of a particular processor board, replace it, then let it back in. You can switch disk access to one of the pair of shadowed disks, replace that, and then copy the other disk over, switch to the first, and then replace that. You can of course replace monitors and printers. So, you can pretty much replace all the hardware that amounts to anything while keeping the same software running. No one would ever do this, but it is theoretically possible. The solution to the mind body problem for computers is pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/218 "2006-02-01T18:49:55Z")
How the heck did that happen? Clean up on post please! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/219 "2006-02-01T19:32:06Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No. Whether we have a soul or not, we have bodies, and the suffering is just as real. You also keep assuming that your hypothetical afterlife will be better; you are assuming things without evidence about things for which you have no evidence. WAKE UP! It’s about perspective. Yes YES! I keep assuming because it is a hypothetical discussion in which evidence is not a requirement. At least take a stab at staying relevent. > [@](#): > > Ohhh, garbage. Comparing _real_ suffering to _fictional_ suffering is just sick. You sound like an apologist for the Inquisition. [hypothetical](http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothetical) It’s a good thing someone else thought of the inquisition thing for you. Sure came in handy for your inevitable religion bashing. I’m asking you to back off the borderline personal insults. You can ridicule my arguement if you like but I find that a feeble excuse for a reasoned arguement. > [@](#): > > No, I’m pointing out that you are engaging in the common twin religious practice of sneering at how evil/sinful/self destructive humans are, while absolving God of all responsibility for his creations. There’s sneering going on alright but I’m not the one doing it. Stick to the arguement. Do you deny that much of mankind’s suffering is a result of man’s own choice? I asked you if there was any more you or I or almost anyone could do to relieve some of the suffering? Answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/220 "2006-02-01T19:46:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You really should read it. (Here is an atheist telling a theist to read his Bible.) Reading Genesis, in particular, is like going to a museum of natural history, where the primitive roots of today’s religion is exposed for all to see. Here is where the patchwork nature of the Bible is most evident. Here is where you see the ancient concept of god as tribal deity begin to evolve into the modern concept. > > So much of people’s understanding of these stories come from popular culture, children’s bibles, movies. They are all inferior to the real thing. > > I also found that reading Genesis to my kids, and having them analyze it for contradictions and absurdities, was a great education in both critical thinking and atheism. I read them great literature, like Alice in Wonderland and the Oz books, but I also read them not so great literature (1950’s Nancy Drews) and we found plot holes and inconsistencies together. That is kinda funny. I have read the two accounts of creation and noticed the decrepancies there. As well as passages here and there. I actually found Leviticus to do some of what you described here. It seemed obvious to me that the religious leaders of that day used mythology and their own “How to please God” handbook to guide a tribal people in diet and some health issues as well as make out rather well for being “holy” I’ll give it a shot at some point. Any suggested version? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=12)