Happy Atheist Forum

I will offer the most interesting one I’ve come up with. (Please only one rebuttal).

After that, post your argument for god. Again please only one rebuttal. This will be a first come first serve rebuttal, after that…next question.

Question 1.

Through out the ages man has developed the capability to imagine god. Where does this idea come from? The idea of god is fairly similar across the globe in different cultures. Is this a reason to believe in god? Whether it is god, zeus, allah or bumba, isn’t a creator possible, if man has the ability to imagine it and that idea exists in a similar form throughout the world?

I think man invented the concept of god because, before science, he needed something or someone to whom to give credit or blame for what happens on earth.  Man has an innate desire to know and learn and understand, and in the absense of proof, will come up with a reason (excuse?) on his own.

Once the concept of an unseen powerful being as the reason took hold, it's only logical that he be worshipped because it was felt that our fate was in his hands and who doesn't want to make a powerful person happy?  Thus, worship of god was born.

Then the rulers, being a little more intelligent and in tune with life than the average man, saw that the little guys could be manipulated by using the promise of heaven or the threat of hell.  Thus, organized religion was born.

And that's the truth as I see it.     Just because man WANTS there to be some force that created him doesn't mean there HAS to be a creative force.

Believing in god is like believing in global warming. There is evidence for and against global warming and god. In either issue, not believing and doing nothing would result in ill effects. Wouldn’t it be better to just to believe and lose nothing, than to not believe and lose everything?

For me, being true to myself and my convictions is tantamount.  Therefore, I can't believe in something "just in case."  

With global warming, we'll never know for sure.  There is no monitoring agency that can come in and say, "Mrs. Russ, you've been polluting the atmosphere and here is the punishment."

In the case of god, there's a being who will know one way or the other... God.  And I'm pretty sure His Omnipotence will know whether I truly believe or if I'm just hedging my bets.  

And I can't MAKE myself believe something for which there is no proof.  I just can't do it.  There are too many things about religion in general and god in particular that make no sense and have been hurtful to too many people for me to overlook.

Besides, what is the proof that this heaven place is as wonderful as everyone assumes?  What if it's the workcamp for god and it's miserable?  Are believers willing to take THAT chance?

Quote from: "jcm"Believing in god is like believing in global warming. There is evidence for and against global warming and god. In either issue, not believing and doing nothing would result in ill effects. Wouldn’t it be better to just to believe and lose nothing, than to not believe and lose everything?

Pascal's Wager again? That can be countered by Richard Dawkin's answer: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.".

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "jcm"Believing in god is like believing in global warming. There is evidence for and against global warming and god. In either issue, not believing and doing nothing would result in ill effects. Wouldn’t it be better to just to believe and lose nothing, than to not believe and lose everything?

Pascal's Wager again? That can be countered by Richard Dawkin's answer: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.".

I always like the Gambler's Motivation reply to Pascal's Wager, instead. That is, would God be so petty as to admit those who merely believe because believing has a better payoff? Could a God like that be considered benevolent?  

rose beat you guys to it, she is quick...next question

does anyone else have anything? I'll come up with another question in a little bit.

<bowing>  Thank you, thank you...  :brick:

Ah well... I knew about the Pascal's Wager thing, but I get so tired of typing "Pascal's Wager... drink" over on Yahoo!Answers, I decided to go with more words here.  

I can use the pantheistic argument, which presents a questionable axiom where "god" is redefined for the purposes of making the term applicable to physical evidence:

God is everything in the universe. Everything universe exists, therefore Godâ€"as everything in the universeâ€"exists.

Quote from: "jcm"Believing in god is like believing in global warming. There is evidence for and against global warming and god. In either issue, not believing and doing nothing would result in ill effects. Wouldn’t it be better to just to believe and lose nothing, than to not believe and lose everything?

Except there is no evidence for God. Faith is required for 'belief' in God. Global warming is not a spiritual entity. It's a theory based on the increase of average temperatures over the last few decades. Sometimes cooler temperatures defy the theory of global warming, so there's a debate as to whether it's a real threat or not. People also argue over whether it's a natural phenomenon or whether it's being caused by man-made environmental decay. Either way, global warming is a trend based on hard evidence. When it comes to hard evidence I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so environmental concerns are important to me. I would rather believe and lose nothing concerning global warming. Not believing in God, for whom there is evidence or data, doesn't seem to be worthy of any literal concern.

Ooh, fun! Let me give it a go. This is something I read that took me a couple days to figure out how to debunk, partly because it's very similar to what
I used to rationalize my beliefs when I was a Christian:

QuoteOne night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn't reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll's "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty's explanation of 'Jabberwocky' to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read 'Jabberwocky' the same way I read the bible, it wouldn't make any sense at all. I put Carroll's book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought.

The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness?

Best argument for God: Anything is possible.

Quote from: "Martian"Best argument for God: Anything is possible.

Quote from: "Douglas Adams"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another which states this has already happened.

Anything is possible, just highly unlikely.  

Quote from: "dodgecity"Ooh, fun! Let me give it a go. This is something I read that took me a couple days to figure out how to debunk, partly because it's very similar to what
I used to rationalize my beliefs when I was a Christian:

QuoteOne night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn't reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll's "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty's explanation of 'Jabberwocky' to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read 'Jabberwocky' the same way I read the bible, it wouldn't make any sense at all. I put Carroll's book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought.

The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness?

The stories about god are not genuine. They are created by man around the idea that god exists. The idea that god exists never (or shouldn't) come into question when you read the bible, quran, or whatever. A creator is taken for granted, because children are told about god at a very young age. It is hard to shake such a fundamental idea about the universe when you have heard it most of your life.

God doesn't talk to man. It is not how the real universe works.

Just because god is a great idea doesn't make it automatically true. We have taken an untested theory about how the universe came to be, made it true, and then created a whole religion around that idea. Because of that, there are many different religions. These religions are all made up. If god did talk to man wouldn't the exact same story be told around the world? Because religions are different, I think none of them are true.

If man created the bible to give people direction, so be it. I agree that some of the teachings of the bible. Many of the teachings are good for society, but that can be tested and shown to be true. It is however irresponsible to say that the teachings came from god.

Any meaningful answer would be entirely dependent on knowing exactly what you mean by 'God'.. God is defined differently by different religions.. God, when defined by Man, is a poor attempt to describe what really is almost indescribable without resorting to our built in tendency to anthropomorphize.
Even those of the same religion can experience 'God' differently. Creator God, pantheic God, Tribal God... the 'God' inside us all...  impossible question to answer.

Quote from: "karakara"Any meaningful answer would be entirely dependent on knowing exactly what you mean by 'God'.. God is defined differently by different religions.. God, when defined by Man, is a poor attempt to describe what really is almost indescribable without resorting to our built in tendency to anthropomorphize.
Even those of the same religion can experience 'God' differently. Creator God, pantheic God, Tribal God... the 'God' inside us all...  impossible question to answer.

Regardless of whether you have voiced your description of god, you have already defined god and accepted that god is real. Beyond that, you will believe any religion that fits with what you have already determined god to be. This, however, has little to do with reality.

for someone/thing so unimaginable, how is it that you seem to know so much about "him/it"

These arent new or convincing for most people, they just happened to be what eventually changed ME into a theist.

1. origin-i can fathom no other rational explanation of the universe, beside a beginner.
2. abiogenesis-i can fathom no other rational explanation of life, beside a beginner.

There are several reasons. The frst and most obvious is to explain what could not be explained at that time. The second reason for the creation and appealing belief in God is psychological. Adults still feel a need for parent like qualities in their life. In religions such as Christianity, trasngressional appeals are also made that connect with the human conscience, thus affirming belief. Once they begin to experiment with having a relationship with God the illusion begins. They have an experience which they cannot deny, thus any future discoveries of logic fail to persuade.