Do you believe in God?

[Metzia]

No, I do not believe in any God. Would anyone believe if it wasn't forced on them?

[Wayland Cybersmith]

I believe. It was not forced on me. My faith is stronger now than it was in 1978 when I became a Christian.

[Metzia]

What made you convert?

[LonelyWind]

What made you convert?

You can read his testimony on the page prior.

[Metzia]

What made you convert?

You can read his testimony on the page prior.

Oh my.

[crucis]

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe it is impossible to rule out the existence of a deity. However I find it equally impossible to ignore the theist's much-hyped 'burden of proof'.

To be sure, there could be something out there. But (for me) there is no practical point to be made in living life under that assumption, or adhering to a single religion. There are hundreds of established religions out there, most of which claim to be the only legitimate one (independent of the size of their following). And then we have the sectarian divisions.

The probability that a non-believer stumbles upon that sole 'true' religion is negligible; statistically he/she would join the 'incorrect' religion and further-alienate the 'true' one. You can't blame an agnostic person for being indecisive.

[Wayland Cybersmith]

I am a believer. My background is occult, I had a demon from age 7 to 21 and, during that time, experienced telepathy, precognition and astral projection. I was exorcised when I was 21 and have been a Christian for 34 years.

Yeah... okay.

I have a few problems with atheism.

First of all, why is there something instead of nothing? Without God, there is no logical reason for the universe to exist.

Secondly, according to scientists, the visible universe is 347,160,287,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic metres, and is 13,750,000,000 years old. If, as Christians believe, the universe was created by God, what evidence could you expect to find for the existence of God? Imagine I made a globe out of clay. Now, imagine that the atoms in the clay are actually stars, and imagine that around one of these is a world with intelligent life on it. What evidence would that life have for my existence?

A couple of other thoughts.

If this universe is a reality within God's reality, it is, in a crude way, similar to a virtual world we might create on a computer, but uses matter and energy instead of data. A virtual world designer would only concern themselves with an area of interest, such as a city or country, where their characters will interact. They may have scenery, which might include sun, moon, and stars, but these would be mere decoration. It may be that characters in this virtual world can analyse and measure these bodies, but they would be limited by the information their instruments gave them. In a similar way, this world may be the most important place in the universe, with man, made in God's image, His signature. What we understand of the universe comes from what our instruments tell us, but we have no way of being certain that what they tell us, or what we deduce from what they tell us, is true.

Also, just because something can be explained in a logical, scientific, and rational way, does not make the explanation correct. Any analysis is limited by the information available and assumptions made about that something. If a scientist excludes the possibility of spiritual/theological explanations, that does not mean that there is not a spiritual/theological explanation, or that the spiritual/theological explanation is not the correct one.

The burden of proof is not on atheists to prove God doesn't exist, but theists to prove God does exist. You must disprove the null hypothesis because you are making a claim. You've put forth the possibility of a scenario in which a God exists, but you haven't done a single thing to prove that scenario exists. Instead, you seem to propose that the scenario is impossible to be proven for one reason or another. Well, if your claim can't be proven, it's fundamentally worthless because the burden of proof is on you. What if I said "There's an undetectable spirit duck that floats above my head at all times". Well, he's undetectable, so you can't prove or disprove that he's there. While my claim is theoretically possible, you would obviously reject it. Can see why your line of argument isn't valid?

Oh, and scientists don't leave out spiritual/theological explanations on a whim, they do it because not a single one has ever proven to be correct and so many have been proven to be wrong. If scientists wanted to take into account theological arguments, a long time ago we would have concluded that rain gods cause the rain and stopped looking for the real answer. Where would we be now?

You say the burden of proof is on theists, but what would atheists accept as proof? When talking about God, at least the Christian concept of God, we are talking about a being outside of this universe, not bound by anything within this universe. Unless God reveals himself by some means (like establishing some form of communication, or by creating a form within the universe through which he can speak and act), what evidence could there be? Everything a theist might offer as proof would be written off as delusional, coincidence, or trickery.

Trying to explain Spiritual things to a person who cannot perceive them is like trying to explain a rainbow to a person born blind.

I understood that the scientific process was to propose an explanation, and for that explanation to be disproved. The only way to reach scientific truth is to definitively rule out all other explanations. So, unless you can definitely rule out theological/spiritual explanations, they are still valid. Just because something cannot be proven does not make it untrue. I cannot prove I cleaned my teeth this morning. Does that mean I didn't clean them?

As far as the spirit duck is concerned, my experience tells me that God exists. My experience does not tell me that a spirit duck exists.

[Metzia]

You say the burden of proof is on theists, but what would atheists accept as proof? When talking about God, at least the Christian concept of God, we are talking about a being outside of this universe, not bound by anything within this universe. Unless God reveals himself by some means (like establishing some form of communication, or by creating a form within the universe through which he can speak and act), what evidence could there be? Everything a theist might offer as proof would be written off as delusional, coincidence, or trickery.

You have said that you believe, that it's beyond anyone's understanding - all the while having unwavering belief when there is absolutely no proof to substantiate it other than 'a feeling'. An American philosopher by the name of Robert Pirsig once said that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." How do you differentiate the two, I wonder? Your experience with 'demons' - why did you even think they were demons? Did your parents or religious group claim as much?

[Moonchaser]

There is no burden of proof on anyone. If you don't believe, you don't believe, and it's likely that any amount of the kind of proof that will ever be available won't change that. If you believe, you believe, and it's likely that any amount of the kind of disproof that will ever be available won't change that. Why does anyone need to prove what they believe or don't believe? It's not a discussion of science, and it's not a murder trial.

[crucis]

Unless God reveals himself by some means (like establishing some form of communication, or by creating a form within the universe through which he can speak and act), what evidence could there be? Everything a theist might offer as proof would be written off as delusional, coincidence, or trickery.

You are right.. What evidence could there be, that is independent of empirical perception and yet strong enough to convince everyone else who does not adhere to your religion? It is easy to dismiss everything a theist believes as delusional, coincidence, trickery... or unsubstantiated fantasy. You can have your own beliefs, but – unless God reveals Himself – you will never be able to prove that they aren’t merely confined to your own mind.

Trying to explain Spiritual things to a person who cannot perceive them is like trying to explain a rainbow to a person born blind.

There is a difference here. What novel faculty have religious people acquired that distinguishes them from the rest of humanity? A third eye? An atheist can claim that the only difference between a believer and a non-believer is enhanced credulity.

The only way to reach scientific truth is to definitively rule out all other explanations. So, unless you can definitely rule out theological/spiritual explanations, they are still valid. Just because something cannot be proven does not make it untrue.

Just because something cannot be proven does not automatically rule it out... but it does make it useless as a guideline for rational human behaviour. Can I say that we should invade Iran tomorrow because we cannot rule out the possibility that Ahmadinejad has a warhead aimed at us right now?

As far as the spirit duck is concerned, my experience tells me that God exists. My experience does not tell me that a spirit duck exists.

What if someone tells you that the spirit duck exists, and hath spoken to him somehow? Are you going to dismiss him as delusional or misguided? It strikes me that theists are just as good as atheists at dismissing other religions.

I honestly think that many atheists/agnostics would jump at the chance to believe in a God or deity that loves them all. But non-believers need far more than the kind of ‘proof’ that is usually offered by theists... who, at any rate, seem far from being able to agree among themselves.

It is a sad truth: I cannot force my mind to believe in something even when someone tells me I will go to Hell for not believing in it.

[Wayland Cybersmith]

Concerning my experience with the demon.

When I was 7, I had a nervous condition described to me as Chorea. I was put on Pheno Barbitone, and my parents were told I would have to take that for the rest of my life. I spent 3 months in Great Ormond Street Hospital and Tadworth Hospital.

Some time afterwards, my parents and the doctor noticed an improvement in my condition. I was taken off of the tablets. I showed no symptoms of the illness and no withdrawal symptoms.

Some days after this, my parents received a letter from an aunt. She had been to a spiritualist faith healer on my behalf. My family attributed my healing to this.

Around this time, I started having an invisible friend. Many children do at that age. Nothing strange about that.

Invisible friend is, perhaps, the wrong word. It was actually a manipulative bully. I became interested, increasing over the years to obsession, with astronomy, search for life on other planets, UFOs, ESP, folklore, and magic.

I had no friends at school. I was bullied and excluded. I used to get malicious phone calls from someone we never did identify. My "friend" convinced me I was better, more advanced than the other children. I started experiencing telepathy and precognition. I practised self-hypnosis and what I called "trance technique" to control such things as my sense of time. I used a breathing technique similar to that in Rajah Yoga to induce a feeling of weightlessness. I had some strange experiences, which I described as Astral Projection, but were more likely some kind of lucid dream.

I think another reason for my isolation as a young person was my asexuality. I couldn't be like the other boys, because I did not share their emotions with regard to the girls.

The result of all this was that I was a loner. A loser. I focussed all my anger and hatred into black mirrors and symbols. I was invited to co-found a Wicca based group in Coventry but had a dispute with the other leaders.

By the time I was 21, I was fearful of my sanity. Had I been more open, I have no doubt I would have been diagnosed as paranoid, psychotic, and schizophrenic. I tried to convince myself that my "friend" was my imagination, and tried many ways to break away from it. All attempts failed.

At this time I was studying to be a computer programmer at the Control Data Institute. I described my experiences to a couple of the people on the course (I don't remember why). They told me that my "friend" was a demon, and I instantly knew they were right.

That night, while I was walking through London, it kept saying "I'm going to kill you. You're going to die tonight." I was so distracted, I stepped out in front of cars on two occasions. That was October 31st 1978.

Sunday 5th November,I was at St Mark's Kenington with the two people from the course. After the first Charismatic service I had ever experienced, I was taken to a side chapel, where I was told to kneel. I renounced my involvement with the occult, the demon was cast out, and I was baptised in the Holy Spirit.

It was as if my head was filled with a blue-white light. I felt free. I felt drunk. My cares and inhibitions were gone. I saw a money lot and just stuffed notes in it.

I had 1 telepathic experience the following week, and that was it. It took me some time to stop "Astral Projecting" - the sensation was addictive.

34 years on and my life is amazing. I have peace and contentment. I have many good friends. I have everything I need. It is as if my life is a jigsaw, with every piece falling into place as and when I need it.

My experience with the Holy Spirit is totally different to my experience with the demon. I do not hear God, but my instincts and conscience are sharpened. I have the peace and confidence to know that, whatever situation I am in, I will get through it, even conquer it. I love being me - that is, I know that I am nothing special, but I am content to be that. I am learning to kill my pride, my ego - my "self" as we call it. I have learned to laugh at myself. Insults and praise have little effect on me. I am learning to value people above myself. With others in my church doing the same, it creates a community of servant heartedness and kindness. I attribute these changes in myself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the provision of God, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Sometimes I cannot help but laugh out of pure joy. I cannot think what could possibly improve my life.

[Samael]

I am an atheist.

Based on the evidence, the probability of a god existing is close to zero.

What evidence are you quoting?

While I am not a theist, I have an opposite view. If you consider the layout and complexity of our universe, you'd rapidly come to the conclusion that its structure suggests a definite design, not coincidence or random evolution. If the properties of our universe were even slightly altered, carbon basex life, for example you and me, couldn't exist. The number of factors that have to be precisely calibrated and aligned with each other is astounding, so that our universe could exist in the form it does today.

[Verust]

The burden of proof has nothing to do in my opinion about whether or not a single (or many) theoretical god exists but rather if one of the specific gods that have been believed in by society up until now exist. There is no way to win the argument is purely about SOME cause (god) that started the universe. I would not use the "something out of nothing" ever as that would apply to God as well.

.

While I am not a religious scholar I imagine most claim some historical evidence of powerful figures and various things in the "unnatural" category (miracles, magick, etc.)

.

I will say that the burden of proof for the Christian God, depending on if the christian believes the bible to be divinely inspired, falls on the Christian. There are a huge number of specific details about this one God so why would this exact form of a God be correct over any other possibility? There are also claimed events in our past and present that can be analyzed and will more than likely be provable to some degree by one side (eventually) thus hard evidence could be collected. An argument could then be made using this evidence to back various claims.

.

I don't know how/if this would apply to other religions.

.

Don't even remember which one I said... maybe "not sure".

[LonelyWind]

I am an atheist.

Based on the evidence, the probability of a god existing is close to zero.

What evidence are you quoting?

While I am not a theist, I have an opposite view. If you consider the layout and complexity of our universe, you'd rapidly come to the conclusion that its structure suggests a definite design, not coincidence or random evolution. If the properties of our universe were even slightly altered, carbon basex life, for example you and me, couldn't exist. The number of factors that have to be precisely calibrated and aligned with each other is astounding, so that our universe could exist in the form it does today.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

Why are you postulating about if the universe was somehow different? Do you have any evidence to suggest that there was a possibility that our universe could have been different? There wasn't a list of constants and someone chose one and, hey look, it's the one for life. As far as we know, as things are is the ONLY way they possibly could be. If you say they could be different, that must mean there are other universes for you to compare to. And if there are multiple universes for which life could arise, life is going to arise in the one that suits it. No mystery there.

[Samael]

I am an atheist.

Based on the evidence, the probability of a god existing is close to zero.

What evidence are you quoting?

While I am not a theist, I have an opposite view. If you consider the layout and complexity of our universe, you'd rapidly come to the conclusion that its structure suggests a definite design, not coincidence or random evolution. If the properties of our universe were even slightly altered, carbon basex life, for example you and me, couldn't exist. The number of factors that have to be precisely calibrated and aligned with each other is astounding, so that our universe could exist in the form it does today.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

Why are you postulating about if the universe was somehow different? Do you have any evidence to suggest that there was a possibility that our universe could have been different? There wasn't a list of constants and someone chose one and, hey look, it's the one for life. As far as we know, as things are is the ONLY way they possibly could be. If you say they could be different, that must mean there are other universes for you to compare to. And if there are multiple universes for which life could arise, life is going to arise in the one that suits it. No mystery there.

Tell that to my professor, you just might change your mind :D

[LonelyWind]

I am an atheist.

Based on the evidence, the probability of a god existing is close to zero.

What evidence are you quoting?

While I am not a theist, I have an opposite view. If you consider the layout and complexity of our universe, you'd rapidly come to the conclusion that its structure suggests a definite design, not coincidence or random evolution. If the properties of our universe were even slightly altered, carbon basex life, for example you and me, couldn't exist. The number of factors that have to be precisely calibrated and aligned with each other is astounding, so that our universe could exist in the form it does today.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

Why are you postulating about if the universe was somehow different? Do you have any evidence to suggest that there was a possibility that our universe could have been different? There wasn't a list of constants and someone chose one and, hey look, it's the one for life. As far as we know, as things are is the ONLY way they possibly could be. If you say they could be different, that must mean there are other universes for you to compare to. And if there are multiple universes for which life could arise, life is going to arise in the one that suits it. No mystery there.

Tell that to my professor, you just might change your mind :D

That's certainly an argument.

Fact: Having a degree doesn't actually mean you're right about anything.

[Verust]

If your professor knows QM in the slightest then he knows on the molecular level movement is random and can only be determined using probability. A definite design thus is impossible, at least when it comes to us predicting its outcome. If we cannot predict it, and if the universe is ~15 billion years old (this is from Google, take from it what you will) I think it would be safe to say there could be more than one possible outcome.

.

I am not an expert in QM at all, but I have taken some from a Chemistry view point (meaning electrons).

.

I think LonelyWind was saying that even if some minor change happened for w/e reason that derailed everything, if there ended out being another life supporting planet (or earth was moved) you could apply the "this is the only possibility" argument.

[(A) & A]

I choose both yes and no.

I do not believe in an anthropomorphic, personal god who sits on a throne in the sky and judges man based on words in a book.

I do believe in an all-encompassing cosmic intelligence that exists in all things but see it as impersonal.

[Oxalis]

No. It's rather similar to my view on sex: it might happen someday, but I find it terribly unlikely. God and religion never played a big role in my life, so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Libraries are my churches and knowledge is my faith. And I couldn't be happier. :)

[Wayland Cybersmith]

What would atheists accept as proof of God's existence?

[LonelyWind]

What would atheists accept as proof of God's existence?

Verifiable, scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the scientific method dictates.

[Wayland Cybersmith]

What would atheists accept as proof of God's existence?

Verifiable, scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the scientific method dictates.

Please give examples.

EDIT How would you go about proving that God exists? What methods would you use to test the hypothesis?

[Metzia]

What would atheists accept as proof of God's existence?

Verifiable, scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the scientific method dictates.

Please give examples.

EDIT How would you go about proving that God exists? What methods would you use to test the hypothesis?

The whole point is that YOU give examples.

[Wayland Cybersmith]

What would atheists accept as proof of God's existence?

Verifiable, scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the scientific method dictates.

Please give examples.

EDIT How would you go about proving that God exists? What methods would you use to test the hypothesis?

The whole point is that YOU give examples.

My point is that there is no proof that atheists would find acceptable. For me, the existence of God is certain, and is a significant factor in my day-to-day living. However, there is no evidence I could offer to an atheist that would be acceptable. Only a person with the ability to perceive spiritual matters would be able to understand.

[Larien]

This thread isn't meant for debate; if you'd like to continue debating this topic, feel free to make a new thread in a different forum, or PM me and I can split the debate-y posts into a new thread.

Thanks, all.

Larien, Census mod

[R_1]

Why couldn't there be a 'undefinable' option? As an apatheist, my beliefs cannot be simply placed to the theism and agnosthiesm and athiesm because I have come to the conclusion which is no conclusion.

[Næt.]

Why couldn't there be a 'undefinable' option? As an apatheist, my beliefs cannot be simply placed to the theism and agnosthiesm and athiesm because I have come to the conclusion which is no conclusion.

Why do you care if you're an Apatheist?

[Evenstar71]

I'm just interested to see how this plays out in the A community. I have NO INTENTION of starting any hot philosophical debates, partly for the reason that I would inevitably get carried away. I genuinely don't know what to expect from this, with such a wide range of nationalities and lifestyles...

I believe. I consider myself more of a spiritual person, rather than a conventional religious person.

[Cakey]

Someone at an Aven meet once said that God loves everybody, then they looked directly at me and said, " He even loves you!"............

[R_1]

Why couldn't there be a 'undefinable' option? As an apatheist, my beliefs cannot be simply placed to the theism and agnosthiesm and athiesm because I have come to the conclusion which is no conclusion.

Why do you care if you're an Apatheist?

An apatheist can be involved into debates regarding god, but the definition is the state of being apathetic about god's existance which does not imply the lack of ability to give a damn to do anything with the positions of god debates as the positions does not say anything about god's existance.