Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly, to be frank.

I don't believe in God becuse I have no reason to, as there's nothing that I've seen that has convinced me. To suggest that I feel that way simply because I choose not to believe is pushing on insulting. (for the record, I think Paluka's line is insulting as well).

EDIT-

Also, we have one thread for talking about God, let's focus more on the topic in the op.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

How about we go one further and say our biggest flaw is the mind's ability to decieve itself, which the inability to accept the unknown can be lumped in with.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote has an implicit assumption that athiests are not moral, which is simply not true.

Which is better, acting moral because it is the correct thing to do, or acting moral soley because something is watching your every step and placing judgement on your actions?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Quids - well put. And a very real reason why people out-of-hand dismiss religion / religiosity / "God" etc. For fear of intellectual ridicule.

[ QUOTE ]
We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many very thoughtful, religious people who are not only torn about their faiths (one in particular is a Phd at MIT, quantum physics) but constantly re-investigating and questioning their belief system.

As someone else mentioned believing in a God is a leap of faith: in many ways, the thoughtful religious person is giving up control of his life and putting it in the hands of their God and this belief system without empirical intellectual underpinnings (ie based on faith). Some might see this as cowardly and stupid (acceding agency), others as a courageous act.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right?

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement is no more or less true or stupid than yours.

Perhaps all the atheists you know would love that shot at eternal bliss in heaven... but ultimately they preferred to make a different leap of faith.

We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Religious people happen to make a leap of faith that is well-defined therefore much more open to questions / possible ridicule.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith. I guess this is like the difference between guilty until proven innocent vs innocent until proven guilty. Everything I know about the world makes says that I should not believe in God until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would feel the same way about any supernatural or far-fetched fact or concept.