DOES GOD EXIST? »
Posted By Newperson 1 year, 1 month ago in ReligionJust once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
Read Full Story at everystudent.com »
2262 Views Share Story 85 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Newperson
From the day we are born were all travelers just passing through. And i'm happy to have a wonderful loving wife to pass through ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 252 of 310 Comments (view all)
-
69%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
-
81%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's time to dispel one of this nation's greatest myths . . . There are indeed MANY atheists in foxholes.
Reply
The Freedom From Religion Foundation erected its monument to "Atheists in Foxholes" in 1999 at Lake Hypatia, Alabama.
The monument is dedicated to the many members of the military who were "atheists in foxholes," as well as to all freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, and skeptics of any persuasion) who serve in the U.S. military.
The monument reads:
"In memory of ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES and the countless FREETHINKERS who have served this country with honor and distinction.
"Presented by the national Freedom From Religion Foundation with hope that in the future humankind may learn to avoid all war."
http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/ -
82%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“There are no Atheists in foxholes!”
Reply
It’s a claim that is repeatedly made by many politicians, media pundits and especially preachers. But is it true?
No!
There ARE in fact many “Atheists in foxholes” who have served and are serving our country proudly, in all branches of the armed forces. In fact, nearly thirty million Americans do not profess a religious belief. This group includes many people who describe themselves as Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists or with other appellations.
Isn’t it time that we acknowledged and saluted them?
That is what the “Atheists in Foxholes” event is all about! It is an opportunity for these many men and women to make a proud statement that they, too, are serving their country. It is also an event where the rest of us — including our political and military leaders — can recognize and honor these “Atheists in Foxholes.”
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/about.php -
100%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
-
-
-
83%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To say that a person is moral only if he or she obeys God’s commandments–out of fear or love of God or a desire for salvation–is hardly adequate. Ethical principles need to be internalized, rooted in reason and compassion. The ethics of secularism is autonomous, in the sense that it need not be derived from theological grounds. Secular humanists are interested in enhancing the good life both for the individual and society.
Reply
Today, a new imperative has emerged: an awareness that our ethical concerns should extend to all members of the global community. This points to a new planetary ethics transcending the ancient religious, ethnic, racial, and national enmities of the past. It is an ethic that recognizes our common interests and needs as part of an interdependent world.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/25/paul-k...-
75%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that ethics is best internalized. However, whether an atheist does a good deed for the "wrong" reasons or a believed in God does a good deed for the "wrong" reason, they are still both good deeds.
Reply
Though you may believe that atheists are more ethical than those that believe in God, I think it is a pointless generalization fraught with bias and illogical belief.
Perhaps we could put a moral barometer with a memory bank on an agnostic and see how often they perform good deeds during their moments of belief and compare it to their conduct during their moments of disbelief.
-
-
100%
Newperson1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
lvrofwolves1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller-I would think, I may be wrong..but I'm an Agnostic...we don't have moments of belief or disbelief, If I had those times, I would consider myself an Atheist at times and a Christian at other times. I'm neither all the time. When I do a good thing, it is for selfish reasons, just as everyone else does it for selfish reasons, whether it's for good points for God etc..., or to make yourself feel good and others by doing good. Doing good helps the human species survive. So doing good, benefits people regardless if you are Atheist, Agnostic, religious.There is no wrong in doing good. Now IF there is a God, and you are a 'Christian' God would probably judge you on why you did good deeds, if it was purely for selfishness, or out of fear of going to hell....I would think that might be frowned upon. these of course are all guesses except my personal feelings of myself. Boils down to it feels good to do good, maybe it feels better to an Atheist because they don't feel obligated to a 'God' or out of fear.Maybe Agnostics do it for both reasons, just in case ;-)
Reply -
38%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The difference between a believer and a non believer is the believer has an ethic set imposed on them from above. A non believer has to create their own ethics. This creates a problem for the non believer as to what is correct or incorrect. In both cases the ethics have to be internalized and made part of their lives. Compassion is decidedly a Judeo Christian concept. It was not part of the ancient world. Rome and Greece had no use for it. Aristotle ridiculed the concept. A current saying in India is, "The tears of others is just water." So any compassion that non believers have comes indirectly from the Judeo Christian heritage this country has. Why do you think that when a disaster strikes the US sends in relief and most of the rest of the world just looks on?
Reply
Because of the creating their own ethics some non believers have become mass murderers, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
-
-
-
85%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Societies differ wildly in their religious beliefs. On the other hand, tacit assumptions (such as God’s limited ability to attend to the world around Him) “are extremely similar in different cultures and religions.” Humans tend to best remember supernatural stories that involve a balanced combination of superhuman and plausibly human attributes. Therefore, the most memorable stories about gods almost always involve gods that are somewhat human, but not totally so, and not substantially alien to our way of understanding.
Reply
Boyer argues that religious beliefs hijack human cognitive resources. He suggests that religion offers what seems to amount to a super-stimulus. “Religious agents are highly simplified versions of absent human agents, and religious rituals are highly stylized versions of precautionary procedures”. And, again, this super stimulus is given extra gloss because the existence of bizarre beliefs in the absence of evidence constitutes an expensive (and therefore reliable) expression of commitment to one’s social group. Most modern religions offer this potent cocktail. “All it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.”
This cognitive cocktail approach to religion challenges the notion that particular creeds significantly differ cognitively from competitor creeds. The differ to believers, of course, because the various sets of beliefs distinguish competing social groups. To cognitive scientists, though, any particular set of factually unsubstantiated religious beliefs functions identically to any other.
How potent is the “cocktail” offered by religion? Boyer suggests that adopting some form of religious thinking “seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. He contrasts the temptation of religious belief with disbelief, which is “generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions.” That’s how potent religious belief is. It seems to be the hard-wired default of the human condition.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/24/pascal...-
-
100%
bluetexasvalley1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky, not sure I agree with Boyer about the "hard-wiring". Despite being a regular church-goer from the age of three, I well remember having serious doubts at the age of 12. Still, I spent almost fifty years trying really hard to believe, but to no avail. I just couldn't; it just didn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm too left-brained or something. Anyway, I finally gave up and stopped pretending.
Reply
-
-
100%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He does tend to get up on a soapbox, doesn't he? LOL>>>
Reply
Ricky doesn't seem to have a problem with the belief in God (although I'm pretty sure he thinks it's silly), his problem (and mine) is with what religion has done to that belief.
People should be allowed to believe what they wish regardless of the evidence as long as they aren't harming anyone with that belief or attempting to force people to believe as they do. -
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user12 Replies
-
89%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't need to persuade anyone into believing what I believe and what works for me. Those who seem to feel it is incumbent upon them to convert others to their way of thinking, whether it be in their religion or in their atheism, seem to be missing the joy and contentment of their own convictions.
Reply-
85%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spade, what's missing here is that atheism isn't based on any belief. It's not about converting others, and it has nothing to do with joy and contentment.
Reply
What is dangerous about religion is it is used to control and limit people. Some religions routinely limit girls and women in their participation in society, even turning them into slaves. Interviews with the polygamists were quite telling--the women were not happy about the situation, and suffered jealousy when their husbands were with other "wives." But they'd been brainwashed to believe they had to "make the sacrifice" or end up in hell. That is a sick thing to teach 1/2 of a population. The women who escaped said they never thought for themselves--they were told exactly what to do and never even considered making decisions. It was all based on fear and potential judgment and damnation.
It is a mistake to treat atheism as a belief or as analagous to religious indoctrination.
-
-
94%
Bkumm1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From a logical perspective there is neither any evidence for nor against the concept of "God". It is impossible, under the current conditions, to say either that there is or there isn't a deity.
Reply
And I personally don't care if the atheists say such things as, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", because that applies to both sides of the argument. Further, I don't care if those that believe in a deity say such things as, "it is obvious from the complexity of existence and the way that the Universe is ordered for humans to exist that a deity exists". That is a circular argument and as such is not valid.
Having said that, we can say with some certainty, that there is no evidence for an intercessory, personal deity. Any attempt to "prove" such a thing is meaningless.
I am an atheistic spiritualist. I do not believe in a "god". On the other hand, I do believe that there is some kind of spiritual force that drives us and is universal, however I feel that it manifests itself differently for each person. Even the most devout atheist has something that drives them to get up in the morning. It may be a search for knowledge or a quest for "truth", but there is something that they can not quantify or prove that drives them. For the most devout Christian, that quality may be their faith in Jesus Christ. But, they can not prove or quantify that either.
Neither point is invalid. What IS very much invalid is attempting to force people either through coercion, force or legislation to believe the way that one group or another thinks they should. THAT is wrong.-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.
Reply
What is missing is the conversation about how religions formed, how the traditions became solidified, and how cultural engineering actually works. That is a huge elephant in the parlor that most people don't even wish to discuss. But were are on the threshhold of a deeper understanding. We see it in the growth of newer religions that acknowledge science and technology and in the growing number of people who feel safe stating openly they don't believe in a supernatural entity.
Traditions can be cherished, and folklore can be used to teach children morals through stories, but there is no need to cling to belief as if it were "truth." I think we are at a point where we have outgrown the major world religions, and we are looking for what will replace them. I think the number of people doing so is growing exponentially, and a major shift is about to occur in human thought. -
staarComment removed: Spam
-
-
100%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
-
-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RRJ, I respect that. It's a personal working hypothesis for you, based on thoughtful contemplation. As long as people who reach the same conclusion don't ask me to believe or shape my life based on some religious tradition, I think whatever works for people is fine.
Reply -
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
ELISHEVA11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, quite the thread... Not sure what I can add here except maybe that when we grow up we'll see that G_d and religion have nothing to do with anything. In fact, G_d and Nature are interchangeable.
Reply
Things are what they are. No need to prove anything or be right... As far as 'how man treats man' being a reason to not believe in G_d... I'm sure G_d is in charge of everything. How we treat each other is proof that we (our ego's) insist on staying at our animal level. If we want to treat each other better, and I'm sure G_d wants this, then we need to desire that - truly want it.
We act like babies otherwise. It is our responsibility to chose G_d and He will respond - His way.-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ELISHEVA1, why include a supernatural anthropomorphized G_d if it's interchangeable with Nature?
Reply
Your last sentence suggests you do believe in a patriarchal supernatural G_d and you think it's necessary in order to overcome infantile behavior. You seem to imply that you're a "believer," and you do not actually think G_d and Nature are interchangeable. Natural and supernatural do not intersect, by definition. -
100%
ELISHEVA11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'...Natural and supernatural do not intersect, by definition...' as we currently understand the system.
Reply
Belief and faith are not the same. Do you believe that a leaf on a tree is green? No, it just is. Do you have faith that it will grow in the spring? Yes. Do you argue with it and demand it to grow purple because you prefer that?? No. All I am suggesting is that Nature is way bigger than us and there is no use to fight or argue with it because we will continue to lose.
Dialogue is an intellectual exercise that suggests 'I' know something. Or, it gives me a place to spar but really, for me, it is not of much use as I do not really know anything of the 'whole,' or the big picture. It is subjective and as Einstein said: (paraphrase) You cannot fix a problem at the same level that it was created. One must get above it to find a solution...'
All I am saying is that G_d and Nature ARE the same. I am not suggesting that Nature does not have conscientiousness. It probably does.
How do we name something bigger than ourselves, our earth? It is not of any importance. If it is bigger than us, it is more powerful and therefore higher than us. We can call it Nature, G_d, or 'Lamp.'
The intention for understanding and integration into an (awesome and,) existing structure of creation is what is important. Our desire and our effort to do so, (ideally together,) is what we can do to become our human potential.
-
-
100%
Mutainia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I knew an atheist in a fox hole. He was very bitter and depressed due to losing a wife of 60 years to brain cancer. His favorite poem was "Invictus". I don't blame him for being grouchy. The poor guy had ended up being LIKE the guy in the Henley poem. His bald, buzzardly head was "bloody", but, unbowed. He died an atheist, proud and angry to the end. May God have mercy upon his soul.
Reply-
100%
Sageparadox1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hello, I am your friendly atheist/agnostic who once in a fox hole. I had to have a double lung transplant because my lungs got so scarred they hardly absorbed any oxygen, even with being on 100% oxygen. A couple days before my actually transplant, I had to be put on Eckmo, which was a painfull process where they had to carve for arteries in my groin and chess areas while I was awake to run my blood through a machine, in order to oxygenate my blood. I laid in a bed afterwards for about 3 months couldnt walk untill the last couple of weeks. Ate through a tube that first went through my nose, but later they inserted the tube straight through my belly. And thats just part of my experience. Point being, I was a atheist/agnostic in a foxhole, I wasnt bitter, and was mostly possitive through my entire experience. Some people get bitter through out life experiences regardless of being religious or not.
Reply
-
-
100%
smithichie1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why limit the question to a singular god? If one god can exist, why not all of them?
Reply
Personally, while I am an atheist, I do not oppose the possibility of a god existing, in fact ANY of them existing, heck maybe Santa exists too, I just demand incredible evidence for incredible claims. You say people would just deny such evidence, like those who deny the moon landings, but the problem with that thought is the fact nobody has ever produced even close to the kind and amount of evidence we have for moon landings for ANY god. Show me the evidence before claiming I will deny it. Given the proper evidence I would cease being an atheist.-
80%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evidence? The shroud of Turin, bleeding statues, the Bible written by God himself... this is all evidence.
Reply
What? You think it could be faked? You think Man could have created these things themselves? Of course they could.
They could also have faked the moon landing quite easily. It doesn't take much to make people look lighter, just elastic strings between them and the ceiling that would act opposite to the normal force of gravity.
You choose to believe in the evidence for the moon landings, because you have no reason not to, yet you choose to disbelieve evidence of God's existence because you don't want to.
I'm not saying you're wrong to do so, it's just best to be aware of what you're doing. -
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
100%
chevydog1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Every culture we know of since the world began has believed in God(s). True, we have lots of debate about His/her/its form and characteristics; but one doesn't fool all of humanity for all of history. Belief in God would seem to be an innate human characteristic; we see ourselves, and because of that we are sure that there exists something better.
Reply -
100%
pokydoke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I started reading the posted article and came to this.
Reply
"Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today." This is used as "evidence". I'm sorry but no matter how open I keep my mind I still can't use this as evidence. -
100%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The universe can seem a very large, lonely and scary place. It is no wonder that many of the weaker minded feel that is necessary to create a sense of security by inventing an omnipotent father figure to watch over them, succour them and give them purpose.
Reply-
75%
willottica1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "weaker minded" as you call them, are not inventing God. They are CHOOSING to believe in the accounts and evidence observed by their ancestors and recorded in their religious texts.
Reply
This is much the same choice as CHOOSING to believe in the accounts and evidence observed by currently living scientists about the existence of quarks, and even of atoms and molecules, though most of us have never seen these things directly.
Now, you will likely say that there is ample supporting evidence for quark and atomic/molecular theory, but the "weaker minded" see ample supporting evidence for the existence of God. The truth about both sets of beliefs is that there are other explanations that to you or them may seem more or less plausible.
Another major difference is that those who believe in God have thousands more years and billions more people who have believed and possibly claimed to have experienced God than those who might claim the existence of quarks.
Do I believe in quarks? I honestly don't care enough to form an opinion. The belief will have little effect on my life. The same can be said of God. It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't believe I will ever have enough evidence to prove it one way or the other, so I don't actively seek to answer the question. I live as a Christian, because I like the story of Jesus. I want people to be, act, and love the way Jesus did according to the Gospel accounts.
What I will do, is attempt to step in when someone's subjective beliefs are held up as fact and are pushed on others. We don't know. And even if some of us do know, with certainty, one way or another, this knowledge cannot be passed on verbally, but must be experienced. -
100%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
chuck,
Reply
You might want to re-evaluate your remarks; they are just as faulty as those you point the finger at.
Your generalizations are stereotypes and lend themselves to the same bigotry that you accuse people from religious backgrounds of perpetrating on others.
Some people have intelligent beliefs in principles and love that do not include reliance on an "omnipotent father", but your characterization of people as being weaker minded is as self-righteous as the religious zealot who tells people their soul will not be saved if they do not pray to their God.
-
-
-
80%
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My proof of there being a God is all of the good and beauty I am surrounded by day to day. Everything being so beautiful could not have just appeared/happened....... as far as I am concerned. Was it just a 'big bang'? Or was there some 'guidance'? My mother was a beautiful being. We made a deal before she passed and she kept her part of the bargain. She has to be in heaven and I hope to be so blessed as be with her again, if only for a moment. She is my best friend. She walks with God and yes, I do believe.
Reply
Those who choose not to believe is fine with me. I don't feel the need to infringe on thier non-religion and I ask the same of them. It is a beautiful world and it is full of beautiful people of all kinds.
God Bless -
-
100%
letsgetrowdy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, a very interesting topic. I do enjoy the comments given on here, some I agree with, others I don't. There is a great debate for both sides. In short, I am a believer of a higher power. I honestly don't know enough to really debate the issue, so all I can say, is that we all have free will, good and bad. It's the choices we make, and it is our choice, not a higher powers. My choice is to believe, partly due to upbringing, life experiences, readings (my favourite is Kahlil Gibran among others) and who I am today. I can't explain why I believe, but in my heart I just do.
Reply -
100%
Sageparadox1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The way I look at it, God or Gods may or may not exist. For some reason he/she/them/it doesnt think it is to important for there being any proof of such a existance. I just think there are more important things right now that we are facing.
Reply-
-
-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you believe in a deity, but have the opinion that thinking about it isn't important. (You projected your belief onto something you refer to as he/she/it.)
Reply
I happen to think that thinking about it--and articulating it--are very important. Women are being stoned to death, flogged, and subjugated or even being brainwashed to believe they are property and dependent on someone else to avoid fire and brimstone after death because of belief in a God or Gods.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that's possibly one of the most important things right now that we are facing.
-
-
100%
Iwasthinking1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since we are talking about evidence for God, I think this is an interesting story to consider:
Reply
http://news.aol.com/article/toddler-fine-after-key...
It is of a family that prayed for healing for their toddler and got it.-
-
100%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I assert that prayer is a process that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious cultural engineers have coopted things that work for everyone (even atheists) and attributed them to whatever doctrine they wish to spread.
Reply
Buddhism doesn't believe in a deity, and yet studies have shown their forms of "prayer" to be the most effective of those tested under scientific conditions.
And we have no idea how or why sometimes healing occurs and sometimes continued illness or death comes instead. We can call the healings miracles or gifts from a deity, but that doesn't make them so.
We do know that laughter, love, and anything that produces positive emotion can have a healing effect. But I don't need a deity to have any of those things. All I have to do is hold my therapeutic purring cat and I feel those endorphins flow. -
100%
lvrofwolves1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To believe or think prayer healed that toddler is dangerous, if you think prayer will help you through a medical incident, whatever, but to put that on someone else, is wrong. Just because it seemed impossible, doesn't make it a magical miracle.
Reply
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.