Why people want to believe there is a god.

Here is a passage from one of my favorite novels. It explains perfectly why people want to believe there is a god.The Court of the TwiceBorn 3:
The Absent Referent"Every child is born into a universe ruled by a just and particular god, the
center of whose universe in turn that child is. None of us ever truly recovers
from the first great betrayal: that the universe is not that which the
evidence of our hearts and minds and senses has proclaimed it to be.There is more magnanimity in human nature than is popularly supposed. If we
cannot claim a personal universe for ourselves, enfolded by a god who knows
our name, we will create it for others. A cosmos which notices, for good or
ill, is far preferable to one which simply ignores us.Thus, one of the seductions of power. It begins, always, as an intent to
redress the wrong discovered in childhood---that one is not the center of the
of the universe, that in fact the universe, being no spectator, cannot possess
a center.Against this, rather than for anything at all, we go to war and die, set up
gods and avatars, or declare that the universe indeed dances to some measure
if disinterested pattern which may now discover and invoke.There is no escape. Life was made to hope; to believe, in the face of all
evidence, that something may yet be so because it is *nicer* than the reality
experienced daily.It is true that in a continuum of random change, some change may be perceived
as for the better.It is even possible, in an infinity of change, that the universe may come to
hold meaning at last."

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
So what kind of evidence do you want? Historical evidence? Evidence for prophecies fulfilled after the predictions in the bible? Evidence for Jesus?

---

Easy, all it would take is for god to appear in the so-called flesh. By his/her/its very appearance would be evidence enough. BTW, believing in the existence of god is not necessarily worshipping of said deity either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Show me an intelligent designed system and the proof that it is designed i.e. evidence for a designed species for example where all data from multiple disciplines supports design over evolutionary mechanisms.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

What if you're a theistic evolutionist?

​

Well you included prophecies, and that means I can have a great deal of fun in this thread, probably offending every other Christian around.

---

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If most theists (Christian) believe that we're made in their god's image than god must have looked like an ape early on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
And what about the question why do people want to believe there is no God?

---

Maybe they are just being honest with themselves? BTW, I'm an agnostic. An honest answer to the question about the existence of a creator of all is "I don't know."

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
That is an actual possibility. (I told you I would offend people.) Or it could be that we are the end result of our own evolutionary progress and we now look like God and will go no further. Finally, according to a literal interpretation of Genesis, man was made of dust. I don't feel that evolution necessarily makes God anything "lower" than man (haha, I avoided the pun) more than literal Creationism makes God into dust.

---

Actually, everything on this planet is made from CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen) There is some thought that we are at the point in our evolution where we can direct its course to what we may want. Some say that we could go in the direction of freeing our minds from organic bodies to cybernetic ones (When we will become our tools), and others to extensive genetic re-engineering. If anything we have now taken ourselves mostly out of the "loop".[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-02-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:You have a clear bias against rocks.Only the ones in certain heads. BTW, dust is mostly made up of flakes of skin. That makes us fundamentally unique. While it might be argued that some animals practice selective breeding in mate selection and microbes can pick and choose DNA only we do these things with any sense of planning. I think genetic engineering is just a logical extension of something that has been happening in nature (and practised by people) for a long time.

​

We'd better put it to use because medicine, while a great boon for humanity, is removing selection pressure for pretty much everything. If we don't develop practical and widespread genetic therapy within a few generations there will probably be consequences. The problem with that is that we would be losing genetic diversity in the process.The problem is that through ignorance many fear genetic engineering. If they don't like it when we do it to our food they certainly won't when we start on ourselves.And presumably overcome death in the process, or at least, death due to aging (accidents will still happen, maybe conflicts as well).

​

Of course when the seat of "your" consciousness jumps from your brain to the console on the desk over there, is whatever "it" is on the other end "you" or just a model of the way you (now dead) thought?What's the difference? It is still just data, wheither it is in an organic or inorganic matrix it still functions the same. A neuro-net is a neuro-net. In fact certain areas of the brain operate in a digital, or binary, manner. The brain processes thought the same as the stomach processes food. Basically all we are is a self-writing meta-program.I'm *not* gonna be the first person on my block to sign up for that.Why not? I know, as a victim of thalidomide, that I would jump at the chance to correct my flawed genes, or even to do away with them altogether.We started our way out of the loop when we started using tools. We've been mostly out of the ecological loop for centuries, we're just finishing up the last details now. Maybe this is one of the signs of a fully sentient species, to shape itself and not let nature do it for us. Where mind is more important than form.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-02-2002]

Originally posted by Mammuthus:Hi nos482
You mentioned you are a victim of thalidomide? I am sorry to hear that. If I understand it correctly your genes are fine but thalidomide changes the timing of gene expression in the limb causing limb reduction. Ideally, one would be able to locally reactivate the development process and re-engage the limb development process. I agree that this would be a wonderful (though sadly very futuristic) application of gene therapy.My limbs are more or less intact, but all of my joints are doubled and come out of place easily. I think that they are closer than many would think. Look at the human genome project when they thought that it would take much more time until they found a "short-cut".Evolutionary developmental biology (EVO-DEVO) looks not so much at conservation of gene sequences but at conservation of gene expression patterns during development which has a much broader impact on phenotype than a specific point mutation in a non-coding gene. It is very likely that the small differences between chimps and humans for example will be due to slight shifts in timing of gene expression during development...there is already preliminary evidence that humans have altered gene expression in the brain for specific genes relative to other great apes...however, thus far, nobody has been able to track the changes during development.Hasn't it been found that both humans and chimps share the same blood types as well and that we can also share blood with little or no filtering?Over the next few centuries as we get a better handle on how all of these processes work I think some marvelous medical applications will be developed....I'm thinking that it may be much sooner than that.and all of them will face incredible resistance from the radical right who will not understand the techniques but will be against them nonetheless.Yes, we see this ignorance based fear in Europe with those who are now protesting what they call "Frankenfoods". Their kind are not new. We had seen them during the start of the Industrial Revolution as well, they were called Luddites. People will do stupid things because of irrational fears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Easy, all it would take is for god to appear in the so-called flesh.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

You have to earn that through faith. Plus, if you saw God in the flesh and did not believe you would qualify as a Son of Perdition.

---

Why do I have to "earn" it? Isn't that circular reasoning? If one already believes in god than god doesn't have to appear to one since there is no need to prove god's existence to one who already believes. One doesn't "earn" the love of another. It is either given freely, or unconditionally, or it means nothing. To say otherwise makes it a lie.Believing in the existence of something, like a god, is not necessarily the same as worshipping said deity.You are using the fallacy of Pascal's Wager.Putting conditions on your god's love is an idea of modern Christianity with its revenge mentality. Modern Christianity is more about control and punishment than about love and forgiveness. The sort of love you are talking about is akin to that practiced by those into S&M; "Punish me, god, I'm a wicked sinner..."[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
What if one's religion does not imply that GOd created humans in His image? Mine for example. I believe that God is unlike any of his creations. So we don't believe that He assumes the shape of an old man touching the index finger of Adam--not like how Michelangelo portrayed Him based on his own faith.

---

Though, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have the same basic roots as being from a male dominated, desert dwelling culture.In Islam only Allah is seen as being perfect thus when a Muslim makes something they usually add a flaw to it.Even in Christianity, where they believe that they are made in their god's image, not all of them have a real problem with evolution. It mainly seems to be with Americans that there is a real problem.But than again far too many make their god in their own image and thus we see all of this nonsense in the world and therefore the point of this thread. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-03-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Because you are here partly to prove the integrity of your faith. If you could just have faith given to you one day it would be pointless.An all-knowing god would already know if I had faith or not. Besides, it is irrelevant if I have faith or not. A truly loving god wouldn't care about something like that. This was the entire purpose of why Christ suppositely died on the cross so that ALL of our sins (past, present, and future) would be forgiven. Are you say that that was a lie?It is the religious who put conditions on the love of their god because they are more into control and punishment than into love and forgiveness. In other words they try to create their god in their own image.One thing that bothers me about atheism is the position that it is ok for you to not bother looking into religion because, if there is a God, you just assume that He will walk into your office one day and introduce Himself. Basically, it is an excuse to be lazy.Actually that isn't correct. An atheist just doesn't wake up one morning and say; "Gee, I think that I'll be an atheists now so I can rebel against god..." The majority of atheists came from religious homes and grew up only knowing what they were told and finding that it was empty and meaningless. In other words they had actually done the real searching and found it wanting. Most Christians just accept what they are told on faith without really trying to find out for themselves. BTW, I'm an agnostic."Human life and destiny is always endangered when prophets of
whatever sort demand, 'Frage nicht, glaube!' Do not question.
Believe!"
-Jack ForstmanA common (and incorrect) belief amongst non-theists is that faith is something some people are born with and the rest have no hope. That's not true. The prophet Alma from the Book of Mormon:You are born to trust and accept everything your parents tell you. This thread is about what many do when they finally discover the truth and can't handle it. The Mormons are a prime example of this.By the way, something else you don't realize: you don't need a physical manifestation of God to know that God is there, you just need to feel the Holy Spirit. It will confirm what is true. But manifestations, with very few exceptions, only happen to the extremely faithful and usually then only in holy places (temples).As I had said that is circular reasoning. We've learned quite a bit about how the brain functions and mainly the root cause of such "visions" as well.God Himself does not dwell with unclean things so the odds are against you (and me). However it is the right of the very devout to behold Christ. The final thing I have to add to this post is that with great knowledge comes equally great responsibility, and even peril. The closest thing to Hell in Mormon worldview is the Outer Darkness, and only those who have seen Christ and then denied Him go there. I hate to disappoint you, but even the atheists here really aren't eligible for Hell though they will be held accountable for their own sins.Hell is an invention of the Church to keep little children in line. The First Christians didn't believe in either a hell or a devil. To them it was either heaven or the GRAVE. To them this was a greater punishment than anything which modern Christianity had come up with with its revenge mentality.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Perhaps you will notice the frustration as I type this post. It is like explaining cyclothems to a YEC that has never had an elementary school science course.That goes without saying. But you are assuming that I have never had any exposure to religion. You couldn't be more wrong, yet again. I lived in a house that was the first Irish Catholic Church in our town and my family donated land so that a new church could be built and had thier home moved so the land it was on could be used to build a youth centre as well.God does not hurl you into Hell if you do not have faith. You are not punished for some lack of faith. You must have faith to find God, in this world, and in the afterlife.Irrelevant. This is just your version of it. What makes you right and every other Christian wrong? It it just because Smith had a "vision" of stealing those "plates" and murdering those guards? But, hey, it isn't murder when you do it in your god's name.
And we all know how accepted Morons are in the Christian community at large. You will require faith to communicate with God: the faith that God exists in the first place and the faith that God has forgiven you your sins. If you do not have the first then you will not find God in the end. Without the second you may find God but you will not be able to stand in his presence, it will be too painful for you to know all of your faults before God when you yourself have a perfect knowledge of your own earthly existance.In other words you first must believe and therefore there is no reason for your god to prove his/her/its existence to you. Circular reasoning.Earth is a place for your faith to be tested and grown in preparation for that.Why?You have to be repentant for that.Nope. If we have to repent than there was no reason for him to "sacrifice" himself. A real sacrifice would have been if he had stayed dead, but than again there wouldn't be Mormons now since he wouldn't have been able to visit North America right after he suppositely rose from the dead.Part of being repentant is that you struggle to sin no more. "Once saved always saved" is a false notion.That is your version. Also, to be a follower of Christ requires more than believing in Christ, you must try to become like Christ. And you must endure.We must be god-like? Isn't that blasphemy?I'm responding to the fellow who asked for a physical manifestation of God. That's unfortunate if my perspective offends you but it stands.The "evidence" you offer is no different than if I had said that it was a Big Blue Banana which created the universe and be just as valid as your assertions. Also, it is unfortunate if people become atheists because they didn't like their parents upbringing.Here you are wrong yet again. You seem to mistakenly believe that people become atheistic just because they want to rebel against something. Most atheists based their "choice" on reason ad careful thought. However the choices they make are their own, if they do not find the church then they are not well prepared for what will happen in the afterlife.Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence for the existence of this so-called "afterlife"? Also unless you try every religion out there first you cannot soundly conclude that no church is true. Therefore I think atheism, however you look at it is a sham. I have some respect for agnosticism because at least they are honest to themselves about it.Pascal's Wage.No no no that's not the way it should be.Rarely is the real world what many think it should be. Another point of this thread and why they create gods and religions.You have to develop your own personal testimony. Your parents can teach you but have to build your own faith and ultimately decide for yourself. By the way I wonder how much you know about "Mormons" and I wonder where your information is coming from.I have a copy of the Book of Mormon I got directly from LDS, in fact it is the hard cover edition.Keep telling yourself that if it keeps you away from actually putting forth an effort and knowing the truth.Practice what you "preach".What can I say, other than that spiritual witness brought me from agnosticism to full faith so I know it works, regardless of what you might think of the quality of the argument. Further I find it obvious you haven't tried it.You can get the same effect from doing psychotropic drugs as well. In fact that is how they had their religious "visions" in biblical times as well.Did you even read the post you are replying to? It is a common courtesy, you should try it. Any version of hell is no different than when parents use the boogyman to scare their children into behaving.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:As hard-headed and frustrating you people can be you don't know enough to be sent there. The more knowledge of God you have the more you are accountible for.

​

Trust me though, you're going to stand trial for lots of things and testimonies will be given against you but you won't be thrown into the Outer Darkness. There is that revenge mentality again. Too bad you're not into love and forgiveness as you actually should be. "Judge not lest yee be judged as well"

Originally posted by gene90:Love and forgiveness is good but don't you know that we are also instructed to brush the dust off our shoes, and stand as a witness
when the time comes? When what time comes?To a certain extent I can understand why, even though I have told you you are not going to Hell, you think God is vicious and vengeful: you don't want to be held accountible and these words are harsh on those who have strayed the furthest away. I didn't say any such thing. I have said that it is modern Christianity which is that. You are more into control and punishment than what you should be into. You want your enemies (Those who don't believe the same as you) to be made to suffer. You are creating your god in your own image. Many modern day Christians have difficulty with the concepts of love and forgiveness since they want those who don't accept their view of the way things should be rather than what they actually are to pay for this perceived betrayal.Your statement is no different than when a parent warns a child to behave or the boogyman will get them.We're all held accountable by the laws and customs of the society we live in. They carry far more real weight to me than from your imaginary sky father. In other words I respect Man's Law far more than god's law.Sin has no meaning in the real world and defined by the Church only. Sin is the breaking of Church law. Morality and sin are two completely different concepts.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Not necessarily. When I ease out of this LDS v. Everyone I'll talk more about atheism and we can talk about the categories of atheists based upon how they arrived there, whether it was by frustration with their upbrinings or whatever.How they were raised is irrelevent.I want to answer this question without boasting and it's tough. I'll just point out that the Spirit manifested it to me suddenly and persistantly and leave it at that.How are you sure that it wasn't some form of delusion caused by exposure to some chemical imbalance?What makes you right, and every religious person in the world wrong?I didn't. I have stated that I don't know, and besides I'm not the one who will force others to believe as I do if given half a chance to.You're making JS look bad by implying he did it and also implying that Laban was a nice guy. (They asked Laban for the plates and then Laban offered to sell it to the Nephites for everything they owned, and when gave Laban what they had he stole it and kept the plates.)So, that justified theft and murder? Well, I guess anything is justifible if you believe that you are doing it in your god's name.That I might add was 2,500 years before Smith was born. I might also add that you clearly do *not* have a solid understand of the history of the Book of Mormon because it was not seen in a vision. It was a text, on gold leaves, written in hieroglyphics, sealed in the Hill Cumorah and translated by JS using the Urimm and Thummim. You might have read the first few pages of 1 Nephi but did you overlook the introduction and Joseph Smith's testimony?Even L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is a better work of fiction.Again, you remind me so much of a YEC, especially one that thinks he knows more than he does and knows just enough to build a couple of strawmen. Take more care in what you say.The lyrics maybe different, but the tune is always the same.Remember you can trust one who seeks the truth, but never trust one who claims to already have it.I'm going to overlook that, it could conceivably have been a typo.Actually it was a typo. Must have been a Freudian slip? To your next point who cares how we are accepted in the general Christian community? How well do you think atheists are accepted in the same community? It's irrelevant.Atheists are seen as a challenge to "bring back to the fold" whereas you are seen as heretics beyond redemption.Was it murder when the Allies took Normandy? Was it murder when we drove Saddam out of Kuwait amidst much butchery? I don't think so, it was necessary.Apples and oranges.Most people are just fine saying it is necessary and justifying it as the will of the state. How much more authority does God have than a state to make that judgement call? Reopen 1 Nephi and see that Nephi did not want to go through with it but it was true that it was better that one man should die than an entire people fall into apostasy. No, it isn't right to sacrifice one person to save another. It is like saying that we should use the homeless, and the like, for their organs because it will save many other lives.You have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior for the atonement to have an effect.Wrong, it was for ALL of Mankind.That's part of the deal. The nature of God requires both justice and mercy. Justice is that we would all die for our own sins. Mercy is that we would be spared. The plan of salvation is the compromise. You can have your way out of the deal if you choose but, again, it's not the best way through.Yet another concept you don't get.The atonement (in Gethsemane) was so great that he bled from every pore. Now I have heard that if we apply enough pressure to the little finger we actually can get a squirt of blood -- but the subject would most likely be unconscious long before. Do you think that is not pain? We also believe that he suffered every heartbreak that night that every human can feel. Is that not pain and sacrifice. Then there was the cross ordeal itself. Are you suggesting it was a cakewalk?That wasn't the sacrifice. Dying was.I don't think you've been reading my posts which is unfortunate because this debate is rather unbalanced and I'm sincerely interested in responding to each of you.Of course I've been reading them. Have you?One of the first quotes I left was an excerpt from Chapter 32 in Alma, in the Book of Mormon. You find a particle of faith, even just a will to believe, and let it grow, and in the process, know if (whatever it is) is true. It does not have to be a perfect knowledge of anything, you don't necessarily need "proof". It only has to be, at the least, a desire to believe and a willingness to try and find out for sure. You don't have to believe to find out, you just have to want to know.Contradiction.You've never heard of devout Christians trying to be Christlike? Why then do you think we have this "love thy neighbor" stuff?Too bad most don't actually practice this in any real sence of the concept.The Holy Spirit has not given me testimony of the Big Blue Banana, nor has it given me testimony of the BBB's scriptures or of the soundness of BBB's doctrines or of the authority of BBB's priesthood.I could use the tactics of YEC when they are confronted with all of the fossil evidence in favor of evolution and say that the BBB created the bible, and the like, as a test of your faith in his existence and you have failed. So, perpare to be peeled! Also I'm not aware of BBB's prophecies coming true.Which Christian prophesies have come true? The one's written about long AFTER the fact or the one's written in such a general manner that they could be interpreted to mean anything?Well I'm arguing with multiple people right now so it is inevitable that I am confusing worldviews. If you're an atheist perhaps you would like to detail how you reached your decision...not too personal but give a couple of sound, logical reasons for it.I'm not an atheist, but I am an agnostic. I came to this "choice" after a long time as searching and listening and finally realized that they didn't know what they were talking about. That they had no more clue of what was going on than anyone else did. That they were making it up as they went along.If what they were saying was real than there would be no doubt at all and everyone would accept it as such, with the so-called freewill or not. Christianity alone has over 1500 different sects and deminations currently and there have been over 30000 throughout its bloody history with all of them claiming to be the only true path to god.I'm going to explain why I don't understand how anyone can arrive at atheism as a worldview:That is like saying that you can't understand why people don't believe in the toothfairy.(1) "I got mad at my upbrining, decided the church was not true, and now I'm an atheist" -- your church is only one of thousands of religions out there and just because it is untrue does not imply that all churches are untrue.

​

(2) "I tried a bunch of churches but didn't find one I liked, so now I am an atheist" -- this is better than condition (1) but still not thorough unless you have tried every religion. Basically you quit. This might have been for practical reasons or you might have just gotten frustrated but it doesn't prove anything it just eliminates a few suspects.

​

There are other categories but I want to see who (if anyone) falls into these two. Both are wrong.You're acting like a YEC again. One of the first things we try to explain to new members, particularly Creationists, is that science does not deal with the supernatural because it does not normally, by definition, interact with the natural, observable world. No I don't have scientific (material) evidence because I'm not supposed to (by definition of science) and I have never bothered to look. Extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You offer nothing which can't be used to prove just about any fairy tale.Now after explaining that to so many Creationists I would be profoundly disappointed to see the scientifically literate, who should know better, try to do the same thing in a philosophical (non-scientific) debate like this one.Science is not required. Just the appearance of your god in the "flesh" would be enough.I don't have a problem with Pascal's Wager.You should since it actually requires that one be a pantheist just to be safe.And I stand by that.I think that they are all wrong since they can't actually know for sure while one still live.We actually have a problem of young people clinging to their parents' testimony without developing their own. Missionary work forces them out of this habit, for the ones that go.Missionaries have done more real harm to many cultures than any war ever did. They are responsible for more actual genocides than Christian like Hitler failed to do to the Jews.I'm a convert. Been there, done that, you should follow my example.I am as what not to do.The Holy Spirit is subtle and is around when you're following the commandments. I think if you pop a pill and have an experience then the cause and effect relationship is quite obvious and quite different from what I am talking about.Not really all that different.Where's your source for that?Here is a link to a PDF file. Search the docuement for Christianity.Page not found - Imprint Academic[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Judgement. As I've said people are judged partly according to what they know. A tribesman in Mongolia who has never heard of Jesus Christ is not going to have nearly as much difficulty as one who got tracted by missionaries on a regular basis, who, in turn, will not have nearly as much trouble as a fallen priesthood holder, who will, in turn, not have nearly as much trouble as a fallen disciple, etc.This has been to do with want the religious want then in anything to do with god.Personally I'd rather see my "enemies" convert and enjoy the same blessings in the end as good members enjoy.I rather have a life. There was a time when everyone alive agreed to follow God's plan. There were a large number who did not, but we were the more valiant part. I would like as many as possible to make it through to the best possible outcome.Ever hear of the Burning Times?More like Santa Claus than the Boogeyman.Much of Christmas is taken from Pagan religions.Follow the law and you will do well. Follow the teachings of Christ and you will do better.That is your opinion. Bad things happen to Christians as well. The law says that I can hate my neighbors all I like I just can't cause them harm. God says I can't hate my neighbors. Which has the moral high ground?Both.Not to you because you have no reason to excel in morality. You obviously have the basics of right and wrong and this is good, but you don't have the advanced lessons.Actually non-believers have every reason to be moral since this is their only life and they have to make the best of it and not risk losing it. Whereas theists have nothing to lose and many believe that this live is meaningless and only a stage to the next in heaven. That all they have to do is repent and mean it and they get into heaven. This means that Hitler got into heaven because he was a devout Catholic, believing he was doing god's will, and possibily repented before his death and Ghandi is in hell because he wasn't a Christian.Also, if you will look at the stats you will see that the prisons have more theists in them than non-theists even when compared to their per capita ratio on the outside.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]