CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why do you believe in God?
As an Atheist, I've discussed religion often enough with theists. But I've never really been given a substantial reason as to why they belive what they do.
And please no 'because it's in the Bible' 'because it's true' 'because Allah said so', I want intelligent answers. If you don't want me to reply, then that's fine too, just say so. Can't promise no one will though.
I think belief is a personal relationship and from that I have felt the presence of God which is obviously something I can't prove and I am fine with that. If a whole country is colour blind except one man, it would be hard for him to describe how and even what a colour is and how it makes him feel and how he knows it true, though it doesn't make the colour any less true. I also see God in people. I see people who are just incredible and really embody what I perceive to be an attribute of God. Regardless, I also see horrible people as well though this is a fact of life as we were given free will. It is really hard to explain but, for me, it truly is a relationship; I experience God everyday and although, it may not be Him making my car fly over traffic, it is evident to me, personally, that He is real. I also see God as the most logical thing (though I am sure many of you will disagree with me).
But I have an idea as to why people may, or why they follow any religion. They need that comfort. The comfort that someone is always looking out for them, and that there is an afterlife. Giving someone a peace of mind would cause them to believe many things.
I agree. It's not an unheard of theory that says that religion was early humans reaction to the wish for answers. People are scared of the unknown, so they create an afterlife, people are scared of the dark, so they create a God that's omnipresent.
I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm just saying what I think. The thought that there is an omnipotent God, who hates sin, and every person is born with it, and it is impossible for them to stop, and if they don't they will eternally burn in hell forever doesn't sound very comforting. I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would forgo many pleasures of this world, be shunned and ridiculed by our modern society, and even be tortured and die for a God they believe in, because it brings them "comfort". The only reason anyone would believe in this God is because they believe he is real, and if they trust him they will be eternally rewarded.
Your points were actually pretty good, but it all unraveled at the end and you inadvertently ended up supporting the concept you were disputing:
The only reason anyone would believe in this God is because they believe he is real, and if they trust him they will be eternally rewarded.
Would not eternal reward earned simply through the act of having faith constitute a comforting thought? In a way Christianity tells you that no matter what you do you will sin, but if you just accept Jesus into your life, the whole sinning thing essentially becomes irrelevant.
Also there is an inherent comfort factor associated with all religions. They give people reasons to believe that they are special, that everything is as it should be (or that there are ways to make it that way) and, perhaps most importantly, that some aspect of themselves will carry on after the inevitability of their physical death. It is difficult for many people to cultivate these particular feelings of comfort without some form of spiritual affirmation.
I definitely see your point, but that wasn't exactly what i meant. I didn't put everything i wanted to say in that argument because i was too lazy, but anyway here i go. My argument wasn't directed solely to Christians. Just because you believe what the bible says, that doesn't make you a Christian. You can read and believe everything it says, but not turn from your sins. There are many people who believe everything the bible says, and yet live in fear of hell their whole lives because they never abandoned their sins. So while the Christians are comforted by the thought of heaven, all the people who believe the bible, but are not saved, are left in the dust. And those who are left in the dust aren't believing because it brings them comfort, but because they believe its true. And also many people in the days when the catholic church was in power were taught that you can only get to heaven by faith AND works, and even if you were "saved", you would still go to hell if you died with any unconfessed sins. So they lived their whole lives in the utmost dread, desperately trying to prove their worth to God, which, given their beliefs that they could only get to heaven by faith and works, was a fools errand. I don't think they believed in this faith and works god because it bought comfort, but because they believed it was true.
While I appreciate the thoroughness of your response and have a better understanding of your stance I still respectfully disagree. First:
Your statements regarding certain self-proclaimed Christians and the different teachings of Catholicism are a natural response to the fact that the Bible is open to numerous methods of interpretation. This is part of the reason why there are so many denominations and why there has been so much debate among Christian scholars since before the Council of Nicea. To say that one who reads the Bible, claims to be a Christian, and attends Church is not a Christian because they utilize a different interpretation of the Bible can become a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
But to get to the center of our debate here:
I don't think they believed in this faith and works god because it bought comfort, but because they believed it was true.
At what point do these concepts become mutually exclusive? The belief itself is unprovable and can become downright esoteric and intangible. Should one objectively examine the belief, many would find there to be no reason to continue it. But it ALSO can't be disproved. In this light, most people will gravitate towards the option that will provide more comfort, give them an attainable goal, tell them that their is a purpose for their existence. I suspect that many who have had their faith challenged but continued to believe afterward went through this process, at least subconsciously.
Further, I think many people don't even allow their faith to be challenged because they can't deal with the prospect that life is finite and that everything may well just be happenstance rather than a plan where they are special players. I have personally seen people make the ludicrous claim that they would kill themselves or do these horrible, immoral things if they discovered that Christianity was false and their was no god.
Finally, what of people who were not previously Christian but converted later in life? For most people, there would need to be some salesmanship involved in fostering the belief, and the potential rewards of heaven/punishments of hell, the feeling of being part of a special creation, and easy answers to difficult questions could all be powerful selling points that provide comfort.
From what I understand, that's essentially the idea of Karma? I googled it, websites said different things, or weren't very specific.
I think it's true, but not because of a supernatural force. If you're nice to people, they're just more likely to be nice back. It's how society, and laws, and economics, try to reward 'good' people, and try to punish, 'bad' people. Simply because the more good people there are, the more likely it is that people will be good to us, and that'll make us happy.
For example, think of being stuck on an island with just two people. If you get all unhappy, and are mean to the other person, they won't be as nice back, and neither of you will be happy.
I believe that morales are not exclusive to religious views, the idea that atheists are immoral is so ridiculous it's almost offensive. Humans are intelligent enough to develop their own moral compass without divine intervention, and in many cases, non religious values hold more sway than religious values.
I think he's talking about Islam, there's definitely more truth in the Quran than in the Bible. Just saying, I'd be careful unless you know specifically about the Quran, it's actually quite a tough subject to debate against, not only because it has strong arguments, but because its followers are immensely loyal/closed minded.
Predictions, or scientific knowledge? I'm assuming you're talking about Islam & the Quran?
I've read many of the claims in the Quran, and there are very few that I can't explain to a reasonable degree. And that's with very little research, or anything. Personally, Muslism make the claims of the Quran out to be much more than they are, when in reality, they're nothing compared to what we know now. Even for the time of it being written, in the 600s, most of the information was known somewhere in the world, often just a few hundred miles away. A large reason why it was so revolutionary was because it was the first time thousands of people had seen so much knowledge in one place.
No like, god gave us hints, I have heard about a qur'an scientist he noticied that one of the verses has the word crush, here , God was referring to insects but the odd part is that in arabic it usually refers to glass crushing, the scientist wanted to know why God used that specific word when did researsh he discovered that a small part of cocoroaches have the same substance that we use to make up glass. Also Muslims long before the archeologists found the pharoah (I don't know which) they knew that he was drowned and compresses by the water in the river. Later an archeologist said that the pharoh was under water pressure and then converted. Also God said that we'd bring rocks from the moon.
This argument isn't for athiests but for agnostics, if you know about shrodinger's cat it talk's about an observer resulting in one reality, well what if God was was that observer.
Because I see no reason not to believe. I have seen a decent level of evidence for the existence of God, and none against so I see the probability of there being a god as being very high.
From here I looked at many different religions and chose the most theologically rational one.
Oh and then there is pascal's wager which means I am upping my chances of being right by believing in a god (especially since it is quite possible there is one). This is in the sense that if I was correct in my belief then awesome, and if i'm wrong then it dosen't matter because i'll be on the same level as everyone else anyway ^^.
What would you consider the evidence for God then? That's essentially what I'm asking here. And out of interest, which do you follow? And what, if any, religion were you raised as?
There are a large number of various arguments out there, some being a factual attempts such as fulfilled prophecies which I would consider a good field. However I do have a natural inclination towards the philosophical evidences such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, contigency argument (to a degree, one of my less favoured). There are probably more that are decent but those are the ones I have happened upon thus far. After seeing the rebuttals I still see the theistic view to be strong. And of course from there pascal's wager comes into effect as well (although my case was that it came into understanding after I became a theist)
And to answer the other question I am a baptist christian moderate ^^
I was raised loosely as an evangelical. I was in the type of household where they would say they were christian yet dosen't really follow the word, dosen't attend church and dosen't really talk about it so you could say it was more like an athiest household overall.
However I do have a natural inclination towards the philosophical evidences such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, contigency argument (to a degree, one of my less favoured).
Which version of the cosmological argument are you referring to? By the way, the argument from contingency is a form of the cosmological argument.
Which form of the ontological argument are you referring to? There are about 5-6 versions formulated by philosophers all the way from Anselm to Plantinga.
The moral argument is a very weak argument for God by the way. It is so weak that even some Christian philosophers reject.
No I believe in God because there appears to be a decent amount of proof that makes the possibility of God quite high, thus I am upping my chances of being correct by believing in God, considering that in the advent of me being incorrect it would mean nothing compared to me being incorrect as an atheist ^^
Not from what I have researched thus far ^^. Most arguments against the Judeo-Christian God centre around things such as morality and the Euthyphpro dilemma etc.
Your god wrote the bible, so he can't be omniscient.
He ignores evil, so he can't be omni-benevolant.
He can't create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it, so he can't be omnipotent.
He says gays should be killed and single non-virgins executed, so he can't be morally-perfect (unless you agree and believe in absurd god-given morality).
Your god wrote the bible, so he can't be omniscient.
Last I heard he scratched a few commandments into some stone tablets and the rest he inspired humans to write - please correct me if this is wrong >_>.
He ignores evil, so he can't be omni-benevolant
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis
In other words for you to state this point actually points for the existence of God rather than to disputing his existence.
He can't create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it, so he can't be omnipotent.
This is a logically fallacious statement to make because it is a paradox - the two cannot exist in the same universe. See the laws of logic denote what is and is impossible for physical objects, and no amount of power can change this. For example nomatter how much power you had you cannot make 1+1 not equal 2. You cannot change it with any physical power, you cannot bomb it or bend it into being so. So in the same way it would be logically fallacious to make this statement and believe on any intellectual or rational level that this disproves God.
He says gays should be killed and single non-virgins executed, so he can't be morally-perfect (unless you agree and believe in absurd god-given morality).
He says many things of this sort, why are you singling out these two? Is it an emotional case perhaps?. However once again I must firstly Go back to the C.S Lewis quote and that just as you are making a moral objection it must come from God. Secondly Old Testament law is so severe because it is to point out the need for perfection to get into God's kingdom - if you sinned that was it you mayaswell be dead already
The New Covenant with which Jesus(who was God) brought took away the law in the sense that we are no-longer dead to sin and are not slaves to the law. Now the law takes on the form of the way God wants us to be and us out of love and reverence are called to follow that law. So it's like having a list of rules or right and wrong but you can be forgiven if you fail to be perfect. It dosen't change the sin, just the implications of it.
Last I heard he scratched a few commandments into some stone tablets and the rest he inspired humans to write
And so this is evidence for God?
On to your quote from C.S. Lewis, even if I were to agree that we need a benchmark to judge just and good against, how can you suggest that that yardstick is God? Of course, your suggestion that Apollo's point reinforces arguments for the existence of God is amateurish. Any first year philosophy student knows such a rebuttal does not hold any force against the evidential problem of evil.
Is it an emotional case perhaps?
Red herring. You've put forth an unjustified speculation.
Secondly Old Testament law is so severe because it is to point out the need for perfection to get into God's kingdom - if you sinned that was it you mayaswell be dead already
But does the end justify the means? Just because the end is God's kingdom, which (1) you haven't proven to exist and (2) does not mean anything at all if you don't explain what it is, does it still justify the means by which God "paves" the way for humans to get there?
The New Covenant with which Jesus(who was God) brought took away the law in the sense that we are no-longer dead to sin and are not slaves to the law.
Ah, so God's demands are arbitrary right? In the Old Testament, we are "dead to sin" and "slaves to the law". In the New Testament, after gentle Jesus, meek and mild, "we are no-longer dead to sin and are not slaves to the law." You know what? That doesn't look to me like God is omniscient at all. Either your God is eternal or he is not, but you can't have it both ways.
Finally, your entire argument will hold no water until and unless you define what you mean by "God".
Not disputing the first part, but what proof is there that he 'inspired' humans to write? There are contradictory parts, with complete different messages and persona's, even considering there's different author's there are large differences. And also, do you really want to follow a religion that is openly written by man?
Your second point doesn't really make sense. We all know that you can't prove morality, but by believing in God, you're also supporting his moral compass. You later talked about gays and single non virgins being executed, that's one of a long line of list, it's simply some of the most extreme.
I base my moral compass off of logic, from the idea that if everyone in society acted in a positive manner, we were all nice to each other, we'd all be much happier. I don't need religion to tell me this, not all morals are based off of the supernatural. It in no way supports the argument for God.
There's a quote, I'm not sure who by, that goes somewhere along the lines of: 'I don't want to believe in a God that tells me to rape, pillage, murder, and racially judge, and then sends me to hell for being bad'.
Imagine you have a clone machine which somehow activates on a 50 percent chance if you placed your DNA inside but then keep it for years without looking at it then your clone should exist and not exist at the same time. This makes most sense by saying that the clone exists in one universe just like the clone doesn't exist in another. What if God works that way, if God is a possibility, that means that the very fact he did not create one of the other universes depends on him existing. You would think that means other Gods, not necessarily, it's probably the same God put is parallel and has decided to different things. What do you guys think?
I believe in God, but the way many religion see God. Religions see God as a supreme being who made everything. To me that makes no sense. To me, God is the force of good in the universe. When someone does something good such as help others, that is God at work. There is God in all of us to a greater or lesser degree. My belief most resembles Universal Unitarianism.
"So do you not believe that humans are capable of good, it's the actions of God through us that allow us to be good?"
No. We are capable of both good and bad with the inspiration of God and "the devil" respectively. My belief is that God or the devil cannot "make" us do anything, it is our choice.
"Also, what religion does your God most closely resemble?"
No organised religion I am aware of although Universal Unitarianism comes close and I do share some of the principals of Christianity and Buddhism.
Okay... It is true that I believe in God. And I do not deny it. I'll be honest. I have believed in God because I was brought up in an environment that said, 'Either you believe in God or you get out.' So initially I had no choice. But, now I do. And I have chosen to believe in God.
To me God is only what nature is to you. To you it is nature that is responsible for the existence of any existence. And I have simply named that power, that source as we call it nature to be God. It is nothing supernatural to me in the existence of God. It is not magic or miracles. But, simply the judge of what happens and what is happening. The circle of life.
I believe in God because He has done so many things to us to show us how much He loves us. He died on the cross for everyone's sins and rose from the grave. Conquering our sins. If it wasn't for God that died for our sins we would still be in sin. Also if you are closer to God. God will be closer to you. But if you are not close to God. God will not be close to you.
Yes God does not show favortism. I mean close in another way.Like relationship wise. If you have a close relationship with God then He will be close to you. All the Christians who are close to God, God will be close to all the Christians.
I think this is theologically wrong as, with all respect, I believe God is always there, to suggest He goes away from people and comes close again only when they worship Him is silly. In my opinion, God is always there and it is only people who go away in their own mindsets. A Christian, to God, is as valuable as a prostitute.
UHH... yes he does! I am going to hell because...well...for no reason at all. He discriminates against me simply because I am not a Christian. If I were an employer and only hired Christians, I would have the Justice Department on my ass. Your god doesn't care how good of a life someone has lived if they aren't feeding his god-sized ego by worshipping him.
All the Christians who are close to God, God will be close to all the Christians.
That's called discrimination by a supposedly objective being.
No He doesn't show favoritism there is a verse in the Bible that says for God doesn't show favoritism. He loves everyone. He even loves you. No matter what sin you did Jesus still loves you for who you are. You are going to hell because of your belief. You choose instead of believing in God you choose to be seperate from him and believe in a different religion to seperate you from God. Its not God who sends people to hell its the person. The person is allowed to believe in anything they want. But if you decide you don't want to believe in God you set yourself up for hell because you said that there is "no God". God does care for people who do and don't believe in Him. God is trying everyday to get you to believe in Him. That is me and other Christians. But all you do is keep denying and denying.
No He doesn't show favoritism there is a verse in the Bible that says for God doesn't show favoritism.
UGH!!! Let's say I just killed your dog. You ask me why I killed your dog. I deny ever killing your dog. Does that mean I didn't kill your dog?
He even loves you.
THEN WHY THE F IS HE GOING TO SEND ME TO BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY?! That's not something loving people do.
No matter what sin you did
Using the free will your god gave me is not a sin. Just because I don't feed his ego doesn't mean I am sinning.
you choose to be seperate from him
WTF?
Its not God who sends people to hell its the person.
No. I don't want to go to hell, but your god would send me there regardless.
But if you decide you don't want to believe in God you set yourself up for hell because you said that there is "no God"
I am a theist, just not a Christian.
God does care for people who do and don't believe in Him.
Then why does he send them to rot for eternity in the pits of hell?
God is trying everyday to get you to believe in Him.
How? Your god has never, NEVER ONCE contacted me in any way shape or form. Even if he did, I would likely yell at him for being a discriminatory self-righteous jerk. Who creates gays just to send them to hell?!
But all you do is keep denying and denying.*
I am not denying anything. I am refusing to believe lies.
I wouldn't care if you killed my dog because the dog is nothing to me.
THEN WHY THE F IS HE GOING TO SEND ME TO BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY?! That's not something loving people would do.
Like I said before which you didn't listen. He doesn't send people to hell. You send yourself to hell because of your belief. Instead of believing in God you choose to be seperate from Him and choose a different religion.
Using fre will your god gave mis is not sin. Just because I don't feed his ego doesn mean I am sinning.
You are sinning because you decided not to believe in Him and choose your own way instead of God's way. Also you are sinning everyday because everyone has sinned including me I sin too.
No I don't want to go to hell, but your god would send me regardless.
If you don't want to go to hell I would start believing God and turn to Him. If you don't want to be a Christian then that is your fault.
How? Your god has never,NEVER ONCE contacted me in any way shape or form. Even if he did, I would likely yell at him for being a discriminatory self-righteous jerk. Who creates gays just to send them to hell?!
God does contact you. He uses other people like me or other Christians to talk to you. But sometimes you don't listen. Or sometimes you say that some of the stuff we say is false.
I am not denying anything. I am refusing to believe lies.
That is still denying because you don't want to hear what other Christians or people like me say to you.
I wouldn't care if you killed my dog because the dog is nothing to me.
That's cold...
Like I said before which you didn't listen.
I read it, refuted it, and now you are reposting it.
He doesn't send people to hell. You send yourself to hell because of your belief.
And this is why Christianity is a religion from the pits of hell. I, not wanting to go to hell, am doomed to hell for no reason. Is believing something a sin? Why am I wrong and only Christians are right? That is the height of arrogance.
Instead of believing in God you choose to be seperate from Him and choose a different religion.
That is not action. That is inaction. I am being persecuted by your god for something I didn't do.
If you don't want to go to hell I would start believing God and turn to Him. If you don't want to be a Christian then that is your fault.
Islam has a hell, too. If I pick Christianity, and i'm wrong, Islam sends to me to hell. If I pick Islam, and I'm wrong, Christianity sends me to hell. What makes Christianity right?
God does contact you.
Nope. Not your God. And Muhammad said Allah contacted him. Is he lying? There have been countless religions founded by prophets being contacted by different gods. What makes Christianity to only real one and everyone else is lying?
He uses other people like me or other Christians to talk to you.
And the tell me lies and factual inaccuracies and unfounded conjectures. Why should I believe it over the Islamic lies and factual inaccuracies and unfounded conjectures or Jewish lies and factual inaccuracies and unfounded conjectures?
That is still denying because you don't want to hear what other Christians or people like me say to you.
I have heard it from countless people. That doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. God says humans aren't perfect and are fallible. So why should I believe you if your god says you don't know everything and can be wrong?
Sorry, I don't want to be close to an imaginary friend. I don't believe in God because there's really no proof of him existing. Why didn't he come to my house and perform some miracles to make me believe him? :D
But I personally think that people believe in many gods, because they don't have any idea how the universe was created, or because they're afraid of death,
I'm so happy this discussion isn't too heated, that's all I really wanted to say but I have to have at least 50 characters so here is my opinion: I don't think so, everyone around me does but it's like believing in the tooth fairy it's silly, why have I never seen this god? I would love to sit on my ass on a puffy cloud all day but that's impossible, this "god" makes miracles happen? pssssh. And I shit unicorns out of my asshole.