The Existence of God

You might be oversimplifying.

1). This is the debate forum, where people rationally compare their belief systems.
2). The motivation for many of the world's atrocities is religious. It is in my best interests to convert as many people as I can.

 

What is the point of converting someone to athesim? So they can always wory about life and feel like their life has no meaning?

Even lets say we were wrong (I strongly believe there is a God), I would be happy with my life and not have any worries till the day I died, but you probably feel there is no point to life except to live and die.

Why crush someones hopes in order to make someone feel pointless?

 

i agree with shredderbeam, why believe something if there is no prrof once so ever, now evolution on the other hand.

 

As I said above:

1). This is the debate forum, where people rationally compare their belief systems.
2). The motivation for many of the world's atrocities is religious. It is in my best interests to convert as many people as I can.

Most humans like to stay alive. It's called the "survival instinct".

Why do you believe in God?

 

Although iam atheist i dont think its fair to say religion causes bad things in the world compared to the good things it has done... All western countries( I think ) are based on Religion (mainly Catholic) in there views.

The only thing that differs us from countries like Africa and asia is the fact that we have these basic fundemental views of life, Trust , Freindship, Love, Not stealing. If everyone did these things then the world would not be what it is today, but it is in our human nature to do these things...

 

One firstly i think that the odds of the a big bang is like fliping a quarter a billion times and always landing on heads. That is just the big bang. Next the odds that that humans could live...

Factors:
gravity= If it was off just a little the planet would be in chaos.

oxygen= If there was to much hydrogen we would die. If there was no plants
we would die.

heat= If the earth was to close to the sun we would die from heat. If it was to far from the sun we would die from cold.

course of the planets=If the earth did go on billions of years, then the planets would eventually crash into one or another.

all life=If life has been going billions of years... show me the piles of evidence of an animal evolving. there have only been several (very very very few) instances of this, but they because of the mutations they died. But if this was true there should be millions of carcases of (in-btween)

The human body= is the most complex thing ever. Scintists are still amazed about the smallest things in the body that make it work. There are billions of factors in our body alone that make it work.


After all of the billions-trillions of things that contribute to evolution i cant see how you cant believe in an intelligent creator.

 

What western countries base their views on religion?

Africa and Asia are not countries.

I would guess that most humans all over the planet have the same basic views of life.

Is that so? How did you calculate that?

This has already been dealt with by the anthropic principle. Given that there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and hundreds of billions of other galaxies out there (not counting the ones that we cannot see), I would say that on at least a few planets, the factors are going to be permissive to life.

Well actually, there really wouldn't be very many intermediate fossils. Speciation happens fairly rapidly, occurring in quick jumps with long periods of stability. Also, the fraction of carcasses that actually fossilize is tiny.

I found this, though: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

More and more, the human body's complexity is explainable through evolutionary theory.

Do note that you don't have any direct evidence of a creator. All you can do it point to a complex natural phenomenon, shrug your shoulders, proclaim that you don't know how it originated, and then claim that it was designed. This is a far cry from the scientific method.

 

Did I ever said I did? I said I know there is a supreme being.

 

I've voted no. I do not believe in any god(s).
I know that there is "something" but I'm to own indicate to believe in it.
I do also not believe that I really need it/him.

 

How do you know this?

 

can you prove that, god doesn't just mean Jehova (the christian god) it means an almighty creator or supreme being, so provide a source supporting there is no supreme being?

 

The burden of proof is on the person which asserts positive claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

either side you may agree with, both are based on opinion, though the unbelievers do have a stronger point in my opinion seeing as they can back there opinion up with saying theres no proof of a god, but thats likewise for the opposing side.

 

I do believe in God. I go to church regularly, and I place my faith upon him.

The idea of "no God," just stumbles me. How is that possible? (I'm just asking questions here) If there is no God, then what is there in the world? Do humans and animals only exist? If there is no God, then I wonder how the world and universe would have even been able to be created. God is said to be omnipotent. What other things in the world can be of such high authority and unlimited power?

It's hard to believe that nothing else is out there.

I don't believe in a world without

 

In this section, we have laid down some of the basic data relevant to evolution. We have shown that while microevolution is a well-established scientific theory, macroevolution is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis. There is no convincing data in favor of the hypothesis and plenty of data contradicting it. Given these facts, why do so many scientists believe in macroevolution? There isn't a simple answer to this question. Instead, there are a host of reasons that tend to lead to this situation.

The first reason is that scientists are simply indoctrinated at a very early age to become macroevolutionists. Since alternatives to macroevolution are not allowed in most classrooms (high school or college), students are left with no other explanation to one of life's most critical questions. If you think about it for a moment, you will realize how absurd such a situation is. The whole idea of intellectual pursuit is based on considering alternative ideas. Nevertheless, most schools will not even allow the consideration of any idea for life's origin other than macroevolution. One is forced to wonder why macroevolutionists are so afraid to allow their idea to compete with others! After all, if the evidence supports macroevolution, it should “win” any honest debate with any other competing hypothesis. Nevertheless, when educators attempt to bring an alternative to macroevolution to the classroom, macroevolutionists mount legal battles to keep it from happening. That seems odd for scientists who believe that their theory can be supported by the data.

The next reason so many scientists believe in macroevolution is a consequence of the first. Those of us who do not believe in macroevolution are regularly ridiculed on college campuses. The best way to illustrate this is to look at the personal experiences of one of these authors, Dr. Jay L. Wile.

(block quote) Personally, I began experiencing the ridicule heaped on creationists when I attended graduate school at the University of Rochester. At that time, I had to choose a professor who would be my research advisor. His role was to direct my research and provide me with the training necessary to become a scientist in my chosen field. I picked my research advisor based on the kind of work that he did. The man I chose did what I considered to be the most interesting chemical research that went on at the University of Rochester.

While he was, in fact, an incredibly gifted scientist, my chosen research advisor was a committed macroevolutionist. As my creationist views became apparent to him, he ridiculed them. Of course, he would not discuss the data relevant to macroevolution with me. Instead, he simply made fun of me. In addition, one of the other members of our research team, a man I still consider to be the greatest scientist with whom I have ever worked, also constantly made fun of my creationist stand. Such a situation was very difficult for me. After all, I admired these two men. I aspired to become the caliber of scientist that they both were. Nevertheless, they made fun of my most strongly held scientific beliefs! Throughout my graduate school career, I concluded that if I was not as strongly convinced as I was by the data, I would have left my creationist stand behind to escape the ridicule of these scientific role models.
(block quote)

Sadly, Dr. Wile's story is very common among creation scientists. When macroevolutionists encounter students who do not believe as they do, the response is rarely an intellectual discussion of the facts related to macroevolution. Instead, the response is often public ridicule.

The third reason that most scientists still believe in macroevolution stems from the fact that most of the scientists have never investigated the data. There is, of course, a very good reason for this. Any time that a scientist spends researching something not directly related to his field, the less likely he is to become a great scientist. Today's science is so intricate and so specialized that a person must devote himself completely to his field, or he will be left behind. Thus, since scientists have been indoctrinated over the years to believe that macroevolution is the only scientifically sound belief system, they are not about to waste time and energy researching the facts surrounding the issue. The wasted time could damage their careers.

In addition to the time constraints that inhibit scientists in examining questions outside of their field, there is a definite pressure in the university setting to either believe in macroevolution or simply stay quiet about it! For example, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University was forbidden to teach the introductory biology course that he had been teaching for more than a decade because he began stressing the design elements that are prevalent in the world around us. The biology department felt that this would “confuse” students when they later reached a course on evolution, so they forbade him to teach that course! Another example comes from Oregon Community College. A professor of biology at that school was fired because he refused to state, in class, that macroevolution was a scientific fact! His former department chair said that he was an excellent teacher, and his student evaluations indicate that he was a challenging and well-loved teacher. Nevertheless, he was fired because he actually paid attention to the data and realized that macroevolution is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis. Creationist professors regularly feel great pressure from their universities to keep quiet about their creationist views, or they might very well lose their jobs.

In the end, then, scientists are indoctrinated at a very early age to be macroevolutionists; they are ridiculed throughout their careers if they believe otherwise; they usually cannot spare the time necessary to look into the facts regarding macroevolution; and they are often punished for believing anything else. These issues keep scientists from learning the data necessary to help them understand the fact that macroevolution is no more than an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Although this assessment is rather grim, we must point out that times are changing. More and more books questioning macroevolution are being written by respected university professors. These books have obviously had an impact. In 2004, a Gallup poll showed that only about one-third of Americans believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. Forty-five percent of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form about 10,000 years ago. In addition, about 15% of high school teachers teach both creation and evolution side by side, and close to 20% of them reject macroevolution. Despite the fact that macroevolutionists have been trying to monopolize the education systems for decades, macroevolution has not gained much ground with students and teachers.

 

Argument from Ignorance - I don't know how this came about so it must be God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Can an omnipotent being lift a rock he cannot lift?

EDIT: Why do you believe in Jesus and not Zeus or any other Gods?

 

Well the 'opposing side' is irrational. Would you believe me if I said Santa Claus existed without asserting any evidence?

 

I don't know where you're getting the impulsive thought or insignuation that I myself am a believer, please point out where i said i believe?

evolution has other things to back it up such as the sources charles darwin used to support his theory, being for example the galapagoes islands, explain that please.

 

There are two types of evolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution

Microevolution is small changes you make to you enviornment for example bugs developing a resistance to bug killer.

Macroevolution are considered large changes such as a monkey evolving into a man.

Microevolution is believed by the christian community while macro isnt.

Darwins descoveries were not that of macro but mirco. (the birds)

 

I don't exactly follow the Wiki link. Please clarify through a summary.

I guess, I've just been raised that way. When I am brought to new ideas of the creation and existence of humans, I doubt it. It just doesn't seem possible. Maybe it's because I've already been influenced...But anyways, there are way more ideas and beliefs behind Christianity + the idea of creationism. I don't exactly see a lot of fussing on Greek Mythology or anything like that. The Bible is also another source of proof for me.

Christianity has had a huge and solid history. I don't see why anyone would believe in the existence of Zeus, etc.

What makes you an atheist?