The existence of God

[Gilles de Rais]

I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

You should take your own advice about the humility.

Actually, no it's not. If the Bible is true, then it's also a fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They'd teach all of their children about God and morality and why it's based on Him and everything else, and that would continue all the way down until about Noah's time. Then the flood happens, and Noah's family repeats the lessons until we get to Exodus, and you can just read the Bible to see the rest.

Atheism is just another example of watching the TV rather than going outside, actually.

Such as?

I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense. As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

The assumptions in the theory of evolution are often given as conclusions, so it can be tricky to see them. They are as follows.

• The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
• Evolution is a universal principle.
• One should not drag in a creator.
• This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.
• Matter is taken for granted.
• As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and of all life.
• Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.
• The following factors are assumed as the driving forces of evolution: Mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing.
• Death is an undisputed essential factor in evolution.
• There is no plan in evolution, neither is there any purpose.
• There are no definite beginning and end points on the time axis.
• The present is the key to the past.
• There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
• Evolution will persist in the distant future.

From what I understand of science, nothing should ever be taken for granted, and everything is free game to be studied and dissected, whether logically or empirically. However, it should be mentioned that there has never been an instance of a beneficial mutation, nor has there ever been an instance of a mutation adding information to the genetic material that was already there, both of which are assumed by evolutionists to be obviously there. What we do see are harmful mutations and the changing/rearranging of genetic information that's already present.

So, because evolution is wrong, why do we exist? We have that answered in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.

Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

 

[Kanzler]

I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense.

Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

 

[Kanzler]

Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

The Bible claims that a man rose from the dead, and yet it survives to this day. How would that be? Couldn't the government of the time simply produce the body? Don't people know that you can't raise people from the dead?

I believe this is referred to as the "embarrassment principle." The church simply couldn't survive if the Resurrection could be proven to be an error. Paul even points that out in the Bible itself. And yet, Christianity survives.

The only logical answer for that is the Bible is correct, and if that's true, that changes everything. Suddenly it's no longer a question whether homosexuality is or is not natural, to use the topic's example.

Consider Pascal's wager a starting point. I'm sure someone with a mind as inquiring as yours (and that's a good thing) would find plenty of additional reasons.

Also, thank you very much for being as courteous throughout all of this as I should have been. I apologize for my rudeness earlier. Hopefully there will be no hard feelings, whether from those who posted or from the person deleting posts with comments like "let's not stoop to his level."

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

It's more accurate to say Christianity says, "We don't know the answers to everything, but we have been shown that God is benevolent and omnipotent through several types of evidence, so we'll have faith in Him, come what may."

Your evaluation of the Bible demonstrates that you haven't really done any research on it at all. I have posted on this thread and/or the homosexuality thread about prophesies that were fulfilled, how science confirms what the Bible says happened, and so forth.

We're living in the 21st century, and yet we still hold to things like "murder is wrong" and "do to others as you'd have them treat you," which are concepts from much farther back than the 14th century. Just because we understand more of God's creation doesn't mean we don't need God anymore, and your claim of the opposite flies in the face of all human progress in terms of both science and morality.

If God himself stood before me today I'd at the very least do a double take.

How do you know the Bible is inerrant? Who decides that? Did you decide it? Probably not, so where did you hear it from? I'm not putting my reason over anything. All I want to know is how we know that Christianity is true. Is that too much to ask?

Anyways, we're already having this conversation in another thread, so let's try bringing this back to homosexuality.

I apologize. The two debates tend to blur together for me.

No, that's not too much to ask. However, I've been going over logical examinations of the Bible versus several other worldviews, so I'd say you should read those over again and think about it.

 

[gimmepie]

So, I'm just going to share my views a bit. I identify myself as an agnostic theist. Basically what this means is that I believe there is a higher power beyond our comprehension, I believe in the soul and I believe that there's a higher plane of existence after death. I also acknowledge that these are beliefs. I fully admit that I cannot prove the existence of God and I acknowledge that, like all beliefs, my belief in a higher power may be false.

 

[Her]

I simply think that if you are spiritually inclined, you will find something to assuage your fears and give you understanding, release or control, depending on what you are looking for. There is nothing wrong with that. I prefer to analyse the world without a spiritual viewpoint and I think that works fine for me. I accept the possibility of being wrong or not seeing wonders other might, but I just have little interest in things I cannot measure. I leave the evaluation of miracles to those more qualified to understand the subject - there may be a heavenly reason why statues of the Virgin Mary cry/bleed, there might not be. I'm not particularly interested beyond simple curiosity.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

Christianity's invention of Hell is a gift to anyone seeking truth because it decisively reveals the man-made nature of the faith. Hell is not discussed in the Old Testament, but that didn't stop Jesus from announcing it many times in the Gospels, mostly in a very threatening tone. He made sure to let us know that most people will be sentenced there to suffer unending physical pain. Here are three of the forty-five Gospel scriptures where Jesus mentions Hell:
Matthew 5:28-29:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
Matthew 13:41-42:
"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Mark 9:45-46:
"And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
A belief in Hell is unavoidable if one is to believe in Jesus. If Hell doesn't exist, then why would God have allowed it to be so prominently addressed in the Bible? This point cannot be overstated. If God is as most Christians claim, all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then he would not have allowed a concept so ultimate and absolute as Hell to be documented in the most important scriptures of the faith (the Gospels) if it was not a factual place of post-life punishment.
This elicits an unsettling comparison. Hitler dispatched Jews to the concentration camps and gas chambers for no reason other than their ethnic identity. This was a temporal punishment; it sometimes lasted only a few days. God, on the other hand, is prepared to send good, well-accomplished, and generous people to a place of everlasting punishment and torture for the 'crime' of not believing in something for which no credible evidence exists. The god of the Bible is, in effect, worse than Hitler.

This brings up another interesting point. Christians claim that the Bible is the backbone of the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution states that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". It should be obvious that placing a person in Hell is both cruel and unusual. Consequently, Christianity violates the United States Constitution.
Any person possessing critical thinking skills can understand that a magnificently powerful god would have no incentive, interest, or even the slightest inclination to inflict pain and suffering on dead people. Hell makes no sense and it represents an ill-fated and entirely avoidable error in the foundation of Christianity.

Let's discuss this. Do you believe hell really exists, or is this just a concept created with the purpose of striking fear into non-believers or something?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

If God is real and I somehow make it to him I'm going to beat his ass for putting me through this crap. I don't believe in religion because I feel religion was created by man to keep us divided. So imo, God is more of an energy rather than a person. There's negative energy in the world and there's positive energy. I'm convinced the positive is battling the negative and the evil we have inside us is the negative while the good we have in us is the positive so therefore we are battling ourselves on a daily basis. Now, I also believe Jesus was a real person and that we walked on this earth but I'm not convinced he is the son of "God". There's too many religions one can follow and if God exists all those religions have the same God if there can only be "one God". That's enough evidence to have my mind set on "religion is bullshit".

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

If God is real and I somehow make it to him I'm going to beat his ass for putting me through this crap. I don't believe in religion because I feel religion was created by man to keep us divided. So imo, God is more of an energy rather than a person. There's negative energy in the world and there's positive energy. I'm convinced the positive is battling the negative and the evil we have inside us is the negative while the good we have in us is the positive so therefore we are battling ourselves on a daily basis. Now, I also believe Jesus was a real person and that we walked on this earth but I'm not convinced he is the son of "God". There's too many religions one can follow and if God exists all those religions have the same God if there can only be "one God". That's enough evidence to have my mind set on "religion is bull****".

I share a lot of your thoughts. I too think Jesus was a real person, but was transformed into a God by propagandists. Polytheistic mythologies are less cancerous than christianity in my opinion.

 

[curiousnathan]

I don't think the complexity of this world was created by mere chance. I just can't think of how the universe with all of its intricacies have come to be due to pure fluke. I do think there's a higher being or creator of some sort. I do not however, believe that I should get on my knees and worship it, or not love the people who I love, because of it.

 

[Alex]

I'm agnostic. I believe the root of religion has good intentions: they are made to give purpose in life, and to encourage kindness amongst each other. Unfortunately, narrow-minded people give religion a bad name. Most atheists and agnostics I know are some of the most open-minded people who do not care about your beliefs.

So no, I don't believe there is a God. I'm not completely closed to the idea just because there's no way to definitively prove either end of the argument. But, I'm totally OK with whatever you choose to believe - especially if it helps you lead what you feel is a more fulfilling life.

I also pity anyone who gets heated about this topic. It is simply out of our bounds of knowledge. Don't waste your energy over it.

 

[Wicked3DS]

I share a lot of your thoughts. I too think Jesus was a real person, but was transformed into a God by propagandists. Polytheistic mythologies are less cancerous than christianity in my opinion.

Personally I believe that Christianity itself isn't cancerous, but narrow-minded religious zealots are.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

Personally I believe that Christianity itself isn't cancerous, but narrow-minded religious zealots are.

Narrow-minded religious people are ridiculous and should just be ignored. Especially when they are after your money.

 

[Toweleeeie]

I grew up in what I guess you could describe as an "evangelical" family. I remember being forced into attending church my whole childhood in agony. As I got older I found myself dumbfounded by some of the things that were preached and believed. Once I graduated high school and went off to college I never set foot in a church again. This experience instilled a fascination in religious beliefs, philosophy, and a passion for science. I have since spent much time researching various religious topics, especially biblical as per my upbringing.

I think that when pondering this question you have to define for yourself what specifically do you mean when you say, "god." If by "god" you simply mean some greater 'force' or 'being' existing outside of our observable universe then that is not necessarily a falsifiable assertion. However, when people begin to more narrowly define the parameters for "their" god's existence the question does indeed become one that may have a probability assigned to it.

The conclusion I have come to is that no, god(s) do not exist, at least none that have ever been postulated throughout human history. Honing in on Judaism/Christianity, I see too much in their respective holy books that would be in conflict with reason and reality; too much in conflict with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and too many paradoxes arising out of that situation. I also see too much ambiguity in the places that are typically used as proofs for belief.

Anything that lies in that scope spoken of earlier of the non-specific non-personal outside force cannot have any probability assigned to its existence, but then, they are a non-personal force our acknowledging their existence wouldn't really matter.

Now, when working into the consequences of belief in god(s), namely religion, my opinions vary. I don't see any problem with spirituality or religion in general, where I do however see a problem is when religious dogma is maintained when evidence points towards its nonsensical-ness, pushed on children, and used to denigrate other members of our species. As long as you can maintain a spirituality while simultaneously maintaining reason and an open mind you're probably in a good boat with me.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

I grew up in what I guess you could describe as an "evangelical" family. I remember being forced into attending church my whole childhood in agony. As I got older I found myself dumbfounded by some of the things that were preached and believed. Once I graduated high school and went off to college I never set foot in a church again. This experience instilled a fascination in religious beliefs, philosophy, and a passion for science. I have since spent much time researching various religious topics, especially biblical as per my upbringing.

I think that when pondering this question you have to define for yourself what specifically do you mean when you say, "god." If by "god" you simply mean some greater 'force' or 'being' existing outside of our observable universe then that is not necessarily a falsifiable assertion. However, when people begin to more narrowly define the parameters for "their" god's existence the question does indeed become one that may have a probability assigned to it.

The conclusion I have come to is that no, god(s) do not exist, at least none that have ever been postulated throughout human history. Honing in on Judaism/Christianity, I see too much in their respective holy books that would be in conflict with reason and reality; too much in conflict with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and too many paradoxes arising out of that situation. I also see too much ambiguity in the places that are typically used as proofs for belief.

Anything that lies in that scope spoken of earlier of the non-specific non-personal outside force cannot have any probability assigned to its existence, but then, they are a non-personal force our acknowledging their existence wouldn't really matter.

Now, when working into the consequences of belief in god(s), namely religion, my opinions vary. I don't see any problem with spirituality or religion in general, where I do however see a problem is when religious dogma is maintained when evidence points towards its nonsensical-ness, pushed on children, and used to denigrate other members of our species. As long as you can maintain a spirituality while simultaneously maintaining reason and an open mind you're probably in a good boat with me.

What do you think of the concept of Hell?

 

[Toweleeeie]

What do you think of the concept of Hell?

Haha, I think it was one of the most ingenious marketing schemes ever invented. I find it interesting that if you really scrutinize the Bible, "Hell" as it is imagined in the modern day as an other dimensional pit of eternal burning torture is not even discussed.

I think that teaching children that they'll go to hell or that their friends from school will if they commit a grave sin or even simply do not worship the same god is psychological abuse. I also find discussions of morality interesting when coming from those who use the threat of hell, because I think it's debatable how 'moral' you really are if the only thing keeping you from murdering someone is fear of punishment.

Finally, if discussing the concept itself, I also would have a few questions. Like, if you believe 'the devil' or 'demons' torture you in hell, why would they torture you for doing bad things which they'd like you to do? If it's god doing the torturing, wow... that god is a ****. And why is it fiery? It's some other dimensional spirit realm, why do spirits experience burning? Is hell an oxygen rich environment?

 

[Caaethil]

At a young age I was a Christian. My school believed it and told me it, and my parents taught me it just because I wasn't old enough and they wanted me to be happy believing in Heaven or whatever. I became an athiest for quite a while. Later, I started calling myself agnostic instead, and now I'm kind of edging more towards the term atheism, because I am becoming increasingly less inclined to subscribe to the whole "be open to all possibilities thing".

My current stance: If there is no empirical evidence to suggest something exists, it does not exist. You can try to find empirical evidence to prove it exists, but until you do, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

I treat people telling me that a God exists the same as I would treat them telling me that there is a unicorn living in the core of the Sun, our major political figures are all alien reptiles and the Earth is flat.

The only difference, and I mean the only difference, is that one has been consistently accepted for such a long time that people just believe it because everybody else told them to.

If you are religious, consider this. Why do you follow your religion, and not another? If you are not a Christian, what makes your religion more real than Christianity? If you are a Christian, what makes your religion more real than Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and so on? The point I am making is that most of these religions will have just as much evidence as you do. They have a holy book, they have teachings, they have morals. They have people who have claimed to have inner experiences, and they have large cultures dedicated to their individual faiths.

So why is yours better? As the very intelligent Richard Dawkins said "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

So really, we atheists are just the same as the theists (religious people) out there. The only difference is that we deny one more God (or quite a few more, if you follow a polytheistic religion). So why do you believe in your God(s), then? I think I can identify a few reasons:

Your background - family, friends, your general society. If you grow up in the US you might be a Christian, if you grow up in India, you might follow Hinduism. But you cannot argue that you would still follow the same religion you do now no matter what circumstances you were born in - you could be an atheist, or follow a completely different religion, had you been born elsewhere, in a different family. This kind of hurts the validity of your religion. If this is your reason for following your religion, then you accept that you do not follow your religion because it is true, you follow your religion out of coincidence. But I'm sure you have more reasons, I'll try to go through as many as I can.

It has been followed for a long time. Sure, but so have all of the others. Your religion may have been accepted for so long that it must be true, but so have so many others. This argument doesn't work, but many people simply accept that their religion has been going on for too long to be false.

You have had some kind of experience of God. So here's another one. There's not really a fully factual way for me to disprove any claims of a spiritual experience. But then, the burden of proof dictates that I'm right and you're wrong anyway, since you can't prove you have. Look, I'm not calling you a liar. You may well genuinely think God has spoken to you in some way. But I highly doubt it. The human brain is not perfect, it can be fooled. You can see things that aren't real. Sometimes you think you hear your name, and you're only in a house with one other person. They have no idea what you're talking about, they didn't call you. Weird. Yeah, weird. You just can't trust your senses all the time. If you do, you're placing far too much value on your own abilities to perceive things, because you are simply not as accurate as you think you are. This isn't just me grasping at straws making up the idea that you hallucinate whenever you claim to have a spiritual experience. The fact of the matter is that this kind of thing does happen - people's minds are wrong sometimes, they muck things up and make you imagine things.

Miracles. Come on now, miracles cannot be proven to be real. Here's the thing. The universe has existed for 14 billion years, our galaxy about 13.6, the solar system and Earth about 4.5. Us evolved humans have been plodding about for about 200 000 years. In that time, it would be incredibly unlikely for incredibly unlikely things not to happen. In fact, absolutely no 'miracles' happening in that time would be a miracle in itself. Wacky stuff happens sometimes, that doesn't mean somebody made it happen.

You don't believe the universe/the stuff in it/life could be created by chance. See above. Crazy stuff. They reckon time was created during the big bang, you know. Which is weird. We don't know how exactly the big bang happened - we have some ideas, but we haven't proven any of them yet. We just know that everything, to our knowledge, was created when it happened. And there was nothing before that, we think. At least, if there was something before that, it ended, and that led to the creation of something new. So whether we assume that there is only, has only ever been and will only ever be one universe, or we assume that a universe is created as the last one dies, we know that there is a hell of a lot of time for crazy things to happen. When you're literally dealing with an infinite amount of time, saying that anything is impossible is preposterous.

You just want to believe it. Whether you're scared of nothingness or just like the thought of a creator who's looking after you and is saving you a spot in Heaven, this is one of my least favourite arguments, if not my least favourite of all, in favour of religion. It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I can understand it, but I'm the kind of person who doesn't want to believe something just because it sounds nice. I want to believe the truth and what is most likely to be the truth. I don't want to live in a bubble of happy thoughts that probably aren't real. And you should think that way too. At least, I think so. This argument seems around the same vein as believing unicorns exist. Because unicorns are cool, right?

Morals. Just adding this one on reading the above post. Come on now, you believe in God because you have morals? Well, did you know that morals can be explained in evolution? Think of it this way. Humans need to survive. That is the goal. That is what evolution does - it lets us adapt to survive. Evolution is not conscious, that's just how it works, scientifically. I'm not explaining it here. Anyway, what's a good way to survive and keep the species going strong? Well, killing each other ruthlessly, stealing their stuff and destroying their property is not a good start. No, that's sooner to get you killed back, or just drive the whole species into extinction. With this theory, we can suppose that at some point, there lived humans with no morals. Fortunately, they all died, because giving zero tosses about what anybody else thinks or feels is not a good way to be accepted. Humans are cooperative beings. They need to help each other. The ones that didn't died off, and only the ones who were nice and helpful to others could pass on their genes. Of course, we occasionally get outliers who seem to have no morals even these days, but that can't be helped - that happens all across nature. Evolution dictates one thing, but there will always be odd ones out.

Sorry if this response was a bit raw around the edges, it's really the first time I've been able to vent pretty much all of my main thoughts about religion into one argument. This is a pretty controversial topic to begin with though, so I doubt it's an issue. Please ask any questions if you disagree or are unsure about something I've written, I like a good religious debate.

I did not expect this to be so long.