Why Isn't The Concept Of God Far-Fetched?

[Death]

I've seen several posts that questoin or completely ignore athiesm so I'm doing the reverse. How is the theory of God completely feasible? How come religion claims it knows everything while science doesn't!? Surely its the fact that religion acts on faith which means it has no evidence to support it's view suggesting that there's little to be trusted in it? And that science looks for real evidence to try to explain things properly instead of shifting everything on this god for simplicity!? If so, that doesn't say very much good about religious concepts.

How is the concept of some unproved God more feasible than the concept of scientific explainations including evolution that has been backed-up by evidence? Why isn't the concept of religion far fetched!? Do you think that it is clearly far-fetched!? Please speak your mind.

[INFERNO]

Religion in its simplest terms is defined as a bunch of people believing the same beliefs that are centered around some divine being to explain phenomena. It is not far-fetched because it is similar to how a group of people believe in science to explain phenomena. The only difference is what is practiced amongst these two groups. Calling religion far-fetched begs the question, are those who turn to science a far-fetched group?

Religions that claim to know everything tend to do so to make them more authoritative, to make it more reasonable for some to believe in. But you're right, religion is based on faith whereas science isn't. Religion and science use two different, completely opposite paradigms. The two are not mutually exclusive though.

However, you are wrong to say that religion has no evidence. Granted, it may not have much scientific evidence, however, it does have its own religious evidence (refer back to science and religion have two different paradigms). For Christianity, what evidence is there? There's the bible, testimonies, "miracles", etc... . Are any of these scientific? No, but you should not expect them to be, just as you should not expect science to use religious evidence for a scientific theory.

If you try to use one to explain the other, then you butcher up one or both of them and then it begins making little sense. You can have both, just each are to be kept apart.

[Death]

I suppose you have a few good points there. But still, I don't view religious evidence much of real evidence. I mean really, things that people wrote in a book doesn't prove anything to me wheras scientific research (people actually looking for answers instead of making them up) is more convicing to me. Besides, God never responded to me when I prayed to him - I asked him to make a red light blue for a few seconds just so that he can prove that he exists but nothing happened. This is proof against the existance of God.

[Maverick]

How is the concept of some unproved God more feasible than the concept of scientific explainations including evolution that has been backed-up by evidence? Why isn't the concept of religion far fetched!? Do you think that it is clearly far-fetched!? Please speak your mind.
That is because there is more to religion than just explaining our existence. In fact I think what clings people to religion is not because of the dealings of the creation of the world.

Religion provides a lot of comfort to people. It provides comfort through prayer and "knowing" someone up above is looking over them. When times are difficult people tend to go to religion and God for comfort. When a loved one dies it makes people feel better having faith that they are in heaven. Opening up a science textbook isn't going to make people feel better.

It can also be scary trying to live without a religion and relying solely on science. With religion people get the sense of security and purpose. Without it they are vulnerable and lost.

So at the end of the day its not comparing facts and reasoning that makes people believe. Its the spiritual and comfort part. I hope you can understand that better now.

[Antares]

I agree with Ant here. It seems like people believing in something that is always "going to be there" that provides a place from them to "go" when they need help. That "explains" to them what happens when they die, etc etc gives the, a sense of meaning. Like they are supposed to be here, and their life is planned out.

My family and such are believers but as I look at the facts and try to conceptualize the concept of "God" and "Jesus" in my head, it really doesn't make any sense what so ever. And the point of science is to prove stuff. I believe science because it is fact. I dont so much believe god because science has proven things to me otherwise.
And some people choose to ignore science and believe in what they have been taught/told.

I agree, though. The concept is far-fetched.

[The Joker]

That is because there is more to religion than just explaining our existence. In fact I think what clings people to religion is not because of the dealings of the creation of the world.

Religion provides a lot of comfort to people. It provides comfort through prayer and "knowing" someone up above is looking over them. When times are difficult people tend to go to religion and God for comfort. When a loved one dies it makes people feel better having faith that they are in heaven. Opening up a science textbook isn't going to make people feel better.

It can also be scary trying to live without a religion and relying solely on science. With religion people get the sense of security and purpose. Without it they are vulnerable and lost.

So at the end of the day its not comparing facts and reasoning that makes people believe. Its the spiritual and comfort part. I hope you can understand that better now.

You are completely right. The belief of God is a great comfort. About a year or two ago, I was quite depressed for some reason, and believing in God actually got me through that without ever harming myself.

[Ripplemagne]

When I pick up a head of steam, I'll tackle all of the points made in this thread.

[Death]

I agree that religion does comfort people and gives them a sense of sercuity. However, I think that this sense is a false one but I understand why people believe in it and I respect them even if their views are far-fetched. What I don't like though are the enthusiasts that enforce it on others - that pisses me off. I have no problem with people blieving in God and it's easy to see why they would (also easy to see why one wouldn't since the proof from sciene is currently irrefutable evidence that religon lacks) but only if they keep it to themselves and those who they know who also believe and they are friends with.

[Maverick]

Death, its OK for you to talk about your atheism and criticisms of religion, yet its not OK for the religious? Sort of hypocritical don't you think? Are you saying that you as an atheist should keep your atheism and criticisms of religion to yourself to be fair?

[Death]

No, you misunderstand. We can debate religion here, but in real life, people shouldn't preach others. Athiests don't do it - religious people do, in my experience.

[INFERNO]

I suppose you have a few good points there. But still, I don't view religious evidence much of real evidence. I mean really, things that people wrote in a book doesn't prove anything to me wheras scientific research (people actually looking for answers instead of making them up) is more convicing to me. Besides, God never responded to me when I prayed to him - I asked him to make a red light blue for a few seconds just so that he can prove that he exists but nothing happened. This is proof against the existance of God.

I'll use an analogy to make it more clear of this. Take the theory of evolution. Now, take the idea or belief of black magic. Regardless of your views on them, it's very easy to see the each uses its own paradigm and own set of evidence. The same is true for here, religion is not going to use scientific evidence and science is not going to use religious evidence. The two are separate.

That example is not proof against God's existence. It's proof that not all prayers are answered.

No, you misunderstand. We can debate religion here, but in real life, people shouldn't preach others. Athiests don't do it - religious people do, in my experience.

On one hand I agree with not preaching but on the other hand, spreading the word of your belief is what will gather more followers and so forth.

That may be your experience but I think it's closer to 50/50 or 55/45 or 60/40 for religious preachers/atheistic preachers.

[Death]

I don't view religious evidence as proof though. You could write anything in a book and say that it's true. Okay, so I agree that we cannot dissprove God's existance, however, we cannot prove that he exists either (religious writings can suggest God's existance but they don't prove for sure that he exists wheras scientific evidence does).

I know that religious evidence and scientific evidence should be kept seperate, but I know which is more convincing and how the producer of the evidence got the evidence. Relgious 'evidence' comes from books written ages ago which came from people guessing stuff wheras scientific evidence came from careful studies and research. Another thing is that science doesn't try to pretend that it knows everything since it admits that there are things that it doesn't know. Religion on the other hand, is determined to believe that it knows it all which seems very fishy to me. I think that's because science is based on proved facts while religion is based on writings and faith which although is partially proved, it isn't proved in the same convincing way.

[The Joker]

I personally don't like preachy Christians. You can believe what you want to believe, just don't go preaching it to people who don't wanna hear it.

[INFERNO]

I don't view religious evidence as proof though. You could write anything in a book and say that it's true. Okay, so I agree that we cannot dissprove God's existance, however, we cannot prove that he exists either (religious writings can suggest God's existance but they don't prove for sure that he exists wheras scientific evidence does).

I know that religious evidence and scientific evidence should be kept seperate, but I know which is more convincing and how the producer of the evidence got the evidence. Relgious 'evidence' comes from books written ages ago which came from people guessing stuff wheras scientific evidence came from careful studies and research. Another thing is that science doesn't try to pretend that it knows everything since it admits that there are things that it doesn't know. Religion on the other hand, is determined to believe that it knows it all which seems very fishy to me. I think that's because science is based on proved facts while religion is based on writings and faith which although is partially proved, it isn't proved in the same convincing way.

Religious believers use faith, hence, they don't need scientific proof nor hard facts. Science is not based on proven facts, science uses mostly scientific theories, none of which are facts. So in a sense, religious beliefs are based on non-proven facts as is science.

You're right though, scientific theories come from carefully-executed studies, re-analyzing, etc... . Religious books are not simply based on "guessing stuff". Take for example Christianity, much of what is written nowadays may seem like "guessing", however, take into consideration when it was written, the different social norms, the different knowledge differences, etc... . There were reasons for what was written down, regardless of how odd or obvious it may seem to us.

We cannot prove/disprove God's existence using scientific methods and I doubt we ever will, at least not in our lifetime. However, I do believe that those who claim their god/goddess exist, in fact they do exist for those individuals. It is based on faith and faith alone. As an analogy, consider a child who has an imaginary friend. We cannot scientifically prove that there is some invisible man-tiger or whatever the friend is. However, the child knows it is real based on his/her faith of it. With Christianity, the belief system is probably more complex than that of an imaginary friend but the same idea is there, to those who believe, it is based on faith. It does not have the scientific evidence because it does not need it, it is not based on scientific evidence.

As for why religious beliefs know all, it's their belief system, their faith in their god/goddess which is powerful, all-knowing, etc..., and so since that is the case, for Christianity, the bible is written in the word of god who of course knows everything. They support that claim by their faith in their belief, their faith in their god/goddess. It may seem rather weak in the sense that there's no physical evidence to support it aside from whatever religious books or testimonies, but that is what faith is.

You say that you know science and religion are to not go together, yet you keep comparing them to each other and showing how they are not the same. Of course they're different but one is not always better than the other, as which is better depends on the person doing the comparisons.

[Death]

I personally don't like preachy Christians. You can believe what you want to believe, just don't go preaching it to people who don't wanna hear it.

I agree. In fact, I saw 2 idiots preaching near a train station; I was walking there with my little sister and I told her to take no notice of those peace-disturbers and religous freaks; I swear I heard a stranger laugh and give the preachers a 'you're scum and stop pissing us off' look.

Religious believers use faith, hence, they don't need scientific proof nor hard facts. Science is not based on proven facts, science uses mostly scientific theories, none of which are facts. So in a sense, religious beliefs are based on non-proven facts as is science.

You're right though, scientific theories come from carefully-executed studies, re-analyzing, etc... . Religious books are not simply based on "guessing stuff". Take for example Christianity, much of what is written nowadays may seem like "guessing", however, take into consideration when it was written, the different social norms, the different knowledge differences, etc... . There were reasons for what was written down, regardless of how odd or obvious it may seem to us.

We cannot prove/disprove God's existence using scientific methods and I doubt we ever will, at least not in our lifetime. However, I do believe that those who claim their god/goddess exist, in fact they do exist for those individuals. It is based on faith and faith alone. As an analogy, consider a child who has an imaginary friend. We cannot scientifically prove that there is some invisible man-tiger or whatever the friend is. However, the child knows it is real based on his/her faith of it. With Christianity, the belief system is probably more complex than that of an imaginary friend but the same idea is there, to those who believe, it is based on faith. It does not have the scientific evidence because it does not need it, it is not based on scientific evidence.

As for why religious beliefs know all, it's their belief system, their faith in their god/goddess which is powerful, all-knowing, etc..., and so since that is the case, for Christianity, the bible is written in the word of god who of course knows everything. They support that claim by their faith in their belief, their faith in their god/goddess. It may seem rather weak in the sense that there's no physical evidence to support it aside from whatever religious books or testimonies, but that is what faith is.

You say that you know science and religion are to not go together, yet you keep comparing them to each other and showing how they are not the same. Of course they're different but one is not always better than the other, as which is better depends on the person doing the comparisons.

I agree that you have some points there. Still, I know which I am going to look to for answers since I, personally, don't want blind faith, I want to see it physically, for myself, not just to believe it. Others can believe what I like for all I care, so long as they don't preach outside a church. In fact, couldn't say that there's a teapot that orbits each planet once and mves on to the next one and loops right round back to mercury again? Using your points, you are saying that for people cannot dissprove that and it's true for those who speculate it.

[tammy_x3]

lol, there are people who are religious and people who are atheists that are annoying as shit. There are extremes on both sides, so even though I'm an atheist I don't try to make all atheists sound like I am. Faith or no faith, some people are just plain stupid and don't know when to shut the hell up.

Religion is not completely fool-proof, and neither is not believing, to some people. Religion is so largely a matter of opinion in some ways that it's impossible for there to be a factual standpoint about it. That's why we call it faith, not fact.

[Death]

Absolutely true; religious people should stop acting like their faith is fact and accept that some people don't like them blabbering on about shit. They need to understand that there's plenty of people who do not have their faith.

[tammy_x3]

Absolutely true; religious people should stop acting like their faith is fact and accept that some people don't like them blabbering on about shit. They need to understand that there's plenty of people who do not have their faith.

Same goes for atheists of the same intensity when it comes to their lack of faith. There are plenty of people who do have faith, and as long as it makes sense to them it won't change their minds. No reason to put it in someone's face unprovoked.

[Death]

That's true as well of course. In my experience however, it's always been the religious people who are the enforcers. I've never heard an athiest 'preacher' before.

[tammy_x3]

That's true as well of course. In my experience however, it's always been the religious people who are the enforcers. I've never heard an athiest 'preacher' before.

I actually have, and it doesn't surprise me that people give me a dirty look or something when I tell them I am an atheist. Some people who are god-haters claim they are atheists, and it gives an awful perception of what atheism is. The lack of faith is easily confused with the hatred of faith around here. Drove me nuts when I used to hear kids in school tell me about how they didn't believe in god because they thought 'he was stupid' or how 'he hurt people'. I don't have a negative opinion on god like some people think all atheists do due to the complete ignorance of what atheism really stands for.

[Death]

It's sad that that's the truth. If people don't understand that athiems isn't hating God, it's not believing in unproved myths at all, then they are very sad. I suppose there will be the odd athiest preacher but in my experience, that has never happened and I'm guessing it's rare.

[INFERNO]

In fact, couldn't say that there's a teapot that orbits each planet once and mves on to the next one and loops right round back to mercury again? Using your points, you are saying that for people cannot dissprove that and it's true for those who speculate it.

You could conduct a scientific experiment to disprove that or just use already-known scientific information to disprove that. However, from a faith-based view, if they have faith in that, then for those who believe it for whatever reason(s), it is true for them.

"Truth" doesn't necessarily mean seeing something demonstrated scientifically, it can also encompass a faith-based perspective.

It's sad that that's the truth. If people don't understand that athiems isn't hating God, it's not believing in unproved myths at all, then they are very sad. I suppose there will be the odd athiest preacher but in my experience, that has never happened and I'm guessing it's rare.

While I haven't seen an atheistic preacher, I don't doubt that they exist.

It is sad though that people believe atheism is simply hating God. There are many atheists who hate god for reasons such as him never answering prayers to calling him stupid or things along those lines. Sadly, that gives a tainted look at what atheism truly is by those bandwaggoners (sp?).

If people hate a certain belief and voice their views, then I like it when they have some reason other than "it's stupid" or similar answers. For answers like those, especially for those who claim that about Christianity (as an example), usually it turns out they don't understand what the belief actually is or they adopt their reasonings through some biased way. If you're going to disbelieve or disagree with something, then I like it when they look into it then form their views.

However, to get back on topic, why cant people simply let others believe in whatever as long as no harm is being done to others or themselves? Someone can believe in teapots circling the planets in some way and if they want to, then let them (I understand this thread was made in response to another but I'm speaking in general terms).

[Death]

It is sad though that people believe atheism is simply hating God. There are many atheists who hate god for reasons such as him never answering prayers to calling him stupid or things along those lines. Sadly, that gives a tainted look at what atheism truly is by those bandwaggoners (sp?).

I have had experience of this in the past. I've heard people saying that you are repenting against God and sinning by being Athiest. Well, these are very narrow-minded, arrogant people who fail to see that their beliefs will not be believed by anyone so I agree with you in that they are sad. As for the spelling of 'bandwaggoners', you had 1 'p' too many.

If people hate a certain belief and voice their views, then I like it when they have some reason other than "it's stupid" or similar answers. For answers like those, especially for those who claim that about Christianity (as an example), usually it turns out they don't understand what the belief actually is or they adopt their reasonings through some biased way. If you're going to disbelieve or disagree with something, then I like it when they look into it then form their views.

The fact that they use such ludricous of arguments suggests that they have no idea how to start giving evidence since they are too narrow-minded to be able to think of any.

why cant people simply let others believe in whatever as long as no harm is being done to others or themselves? Someone can believe in teapots circling the planets in some way and if they want to, then let them.

I think that people can believe what they like - so long as they don't force others to - although you can debate it here though which is what we're doing. Unfortunately, you get pesky preachers that don't know when to shut up.

Otherwise yes, let people have blind faith, there's nothing wrong with that by itself - so long as it doesn't endanger others. E.G. Suicide bombers may believe that they are doing good and will gain access to a special matyr's heaven by commiting mass murder, but since their faith involves performing evil acts, they are not to act upon it as far as I'm concerned. It is very sad that someone would want to believe such things.