Why do I believe?

[MeDeFe]

It goes without saying that if there is a supernatural force in the universe (or not) there are implications that go along with that conclusion.

Like?

Good question, it's probably not like one can do much about it.

[jonesthecurl]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

Well yeah you would say that, but normal people wouldn't. There are thousands of gods who are not all-powerfull, and even in this thread john brought up that you can also define god as the life-force in every person or as the universe itself.

Well it's simply another curcuit of the argument: "I believe in god, yes he is real, therefore "god" means something", vs "I don't believe in god, it's a word with no referent."

[CrazyAnglican]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

Well yeah you would say that, but normal people wouldn't. There are thousands of gods who are not all-powerfull, and even in this thread john brought up that you can also define god as the life-force in every person or as the universe itself.

Okay "normal" is what the would generally be expected from others. In Judaism, Islam, and Christianity OA's definition is completely okay. Those three religions comprise a little over three billion people. Given that he's in the majority that pretty much makes his definition normal.

[Snorri1234]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

Well yeah you would say that, but normal people wouldn't. There are thousands of gods who are not all-powerfull, and even in this thread john brought up that you can also define god as the life-force in every person or as the universe itself.

Okay "normal" is what the would generally be expected from others. In Judaism, Islam, and Christianity OA's definition is completely okay. Those three religions comprise a little over three billion people. Given that he's in the majority that pretty much makes his definition normal.

No you misunderstand. The word "god" does not define what OA said it does. While a large percentage of the world says god is the omni-whatever creator, the word itself does not mean that. "God" does not imply an omni-all that creator.

Normal people with a functioning brain see that "god" can mean all kinds of things.

[john9blue]

OA, just because many Catholics choose to defer their moral choices to the Bible or the Pope does not mean that their morality is objective. It simply means that they will follow what they believe to be a higher authority. Like I've said, the Church has changed some of their positions over the years, and it would be foolish to say that the ultimate good/evil nature of an act changed along with it. The Church has subjective morality, as do atheists. Jesus more than likely had on objective morality, but much of his message is open for interpretation, which is exactly what the Church does. If someone chooses to differ from the Church because they find a different message in Jesus' teachings, can you really blame them? 100 years from now, the Church may well have changed to that person's viewpoints. That is why I say that (with the exception of Jesus) a person's morality is subjective.

As for whether I am a "true" Christian, that's sort of a pending decision. Arguments about the Catholic Church in particular should be directed towards OA, Luns, jesterhawk, Caleb, etc.... not me. I originally anticipated that this would be an debate about Pascal's Wager, reason within religion, and the nature of belief.

I think i've lost sight of the metaphor here, what are you saying? God is dependent upon his creation just as pi is dependent upon the circle. Most religious people i know wouldn't agree with that limitation.

Well, I was trying to modify your comparison so that it would more accurately reflect my beliefs. I meant that God isn't just a random variable that we are adding; He is necessary for understanding the nature of our universe. And, like I said, if we find all the answers and discover that God isn't necessary, then maybe I'll change my views.

Well sure, that's sensible. But what i'm saying is that looking at the history of scientific discovery and especially at some of the recent, apparently illogical discoveries, it isn't at all ridiculous to assume that we will figure it out. And even if we never do(whose to say that out intelligence is now or ever will be sufficient for such a task), that off course lends no credence to the existence of god.

I think I talked about this in the OP. It's not ridiculous to assume it, but it still requires faith. Similarly, if we never find the answers, it is not ridiculous to have faith in a creator God. Two sides of the same coin.

Again, while this position makes more sense, it contradicts basically all western religions. I don't see how a god simpler than the universe couldn't listen to all the prayers, throw a few hurricanes or floods once in a while, speak to guys in the desert, make lists of things he doesn't like and send his kid to forgive us for disrespecting his list of things he doesn't like.
Are you sure your a catholic and not some kind of pantheist? cause i might need to change my pitch

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll be a panentheist (similar to a pantheist, with a few differences). Like I said, I'm probably too ignorant about the Catholic faith to really defend it (years of grade school Religious Ed. didn't do a whole lot for me personally...).

Yes, off course it's a belief, but i'm just saying that i think this belief and other similar ones are more likely than the beliefs that include a eternal being that is more complex than it's creation(all western religions basically). Would you not agree?

That depends on your thoughts about the feasibility of something coming from nothing. While I might think it's preposterous, you might think it's necessary (like God, except switched).

Yeah sorry for the comic, i just couldn't resist.
Anyway, this subject might be good for a different topic. I've noticed this belief in a lot of people actually and i don't really get it. Why do you consider you'd be missing something without belief? Is it the perceived lack of fundamental values? or what?

Not really... I've already made it clear that I think that you can have values as an atheist. But if a religion agrees with me nicely, then I'm more likely to accept it.

I don't follow, you have to? How so? Is it because, as i asked above, you'd feel like you're missing something if you were to become an atheist?

In a way, yes. Although I support scientific progress, the fact that it doesn't have answers to some big philosophical questions (and I don't believe that it ever will) makes me and billions of others look elsewhere for answers. That "elsewhere" is religion.

Sorry, i was vague and you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking personally about you with the "end of the searching" thing, it was meant as a general evaluation made by god of two people, not as a personal attack, i don't do personal attacks when actually discussing something.

No worries. I agree that too many people resign themselves to religion without any real thought. If they think a little more, they might dismiss religion and become atheists, but if they think more still, they realize that atheism requires belief as well. Then, it's up to them what they want to believe (although I would say that the Wager makes atheism look like an undesirable belief).

Anyway, what i said in that quote applies only if we agree that wanting to believe in something, or being forced to believe in something doesn't actually mean you believe in it. As i see it belief doesn't work that way. In that case, if a person is pretending to believe because he is scared of the possibility of hell, isn't he in a sense trying to swindle god?

Edit: two rather large post seem to have appeared while i was writing this, and i'm kind of pressed for time, so sorry if i'm repeating something that has already been said.

I would hope not. Even if it is, what do you want me to do? It's like if I were a caveman, and you asked me to believe with all my heart that the sky is blue. The sky looks blue from here, and blue is my favorite color, so of course I'm going to believe it. Sure, maybe someday scientists will go up there and find out that it's not actually blue, it's just a diffusion of solar radiation... or maybe they'll go up there and find that the high altitude brings out a blue hue in the oxygen molecules. I don't know, I'm just a caveman, and I have good reasons to believe that the sky is blue, so I will!

[CrazyAnglican]

No you misunderstand. The word "god" does not define what OA said it does. While a large percentage of the world says god is the omni-whatever creator, the word itself does not mean that. "God" does not imply an omni-all that creator.

Normal people with a functioning brain see that "god" can mean all kinds of things.

Isee your point to an extent, but a capitalization error hardly qualifies OA as abnormal nor does it say that his brain isn't functioning. The common noun "god" certainly does refer to any divine being, but the proper noun "God" refers to exactly what OA said.

[Snorri1234]

No you misunderstand. The word "god" does not define what OA said it does. While a large percentage of the world says god is the omni-whatever creator, the word itself does not mean that. "God" does not imply an omni-all that creator.

Normal people with a functioning brain see that "god" can mean all kinds of things.

Isee your point to an extent, but a capitalization error hardly qualifies OA as abnormal nor does it say that his brain isn't functioning. The common noun "god" certainly does refer to any divine being, but the proper noun "God" refers to exactly what OA said.

And The Proper Noun (see I can capitalize too) "God" does not actually have a definition outside of the church. He is saying that a word has a meaning because he says so.

[PLAYER57832]

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

Correction here.


catholic means universal, applies to all Christians of faith. Roman Catholic means you follow the Pope.

Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be the religious descendent of Peter, who Christ said will have the keys to heavan.

Protestants believe this is a misunderstanding of the text.

Roman Catholics are often taught to pray to the Saints who will then present their case to God or Christ.

Protestants believe that we can each speak directly to God/Christ.

Protestant generally (there is variation here) believe that nothing we do here on Earth can obtain us forgiveness, only faith. We do not believe that another Earthly person (priest or other) can offer us true Godly forgiveness. We do not believe that a clergy can erase consequences.

Roman Catholics believe in pennance (here on earth) and purgatory (after death) as punishment that will, essentially, free them from sin. Roman Catholics generally believe that a priest acts in God's name and can actually bestow God's forgiveness.

Those are very gross, broad generalizations. I left out a LOT of significant detail. Yes, there is much more and it gets complicated, but those are the basics.

[CrazyAnglican]

And The Proper Noun (see I can capitalize too) "God" does not actually have a definition outside of the church. He is saying that a word has a meaning because he says so.

Not because he says so; because a significant portion of the world agree to the definition. That's the only way any word has meaning; a lot of people agree on it's definition. If well over a billion people agree on the definition (I've heard few Christians dispute that particular one) then it is in fact the definition, or at least one of the valid ones. Hence OA is perfectly normal and his brain works fine, as is evidenced by his great gift for debate.

[Napoleon Ier]

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

Correction here.


catholic means universal, applies to all Christians of faith. Roman Catholic means you follow the Pope.

Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be the religious descendent of Peter, who Christ said will have the keys to heavan.

Protestants believe this is a misunderstanding of the text.

Roman Catholics are often taught to pray to the Saints who will then present their case to God or Christ.

Protestants believe that we can each speak directly to God/Christ.

Protestant generally (there is variation here) believe that nothing we do here on Earth can obtain us forgiveness, only faith. We do not believe that another Earthly person (priest or other) can offer us true Godly forgiveness. We do not believe that a clergy can erase consequences.

Roman Catholics believe in pennance (here on earth) and purgatory (after death) as punishment that will, essentially, free them from sin. Roman Catholics generally believe that a priest acts in God's name and can actually bestow God's forgiveness.

Those are very gross, broad generalizations. I left out a LOT of significant detail. Yes, there is much more and it gets complicated, but those are the basics.

Correction here.

"Catholic" means universal as applied to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All other would-be "catholic" sects are heretical and not Catholic.

[jonesthecurl]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

Well yeah you would say that, but normal people wouldn't. There are thousands of gods who are not all-powerfull, and even in this thread john brought up that you can also define god as the life-force in every person or as the universe itself.

Okay "normal" is what the would generally be expected from others. In Judaism, Islam, and Christianity OA's definition is completely okay. Those three religions comprise a little over three billion people. Given that he's in the majority that pretty much makes his definition normal.

Name 'em.

[Neutrino]

John, it seems to me that every point you raise (well, every rational one; Pascal's Wager hasn't held any water since about thirty seconds before it was first coined) can be rebutted by two words: Occam's Razor.
Why should we suppose a deity to explain the universe when a theory without this unnecessary complication serves just as well (in this case, both theories serve equally well by mutually possessing no real answer to the question)?

P.S. I also think it's kinda scarey just how much Golden Mean fallacy garbage is being taken at face value in this thread. All options are not equal; all positions are not equally valid. Not assuming the existence of God is a considerably more viable option for the reasons outlined above. (logically, that is. But religion has never been based on logic, but faith. I don't intend this as an attack on religion in general; merely to point out that religion and logic and two different animals that should be kept in two different boxes)

[AAFitz]

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

Correction here.


catholic means universal, applies to all Christians of faith. Roman Catholic means you follow the Pope.

Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be the religious descendent of Peter, who Christ said will have the keys to heavan.

Protestants believe this is a misunderstanding of the text.

Roman Catholics are often taught to pray to the Saints who will then present their case to God or Christ.

Protestants believe that we can each speak directly to God/Christ.

Protestant generally (there is variation here) believe that nothing we do here on Earth can obtain us forgiveness, only faith. We do not believe that another Earthly person (priest or other) can offer us true Godly forgiveness. We do not believe that a clergy can erase consequences.

Roman Catholics believe in pennance (here on earth) and purgatory (after death) as punishment that will, essentially, free them from sin. Roman Catholics generally believe that a priest acts in God's name and can actually bestow God's forgiveness.

Those are very gross, broad generalizations. I left out a LOT of significant detail. Yes, there is much more and it gets complicated, but those are the basics.

Correction here.

"Catholic" means universal as applied to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All other would-be "catholic" sects are heretical and not Catholic.

another correction. catholic means universal...to protestants. It actually has different meanings for different groups. Personally i found this interesting and had no idea the pervasiveness of the word...but here the wiki definition:

WiKI:Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "whole" or "complete".[1] In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. For Roman Catholics, the term "Catholic Church" refers to the Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, including both the Western particular Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. Protestants sometimes use the term to refer to the entire body of believers in Jesus Christ. Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christians hold that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original catholic (universal) church founded by the apostles. In "Catholic Christendom" (including the Anglican Communion), bishops are considered the highest order of ministers within the Christian Church, as shepherds of unity in communion with the whole church and one another. [2] Catholicity is considered one of Four Marks of the Church, the others being unity, sanctity, and apostolicity.[3] according to the Nicene Creed of 381: "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

[jonesthecurl]

If we can't decide what the word "catholic" means, how likely are we to get a definition of "good" from god?

[Frigidus]

If we can't decide what the word "catholic" means, how likely are we to get a definition of "good" from god?

Easy.

Good - o = God

Basically, good is just God with more vowels.

[MeDeFe]

If we can't decide what the word "catholic" means, how likely are we to get a definition of "good" from god?

Easy.

Good - o = God

Basically, good is just God with more vowels.

Goodie to know.

[jonesthecurl]

If we can't decide what the word "catholic" means, how likely are we to get a definition of "good" from god?

Easy.

Good - o = God

Basically, good is just God with more vowels.

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood one.

(Although of course, this is how we get "Good Friday" on the day they nailed up the head honcho).

[Backglass]

Let’s start with Pascal’s Wager: the fact that if you believe in the Christian God, you have an eternity of happiness to gain and a bit of your time on Earth to lose.

[john9blue]

John, it seems to me that every point you raise (well, every rational one; Pascal's Wager hasn't held any water since about thirty seconds before it was first coined)

Why is that? Do tell... the Wager is a big part of my argument.

can be rebutted by two words: Occam's Razor.
Why should we suppose a deity to explain the universe when a theory without this unnecessary complication serves just as well (in this case, both theories serve equally well by mutually possessing no real answer to the question)?

Science has no answers as to the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness. That's where faith comes in.

Think of each religion as a scientific hypothesis to these questions. Not backed by data, just a possibility. Atheists don't even HAVE a hypothesis, they simply reject each one presented as impossible, even ones that theoretically could be true.

P.S. I also think it's kinda scarey just how much Golden Mean fallacy garbage is being taken at face value in this thread. All options are not equal; all positions are not equally valid. Not assuming the existence of God is a considerably more viable option for the reasons outlined above. (logically, that is. But religion has never been based on logic, but faith. I don't intend this as an attack on religion in general; merely to point out that religion and logic and two different animals that should be kept in two different boxes)

I don't see how this is a Golden Mean fallacy. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And I still think that belief in God is a more viable option... you're going to have to elaborate on your above points.

[john9blue]

Oh, hey, I have a website to go to now.



EDIT: Wow, the guy has an agenda. I'm sure the comics would be funny if I could ignore the straw man fallacies and only read the ones that supported my viewpoints.

[Napoleon Ier]

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

Correction here.


catholic means universal, applies to all Christians of faith. Roman Catholic means you follow the Pope.

Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be the religious descendent of Peter, who Christ said will have the keys to heavan.

Protestants believe this is a misunderstanding of the text.

Roman Catholics are often taught to pray to the Saints who will then present their case to God or Christ.

Protestants believe that we can each speak directly to God/Christ.

Protestant generally (there is variation here) believe that nothing we do here on Earth can obtain us forgiveness, only faith. We do not believe that another Earthly person (priest or other) can offer us true Godly forgiveness. We do not believe that a clergy can erase consequences.

Roman Catholics believe in pennance (here on earth) and purgatory (after death) as punishment that will, essentially, free them from sin. Roman Catholics generally believe that a priest acts in God's name and can actually bestow God's forgiveness.

Those are very gross, broad generalizations. I left out a LOT of significant detail. Yes, there is much more and it gets complicated, but those are the basics.

Correction here.

"Catholic" means universal as applied to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All other would-be "catholic" sects are heretical and not Catholic.

another correction. catholic means universal...to protestants. It actually has different meanings for different groups. Personally i found this interesting and had no idea the pervasiveness of the word...but here the wiki definition:

Yes. But Protestants are heretical and wrong.

[jonesthecurl]

The "god supporters" say this:

Everything that exists has a cause/maker.
The universe exists
Therefore the universe has a cause or maker.

Then add this:
Nothing can be its own cause
Therefore the universe is not its own cause
therefore the universe was caused by somethign outside itself.

They name this cause "god", then somehow decide that it's their particular version of the Christian God (that bit gets a bit fuzzy).

However if we go back over this, and substiture "god" for "the universe" theen the logic is as sound as it ever was.
In the first part, the opposite is also true : anything that did not have a cause or maker cannot exist.
This shows that either (a) god had a maker or (b) god does not exist.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, the cosmological argument actually can be rephrased in such a way as to be based solely on the premise that the universe is contingent, and hence requires an incontingent (ontologically necessary) cause, an Aristotelian "Prime Mover", if you like.

[Balsiefen]

John, it seems to me that every point you raise (well, every rational one; Pascal's Wager hasn't held any water since about thirty seconds before it was first coined)

Why is that? Do tell... the Wager is a big part of my argument.

The problem is that the chances of the wager working out is dismal. Pick the wrong religion and your screwed. And there are so many religions that the chances of it being a single one are tiny. Why should it even be a god that mankind knows of? or one that even cares? Our galaxy contains 400 billion stars, there being around a billion known galaxies. Better to accept the possibility of all things and live by your own standards and wait and see than to channel your efforts into a single religions demands.

can be rebutted by two words: Occam's Razor.
Why should we suppose a deity to explain the universe when a theory without this unnecessary complication serves just as well (in this case, both theories serve equally well by mutually possessing no real answer to the question)?

Science has no answers as to the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness. That's where faith comes in.

Think of each religion as a scientific hypothesis to these questions. Not backed by data, just a possibility. Atheists don't even HAVE a hypothesis, they simply reject each one presented as impossible, even ones that theoretically could be true.

What do you mean atheists (and by atheists I assume you mean science) have no hypothesis? There are hundreds. the point of science is not to build cathedrals to their hypothesis until they are reliably proven, and to base them on some kind of known fact in the first place. Besides, give science a chance, it has been making discoveries at a heck of a speed lately but unlike religion where everything is solved with a simple goddidit, so far every discovery leads to a new and deeper question. A scientific "Theory of everything" is not something that happens overnight.

Just because religions answer questions that science has not yet achieved to its own satisfaction doesn't mean that they are more likely to be right or that science never will answer it's question.

[AAFitz]

John, it seems to me that every point you raise (well, every rational one; Pascal's Wager hasn't held any water since about thirty seconds before it was first coined)

Why is that? Do tell... the Wager is a big part of my argument.

The problem is that the chances of the wager working out is dismal. Pick the wrong religion and your screwed. And there are so many religions that the chances of it being a single one are tiny. Why should it even be a god that mankind knows of? or one that even cares? Our galaxy contains 400 billion stars, there being around a billion known galaxies. Better to accept the possibility of all things and live by your own standards and wait and see than to channel your efforts into a single religions demands.

can be rebutted by two words: Occam's Razor.
Why should we suppose a deity to explain the universe when a theory without this unnecessary complication serves just as well (in this case, both theories serve equally well by mutually possessing no real answer to the question)?

Science has no answers as to the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness. That's where faith comes in.

Think of each religion as a scientific hypothesis to these questions. Not backed by data, just a possibility. Atheists don't even HAVE a hypothesis, they simply reject each one presented as impossible, even ones that theoretically could be true.

What do you mean atheists (and by atheists I assume you mean science) have no hypothesis? There are hundreds. the point of science is not to build cathedrals to their hypothesis until they are reliably proven, and to base them on some kind of known fact in the first place. Besides, give science a chance, it has been making discoveries at a heck of a speed lately but unlike religion where everything is solved with a simple goddidit, so far every discovery leads to a new and deeper question. A scientific "Theory of everything" is not something that happens overnight.

Just because religions answer questions that science has not yet achieved to its own satisfaction doesn't mean that they are more likely to be right or that science never will answer it's question.

very well explained, and let me add to it although its slightly redundant, that science presents is findings in the form of a theory, until it is proven. It does not brigde the gap with blind faith, and keeps an open mind to other possibilities. And certainly suggesting atheists dont have a hypothesis, is absolutely ridiculous. And certainly there many atheists concede that there actually could be a supernatural being in charge of everything, they simply do not believe in one.

I am constantly amazed that so many people cant understand the fact that atheists only share one thing in common and that is they do not believe in a supernatural being or force in charge of everything. Beyond that, the theories, and beliefs may range as widely as those in the relgious sector.

What you probably will find more often, and this is speculation, is that an atheist is more open to different ideas and possibities, than almost any religious person. A religious person, typically believes in a paticular god, a paticular history, and accounting of what that god requires and has done. An atheist is not necessarily bound by any such faith. They may simply not believe in a supernatural force...but accept that nearly any explaination is possible, and form their beliefs from the information around them, and not just from what theyve been told by others that already have made up their minds as to how everything works.