Which one of you will say "I don't believe in God?"

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

No more chickenshits -
who says outright - there is no God?

I can't argue anything with you after that, so..........

[phishhead]

1. I'm agnostic.

Can't help it, sorry. :)

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

3. Agnostic just means you don't choose sides

could be this?
could be that?

choose

[phishhead]

5. I choose not to choose. .

But your right, could be this, could be that.. could be nothing at all. :)

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

7. by not choosing

you put yourself out of the game. Act like a referee, but there is no satisfaction in that. I believe it would be better to choose - because it will be based on your knowledge - not on fear.

[SOteric]

38. I think you're mistaken.

Arguing the existence or nonexistence of God is a classic informal fallacy called "The Argument from Ignorance."

No empirical evidence exists to conclusively prove either position. Those chosing a position in this debate must rely upon opinion, belief, conjecture and supposition; weak points in a debate.

[sujan]

39. you forgot to include 'faith'

[SOteric]

41. You see that as differing from 'belief?'

[sujan]

43. gives a more sweet touch

[SOteric]

44. And that's relevant...how?

:shrug:

[sujan]

47. if you have any clue on what I am trying to express

I am supportive of your statements. I say 'faith' is a more PC word than 'belief'.

I guess that may be the relevance or maybe not.

[SOteric]

74. An interesting notion

I'm not too certain that's true. Let me look into it.

No need to be sarcastic.

[BlueState]

49. Now you have hit on one of my pet peeves

Agnosticism is not the inability to choose sides. It is also not indecisiveness or anything else die hard atheists may insist.

I believe that the existence of God has not, and cannot be demonstrated. As to the non-existence of god that too is unknowable.

Now, the original question was "Which one of you will say 'I don't believe in God?.'" Well I will say it - I do not believe in God. But I also believe the only intellectually honest position is to recognize that I have absolutely no way of knowing this for a fact. Therefore I am agnostic.

[Darranar]

57. Agreed completely, BlueState!

n/t

[Az]

62. Agnosticism speaks of what one knows

And as Descarte suggested the only thing we truly know is that we doubt. Thus effectively agnosticism is a dodge as we are all in the same state of unknowing.

Belief on the other hand is about the current balance of experience and things learned. What we believe is the culmination of our life to this point. We can not choose to believe one thing over another. We either do or do not believe a thing. Our confidence of what we believe is based on our knowledge and that can be widely varying. However we at any given moment either do or do not believe a thing. This can change rapidly as our mind attemps to sort our collection of ideas. But the current balance defines our current beliefs.

[sujan]

2. me

"I don't believe in God"

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

6. I have found that most have a difficulty between God and science

I am a man of science. I am not a fool that denies what is in front of me. However, I also know that science is evolving - just as people evolved-time goes on. I believe in a creation that includes the "proofs" of science.

quiet for now.

[sujan]

9. I reject creationism period

And I am man of science. Evolution all the way.

[RebelOne]

29. Definitely not

I don't believe in god, the devil or heaven and hell. God is just a something that Xtians cling to in the hope that after death there is an afterlife. Bull! The only place these Xtians are going after death is 6 feet under.

[Nay]

35. Me neither.

I haven't believed in a god since I was about 11-12 years old. The idea of a god never had any more reality for me than the idea of Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. They all were exactly the same to me, just a pretty story.

[Ladyhawk]

4. I don't believe in god.

And nope, I am not chicken about saying so. I was a Christian for twenty years. Look close, think, and scrutinize without fear and you will find there is nothing there. The key is to follow the truth no matter where it might lead...scary, but necessary if you really want to find the truth.

The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

11. I was a non believer for many years

and came to the conclusion that there is something out there that I not only don't understand, but that may be incomprehensible to me - science or not. Remember - with every hypothesis comes a variety of conclusions. Science chooses what fits - for now. Einstein showed the world that the universe was craftier. for ever hypothesis there are numerous answers. Choose one, and you are only led to more hypothesis. and more.
Even with science, we believe a temporal, fragmented, universe.
It's great to learn more, but there is no end!

[Az]

64. There is a great deal we do not understand

The difficult part is restraining the theories from excess. Unfortunately our mind abhores a vaccum (much like nature) and attempts to fit solutions where they may not be verifiable.

[greyl]

8. that one

"I assert that the number of the gods cannot be determined by any means. If I conclude from this assertion that God does not exist, then the number of the gods is zero (and the assertion is therefore false).
I'm simply saying that I'm unable to put myself in any camp with regard to the existence of God. I can't join the atheists (who assert that there are zero gods), I can't join the monotheists (who assert that there is one god), and I can't join the polytheists (who assert that there are many gods). Nor am I an agnostic; I'm not saying I DON'T KNOW whether God exists, I'm saying this knowledge is UNOBTAINABLE. It's not that I don't HAVE it, it's that it's NOT THERE to be had.

Or you could put it this way: God's existence is an object not of knowledge but of belief. It's possible to BELIEVE that there is no God, one God, or many gods, but it's not possible to KNOW any of these things. I should add that, while it's POSSIBLE to believe one of these things, it's not NECESSARY to believe one of them. One is to FREE to choose one of these beliefs to embrace, but one is not COMPELLED to choose one."

http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=538

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

13. No one is compelling you to choose one

if one believes in a power greater then them, if one believes that there is a purpose to the universe - if one believes that sooner or later - because of the power of belief - goodness will triumph - then there is a reason for struggle. Otherwise, you might as well say to hell with it.

[greyl]

33. "the number of the gods cannot be determined" nt

[ProudGerman]

81. There's no such thing as unobtainable knowledge

Given an infinite timeline, nothing is unknowable.

I say infinite timeline because so far, our own inventions of beginnings and endings don't seem to work for the nature of the universe. For something to begin, something else has to cause it, therefore something else came before. In other words, something else has always come before, ad infinitum. You also can't have an ending to something that never began.

[Sufi Marmot]

10. "I don't not believe in God..."

Is that what you wanted to hear? Oh, wait a minute... :-)

-SM, functional agnostic, for now...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

12. There is no god.

"god" is an artificial construction of the brain that has blossomed into religion whereby that artificial construct has been attributed external existance.

There is no evidence of the existance of a "god" and plenty of evidence that god is an artifical construct. Therefore - there is no god.

[premjan]

17. god is

an emergent property of the human mental architecture. there "god" does exist.

[sujan]

19. proof?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

30. no, god is...

an emergent property of the human mental architecture. There, "god" doesn't exist, it's imaginary.

[SOteric]

40. There is no "evidence that god is an artificial construct."

There is hypothesis, theory, belief and opinion that god is an artifical construct.

Which pretty much places the opinion "There is no god" in the same realm of proof as "There is a god."

Either is unable to provide conclusive proof of their position.

I surmise you need a few more classes in the sciences and good scientific practice before you espouse opinions and dress them up as fact. :hi:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

59. Sorry, but there IS evidence that "god" is an artificial construct...

unless you believe that electromagnetic stimulation of the temporal lobe of the brain can force "god" to make its presence felt that is.

You see, there have been studies recently where test subjects had the temporal lobe of their brain stimulated by electromagnetic signals. When this is done, the test subjects invariably report the feeling of not being alone and being in the presence of a supreme being. They feel comforted and at peace, and the most common description of this feeling was being in the presence of "god", even from atheists.

In fact they have come to call this area of the brain the "god spot".

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy has long been associated with religious visions, feelings and sensations, but this is less evidence for the "god is an artificial construct" hypothesis because the religious types can say that the epileptic fit is induced by the "god" visions etc. However, if these visions and feelings can be turned on and off at will by the application of electromagnetic radiation, then that argument falls down.

That is physical, documented proof of "god" being an artificial construct of the brain due to the activity of the temporal lobe.

There is NO evidence of "god" being an external reality, so if there is evidence for one hypothesis, and no evidence for the competing hypothesis, then it is safe assume that the hypothesis supported by evidence is more likely to be true than the hypothesis unsupported by evidence.

By the way, someone else pointed out that the fact that the many different people from many different cultures all have a "god" myth is evidence for the existence of god, note that ALL these many people from many cultures have a temporal lobe, which actually means that the universality of "god" myths is greater evidence for the NON-existence of "god" due to the fact that although all these people have nothing culturally in common, including the form of their myths, they all have a temporal lobe, and therefore they are all sucepitble to religous feelings visions etc due to the activity of that lobe, and they will interpret those feeling visions etc based on their cultural norms.

[SOteric]

73. That is a very nice hypothesis, and I'm familiar with it

But really, I'm sure you're bright enough to realise that isn't anything close to "proof there is no god."

All that it proves is that it's possible to stimulate a portion of the brain that causes an individual to believe they're in the presence of a supreme being.

In no way does that absolutely preclude the possibility of an actual supreme being. I simply forms yet another good, but unproven hypothesis on how the idea of a God has sprung up in so many places.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

77. Where did I say "proof"? I said "evidence".

The information I posted is proof that "god" is an artificial construct of the brain. This is evidence that there is no "god". I then pointed out that there is NO evidence that "god" exists in external reality (ie outside the human brain), and went on to say that a hypothesis that is supported by evidence should be treated as more likely to be true than a hypothesis that has NO evidence.

I will follow the evidence and state: there is no "god".

Prove me wrong.

[SOteric]

79. I will not, as my post much earlier in this thread states

that it is one of the classic fallacious arguments "Argumentum ad Ignoranteum" to engage in this alleged 'argument.'

Neither side can prove conclusively that their position is correct. All 'evidence' must be opinion, belief, hypothesis, conjecture and highly personal, and deeply interpretive, and quite open to debate.

It would be a waste of both our time.

[Az]

80. Proof vs Refutation

If we were engaged in an actual debate re the existance of god the flow of the argument would be that someone would make a claim and the opposition would attempt to refute the claim. Thus it is not a case of proving ones case. Rather it is to defend your claims with evidence. The oppositions job is to refute your evidence. At no point in this process is absolute proof achieved. However a claim can be refuted. Unforunately the nature of the human mind is that it does not automatically change its balance upon learning new information that may challenge its current set of beliefs. Thus the frustration that develops when a positive claim is succesfully refuted and yet the claimant does not relenquish it.

[SOteric]

87. Eloquent, but

you are quite obviously not getting what I'm saying here.

It is a "case of proving one's case."

I have asserted repeatedly in this thread that this is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and nothing in your statement convinces me that it is otherwise, to argue the existence of God.

---

"The argumentum ad ignorntiam is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Irving M. Copi, "Introduction to Logic," Collier MacMillan of London publishers.

---

So let's take an analogous assertion:

---

"The government is hiding the remains of several UFO crashes, including alien bodies, in Area 51."

---

While the government has denied this claim, they've never proven that its false. So I'm entitled to believe it true. -or

The government has denied this claim, and you can't prove it otherwise. So I'm entitled to believe it false.

The latter is closely tied to the assertion that there is no god. Some unreferenced, unattributed authority has suggest there is no god for x reasons and no one can prove this untrue.

But that is a fallacious argument.

Just as is the discovery of the "God Spot" referenced in our Kiwi friend's post not excluding the existence of a diety. It may tend to suggest possibilities, but it does not exclude or preclude.

---

If you as an individual chose to evaluate the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and miscellaneous supporting evidence, - and form the belief that there is no god, - that is your right. I support and defend your ability to do so. But where you begin to argue that your 'evidence' excludes the possibility of a god and it is the duty of anyone who believe otherwise to prove you wrong, you commit a fallacy.

I most certainly won't be suckered into a questionable defence in a blatantly fallacious argument, simply because I point out that your position has a few gaping holes.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

89. What gaping holes?

You have yet to show A SINGLE SMALL HOLE!

You claimed there was no evidence that there is no "god". I showed that there is. Now you are saying that the evidence does not "prove" there is no "god", which I never claimed. But your problem is that based on your argument, there is no proof of ANYTHING, as nothing can preclude the possibility that ANYTHING is or is not possible, all there is is evidence to suggest one way or another.

In other words you have defined "proof" as something that is never obtainable because no matter how much or how little evidence an argument has in its favour, there is always a slim possibility that the evidence is misleading.

So, what would you consider proof of the existance in external reality of "god"? What would you consder proof of the NON-existance in external reality of "god". Or do you believe that it can NEVER be proven either way?

If you believe the latter, then I will just say that you are a three-headed alien from Jupiter and there is no possibility of you disproving that argument, because NO evidence you present can ever be accepted as PROOF.

I have made a psoitive claim: there is no "god". All you have to do is present ONE piece of EVIDENCE that "god" exists in external reality and you will have disproved my claim. If you can't, and I can prove my alternative hypothesis (that "god" is an artificial construct of the brain), then I will have proven my assertion.

So far, it is NOT looking good for you.

[R Hickey]

14. I don't believe in any god.

Furthermore, I believe that such beliefs are harmful to the human race. I believe that such superstitions will lead humans to extinction.

I believe that god is a tool, like spanking, to keep children in line. I believe that religious beliefs, taught to children, warp and stunt their young minds. I believe that adults who believe this tripe are mentally ill.

I believe that every society will have beliefs in gods, because every society imperfectly serves the needs of humans. I believe that the human race is degenerating, slowly because of the societies that we have created.

I believe that capitalism, the conversion of natural resources into capital, like fire, can burn mankind, is currently being overused, misused, and may eventually consume this human race.

[sujan]

16. agreed with every point you made

and especially the last one.

Read "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin http://dieoff.com/page95.htm

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

20. I used to think so too

God was created to keep a society in line.

I don't believe that anymore. It's so interesting that EVERY group of people on the face of the earth has a belief in God system of some kind. I don't personally believe that they all got religion because they were ignorant of lightning, etc. (Ask Du'ers to spell lightning, and half will get it wrong).

[sujan]

22. hmm

"It's so interesting that EVERY group of people on the face of the earth has a belief in God system of some kind."

It says something about human nature and not about God.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

26. why make that assumption?

after all, it is just an assumption. I would take it from a completely different perspective. Without assumption..

[sujan]

28. I show the antithesis to your assumption

How does your assumption supercede mine? I am just complementing to your rhetoric. You speak of perpective, which afterall, is an assumption.

[SOteric]

42. Neither really supercedes the other

they simply run parallel. Benevolent Rabbit believes what Benevolent Rabbit believes, and sujan believes what sujan believes. Your statement of your opinion in opposition and contrast to his doesn't cancel his out.

[sujan]

45. that is my point

while I lend to the fact that my opinion is an assumption, the best my mind could formulate right now, he/she says 'I would take it from a completely different perspective. Without assumption..'...

So I duress.

[SOteric]

76. I don't believe it's his.

I read his statement as saying: You think your way and I think my way. Why would you (sujan) think to take it as a human manifestation? I (Benevolent Rabbit) take it from another viewpoint. (i.e. that it is evidence of God).

[lazarus]

15. I don't

Haven't for a long, long time. Which gods do you not believe in?

[BlueJazz]

52. Yep, Lazarus...Well said.

I was going to post "I don't believe in the existence of any Gods".

The entire belief in these Gods are based on ancient societies that also believed in spirits, old wives tales, stars were just fires in the sky, the earth was flat and hundreds of other erroneous thoughts.......And people people expect me to take their word for anything ?? Ha!...not a chance!

[greyl]

18. Take care of your goodness.

Make a sign and stand by the edge of the road tomorrow holding it high and proudly.

Which one of us will say we don't believe in life? ;)

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

23. I believe in life for all

I believe this war is wrong. - and so does everyone that is intimately connected to it.

I believe we still have a chance.

[Droopy]

21. What's with all the religion threads in the Lounge

Nothing I hate more than seeing a flame war in the Lounge. Rabbit, you apparently are new. We have had a lot of flame wars regarding religion in the past. These types of threads usually don't get anybody anywhere. Just so you know.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

24. I haven't seen one flame.

maybe you brought one with you?

[Droopy]

25. no flames here

that's just usually what happens in threads regarding religion. Maybe you'll get lucky.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

27. no one is arguing

everyone is truly expressing their views. As it should be.

No one is evangelizing.

[foxy]

31. All I can say is that I wonder at times

:shrug:

[WillParkinson]

32. Waving hand!

I say there is no god or gods or goddesses.

And I'm hardly ever wrong.

[arwalden]

34. I Don't Believe In Gods

They are all myth. So is life-after-death.

Why should this be such a hard thing to admit? Why so many "closet atheists"?

I'm pretty much convinced that someone who identifies themselves as an agnostic is someone who knows that gods are myth. Yet... the don't want to declare themselves officially "just in case".

Also... I've always wondered why it is that so many fundamentalists have a concept of atheists (or atheism) as an organized "religion". It's as though they think atheists have rituals and rites and worship the devil and sacrifice small animals.

I've always been amused at the concept of "Satanism" and "The Church Of Satan". --- These folks are clearly buying into the whole Christian concept of Satan. For without Christianity, there would be no Satan (for the most part). --- Oh go ahead and nitpik... point out that another religion other than Christianity has a "satan-like character"... but you know what I'm talking about.

What confuses me most of all are the Christians who are superstitious and who believe in astrology. Near as I can tell, these two belief systems are incompatible and contradictory with each other.

But... nevertheless, you can rest assured that the points and ideas and teachings and writings that conflict are glossed over and not spoken of.

-- Allen

P.S. Remember... STONE DISOBEDIENT CHILDREN.

[sujan]

36. "life after death"

Isn't that a contradiction in itself?

:evilgrin:

[liberalnurse]

37. I don't think the bible is all that it's cracked up to be....

It was all repeated hearsay and written by men who applied cultural pre-conceptions. Did ya know Jesus had sisters? No....girls were not important.

Most of the disciples couldn't even write....the story was told and told and then figured out to the best of their knowledge.

I believe in a supereme being or culture...somewhere in the Beta Quardrant.

[Nomad559]

50. I was born an Atheist

Although I sometimes went to church with family members, I don't recall ever having a belief in a God.

[BigMcLargehuge]

55. are we not all born atheist?

Isn't it our environment that encourages (or demands) belief in a diety?

[BigMcLargehuge]

46. There is no God (or Gods)

I can say it.

[buddhamama]

48. i have no beliefs either way

there could be a god or not.

i'm not going to argue for or against a certain 'belief'.

and please don't argue with me, i grew up catholic, went to catholic school, studied theology...i choose 'i have no faith in god, it's not for me but fine if others choose to believe'.

i don't have problems with people believing in multiple gods/goddesses, worshipping Satan, really whatever is fine.

it is the 'person' i care about not their beliefs.

[BiggJawn]

51. OOH! OOH! I Will! I Will!

I have never seen any proofs to the otherwise. I will NOT accept it "on Faith".

Oh, dear..Now I suppose somebody will post a "I'm OUTTA here!" thread based on my "God Bashing"....:-)

[goddess40]

53. There is no god!

There that felt good. I have always believe that, even when my mother forced me to go to church. Even back in grade school.

[starroute]

54. I believe in mystery

And I believe we all have some sort of internal moral compass that is steering us in a particular direction, but for purposes and towards goals that we cannot comprehend.

I try not to get into arguments with people who believe that the existence of that moral compas within us "proves" there is something equivalent to a magnetic pole outside us attracting it. I don't accept that as a proof -- it looks to me like an attempt to explain one mystery in terms of another and even more tenuous mystery. But I can deal with it as a sometimes-useful metaphor.

What I can't deal with is people who claim to have insider knowledge of that hypothetical ultimate mystery -- to know exactly what it's up to, how it feels about us, and probably what it ate for breakfast -- especially when they use that supposed knowledge as an excuse to boss the rest of us around. Nobody here at DU is like that, of course -- but there are plenty of people who are, and it makes them extremely dangerous.

Because of people like that, I'm tempted to believe that on balance the God-metaphor has done far more harm in the world than good, and that it's time to trade it in on a new one. I'd rather we all followed our inner compasses just because that's the way moral beings behave, rather than because we think there's some big sky-daddy who will zap us with lightning if we don't. We'd all be better off if we maintained a proper respect for mystery, rather than a false familiarity.

[short bus president]

56. Those are two different statements

"I don't believe in god" and "there is no god." The first is a negative expression of atheism, stating what one does not believe. This is my position, and I will proudly proclaim that I do not believe that there is a god. The second statement, however, is a positive statement, professing on the part of the speaker a certainty of knowledge, which I do not believe is attainable, that there is no god. I cannot comfortably make the positivist statement, just as I could not make the corresponding positivist statement that there definitely is a god. I don't believe I possess the tools or insight required to make the positivist claim. I don't believe any person does, unless that person is willing to base such a statement on "faith," and thus surrender any claim to rational veracity.

[markses]

58. God is dead

There is no God, but not because there is no "proof" for the existence of God. This is the weak atheist argument that relies on a scientific and rationalist definition of proof - which is itself both historically contingent and - as Nietzsche demonstrated - imbued with the assumptions of the old Christian theology. That's why it is so easy for "believers" to turn the argument around and accuse atheism of "faith." They are absolutely correct. An atheism that denies God on the basis of scientific rationality IS a faith-based atheism. Rather, there is no God because we can positively draw out a series of contingent developments in the history of thought that develops "God" as an idea and a force. God works, or at least worked.

Nobody really believes in the afterlife, because nobody's BODY believes in it.

But Nietzsche is quite right to say God is dead. He is not, of course, referring to an actual existent entity that at one time "lived," and since has "died." That's why the incredibly stupid "'God is dead' - Nietzsche...'Nietzsche is dead' - God..Har Har Har" stuff is only uttered by the most ignorant elements of religious communities. Rather, Nietzsche's statement (uttered before him, of course, by Hegel and others) is self-demonstrative. As soon as it becomes possible to SAY "God is dead," the whole system of thought which enforced the necessity of God in thought has lost its dominant force. It is dead, and so then is God. Now what's left of God is his ghost, the residual. And ghosts do work. But this entire thread is testimony to the correctness of Nietzsche's expression. If God were not dead, we wouldn't be having this discussion...

[NightTrain]

60. I don't believe in God!

Happy now?

[Ediacara]

61. technically agnostic, functionally atheist

so, there's no evidence for superbeings, no evidence that any religious texts have any physical reality, and I doubt any super-beings exist.

But it's possible, so I can't say, "There is no God," and be honest to you or myself.

Although this also means that YOU can't say, "There is a God," without being just as dishonest.

[Az]

63. I have no belief in god or gods

I do believe that everyone is searching for understanding of the world aroung them and theirself. I do believe that within the process that our brains follow it is a regularlly occurring pattern to attribute our experiences to a false concept of an external entity commonly refered to as god. Its an anamoly of our biology. Thus criticizing people for it is counter productive. Seeking a better understanding of it is progress.

[leftofthedial]

65. "I don't believe in God"

"There is no God."

(Assuming that by "God" you mean the Jehovah in the Judeo-Christian mythology. There are gods, that is, things that are worshipped by people.)

It's all mythology, superstition and wishful thinking run amok with an unhealthy dose of political and economic manipulation thrown in to hold it all together.

[Az]

66. Thats the problem with the word god

It means a lot of different things. Depending on the context of the word one's disbelief in it may vary. Some definitions are obviously erronious while others are less defined. The less we know about the intent of the usage of the word the less sure we can be in stating our disbelief. A person could well be using the word god to merely refer to a commonality found between all people.

[MiltonLeBerle]

67. There is no God.

At least not the piece-of-shit sadistic fuckwad described in The Bible

[alfredo]

68. Don't believe in gods or devils, and I don't really care.

I have enough going on in my life without complicating it with fear.

[Pobeka]

69. What's the difference between and athiest and a pantheist?

Semantics. Think about it.

I'm a panthiest, i.e. I think everything is God, even my thoughts, even
this computer. We're all the spiritual information and energy of the universe.

[Az]

70. And there lies the issue

What does one mean by god? When does the word god lose all meaning? Semantics are a critical issue that are often overlooked. Talk to people and find out just what they mean. The short answer may not convey the correct concept based on your preconceptions of their words.

[Pobeka]

72. Ding ding ding ding ding!

And here's another fact of my life:

I've known a few folks who don't hide their atheism, and they are without a doubt in the class of "most decent human beings" in regards to how they act in this world with respect for themselves and others.

[Swede]

71. A quantum physicist said that there

are four forces in nature as definded mathematics. He said that many theorists believe in a fifth or "supernatural" force organizing chaos.

[Swede]

75. I said definded

Sorry for the bushism. My bad.

[Ramsey]

78. I don't believe in god

Not any god of any organized religion. Could there be a higher being in the universe? Sure, I am fairly certain we are not the most advanced creatures in the entire universe.

Is there a deity who created this planet, the universe, and every creature in it, and then sits around somewhere above the atmosphere asking us to bend down and worship it, judging us and telling us what to do? No way.

[SmileyBoy]

82. I can't say that. I'm Muslim.

I'm trying my damndest to follow at least three of the five pillars right now, and I don't want to come back down by saying there is no God. Anyway, it goes against everything I believe (I believe DEEPLY in Allah), so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Avatar13]

83. Did you really mean "I don't believe in god"

Or did you mean "I believe there is no god" It's subtle, but it makes a world of difference.

[SmileyBoy]

84. There has to be more to this big, wonderful universe...

...than just the scientific. I personally don't think I could live my life anymore if it was hypothetically proven that ALL there is in this universe is the scientific. Now, I'm kind of an astronomy geek myself, and I'll be the very first to admit that science plays at least the majority role in the clockwork of the cosmos, but after observing and reading about all there is in the vast cosmos, I cannot accept for one second that *******ALL THIS******* was done by scientific, tangible phenomenae.

[Az]

86. Now for me its just the opposite

My thinking says this big wonderful universe is trivialized if it is just the whim of some entity. This is the old unweaving the rainbow issue. People said Newton destroyed the beauty of the rainbow when he discovered what it was made of. To me ther beauty of the rainbow is still there and we now have new things to appreciate because of our understanding of it.

[goobergunch]

85. I will (n/t)

[amazona]

88. There is no God as popularly described

It is self evident that there cannot be such a being as a God who is both all-powerful and all-loving. If God is loving, it is apparent that He is not powerful enough to take care of even the most egregious problems. If God is all-powerful but simply can't be bothered to do anything about even the greatest of injustices, then He cannot be considered loving.

Some people try to let God weasel out of his obligation to act by invoking free will. To me this seems silly because
it is quite obvious to me that most people throughout human history have never enjoyed any opportunity to exercise free will. Nor do the plants and animals currently being wiped off the earth enjoy any such fabled quality as free will...

There may well be Gods with powers that we can't explain, that still fall far short of being anything like all-powerful, and some of these entities may generally be nice folks and forces for good, and others of them may generally be forces for evil. But this hodge-podge of fallable invisibles is a far cry from what the modern mind understands as God.

I think the name "God" should be retired because it creates too much confusion.