Why do you believe in a god?

I can not see any logical reason why one would believe in a god as there is no evidence for an actual god existing. That's why I wonder why so many people believe in a god.

So why do you believe in a god? :)

10 members like this

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark on August 6, 2012 at 12:29am

I know this then. God is not personal. God is all things. I'll be dogmatic about it.

Permalink Reply by fruitsandnumbers on August 8, 2012 at 12:17am

do you doubt it, Mark?

Permalink Reply by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 3:19am

I don't doubt it.

Permalink Reply by fruitsandnumbers on August 11, 2012 at 7:47am

If you can't speak of doubt, you can't speak of knowledge either.

Permalink Reply by Sunshine on August 8, 2012 at 12:23am

is? maybe you mean 'seems to me because _____ " ?

Permalink Reply by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 3:19am

Yes, is. There is no "seems" about it.

Permalink Reply by Carla Valdivia Salinas on July 30, 2012 at 2:37am

What I nice thing to say. :)

Permalink Reply by Gordon Lindberg on July 23, 2012 at 11:30am

It's intersting that your a vegan posting this question, which is what God's origional plan for mankind was, when both your "heros/mentors" mr Dawkins and mr Darwin (who had 9/10 children born retarted or malformed to his 1st cousin trying to evolve the human race) would lecture you on how eating red meat is what brought mankind out of the stone-age.

There is plently things that a vegan can eat to get protein (everything) just like there is plently of evidence that God does exist but sadly some people can't (don't want to) see it.

Permalink Reply by Carla Valdivia Salinas on July 30, 2012 at 3:51am

True...great comparison! How we see only what we WANT to, and in this case, choosing and wanting not to see, instead of trying to understand this unprejudiced (as we want meat eaters to act...UNPREJUDICED).

But I understand why a lot of people feel irritated about what (they think) is God. Sometimes people just remember how badly behaved some people who said they were "believers"... and they don't want to feel like one of those people, starting not believing the same...

But it should be said that, doing something is more important than saying something, and at the same time, saying something doesn't make you acting/being that way...

For me, is similar to see a believer acting against his own speech, even when he KNOWS the speech is pure... sometimes he's not, and falls and falls a lot at the start, but then the path becomes thiner and thiner... just like when we start eating healthier.

If you really think this, is actually pretty similar, when we DO understand that "meat, dairy, eggs aren't good for our health", but at the beginning, we are not as strong, so we started step by step, slow... at first not eating red meat, then maybe not eating meat, period. Then dairy, and maybe eggs... then raw, etc, etc.
It becomes a healthier path, thiner and thiner too.

IF anyone can understand what is to walk on a thiner path (and being judged for others for it) should be the people in 30bad... :)
Going further, they should understand why we want to share that happiness (of being with God), 'cause it's just like when we want to share this way of eating!! Because it makes us healthier and happier than ever... peace! :)

Sorry for writing so much! :O

Permalink Reply by fruitsandnumbers on August 4, 2012 at 1:55am

"both your "heros/mentors" mr Dawkins and mr Darwin (who had 9/10 children born retarted or malformed to his 1st cousin trying to evolve the human race) would lecture you on how eating red meat is what brought mankind out of the stone-age."

Actualy, I'm not so sure of that...

"The grading of forms, organic functions, customs and diets showed in an evident way that the normal food of man is vegetable like the anthropoids and apes and that our canine teeth are less developed than theirs and that we are not destined to compete with wild beasts or carnivorous animals."

"Although we know nothing for certain about the time or place that man shed the thick hair that covered him, with much probability of being right we could say that he must have lived in a warm country where conditions were favourable to the frugivorous way of life which, to judge from analogies, must have been the way man lived."

"The most extraordinary workers I ever saw, the labourers in the mines of Chili, live exclusively on vegetable food, including many seeds of leguminous plants."

Charles Darwin

watch Dawkin's conversation with Peter Singer.

Permalink Reply by pradtf on August 11, 2012 at 8:21am

gordon lindberg writes:

fruitsandnumbers answers:

Actualy, I'm not so sure of that...

good find, daniel!

and there is even a possibility that darwin may have been veg at some points in his life (though this is likely conjectured from some of his writings - which as you've shown seem to be rather pro-veg).

while dawkins couldn't bring himself to the point of being veg, he was 'apologetic' at least:

http://www.quora.com/Is-Richard-Dawkins-a-vegetarian

(the interview is there too)

in any case, i'm not sure what gordon's argument actually is.

first, unless it can be shown that darwin and dawkins actually babbled on about meat forming a pathway out of the stone age, statements such as this is just gossip. since dawkins, at least, has access to the modern theories which decisively show that corpse eating has nothing to do with humans' progress, it seems most unlikely he would do such a thing. however, if he did, i'd like to see how he did so.

second, what does having 9/10 malformed children have to do with the argument? such slurs don't have any relevance. besides, the "retarted or malformed" doesn't seem to be true according to this item (which is substantially referenced):

====

The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Charles was a devoted father and uncommonly attentive to his children.^[9] Whenever they fell ill, he feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He examined this topic in his writings, contrasting it with the advantages of crossing amongst many organisms.^[150] Despite his fears, most of the surviving children and many of their descendants went on to have distinguished careers (see Darwin-Wedgwood family).^[151]

Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the Royal Society,^[152] distinguished as astronomer,^[153] botanist and civil engineer, respectively. His son Leonard went on to be a soldier, politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.^[154]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Children)

====

third, how do the personal 'attributes' of these two 'heroes' affect any part of the argument in question. they have studied certain phenomenon. they have reported on their studies. their personal qualities (shortcomings and otherwise) have no bearing on the knowledge they found.

to try to frame an argument by attempting to malign individuals who are credible sources, does not negate the validity of the data these individuals have presented. in fact, doing so is to fall into the fallacy of poisoning the well. such efforts do not constitute a valid argument.

you don't kill the message, by trying to kill the messenger.

in friendship,

prad

Permalink Reply by Martin Holde on July 23, 2012 at 7:24pm