Why don't you believe in a god

[A Christian Sceptic]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

[slingblade]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.

[tkingdoll]

It's a stupid idea, that's why. A really, really stupid idea, right up there with Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Puff the Magic Dragon and Zeus and Hera.

Why believe one dumb wishful thinking idea and not the others? If I believe in god then there is not a single compelling reason not to believe in fairies as well. It's all silly reasoning based on fear of death and the unknown. I don't need any crutches, so I don't need to believe in magical creators.

Let me turn it back to you: why do you believe in the Christian god and not the gods of the Ancient Greeks?

[kmortis]

Actually, I generally put it as: there has been, at this point, no evidence for a deity that does not have a naturalistic conclusion. Could there be one, yes; just just that there's no necessity for one to exist. The Universe is a complex enough of a place without a deity, no need to complicate it further.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.

[slingblade]

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.


I got tired of talking to the ceiling and expecting an answer.

[kmortis]

It seems those are reasons (and very good reasons) to not follow that religion or church or whomever they were. I'm talking about simply evidence against an intelligent creator.

I dunno, if there is a creator, it would seem that the evidence would call their intelligence into serious question. Sex and urination through the same orifice?

[hgc]

Because it's the default position

... or, to put it another way ...

Why should I?

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's a stupid idea, that's why. A really, really stupid idea, right up there with Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Puff the Magic Dragon and Zeus and Hera.

Why believe one dumb wishful thinking idea and not the others? If I believe in god then there is not a single compelling reason not to believe in fairies as well.

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

[cyborg]

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

First define "intelligence".

[kmortis]

First define "intelligence".

Jesus, man. He's already on the hook to define a god, now you want him to define "intelligence"? You're cruel.

[tkingdoll]

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

It's wishful thinking because it avoids the oh-so-uncomfortable question "what is the meaning of life?". Or more specifically, it removes the extremely uncomfortable notion that there isn't a meaning of life and we're just pooping, eating, killing machines like all the other animals. We just make cool tools.

It's wishful thinking because it makes us the special pet creation of a higher intelligence instead of an accidental gloop of stuff.

You didn't answer my question.

[TX50]

It's a bronze age superstition. Most of us don't live in the bronze age any
more.

[cyborg]

Jesus, man. He's already on the hook to define a god, now you want him to define "intelligence"? You're cruel.

Logic is cruel.

[Fnord]

Actually, I generally put it as: there has been, at this point, no evidence for a deity that does not have a naturalistic conclusion. Could there be one, yes; just just that there's no necessity for one to exist. The Universe is a complex enough of a place without a deity, no need to complicate it further.


Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

[the PC apeman]

Not only is there no evidence for a god, there is no need for a god.

[Tricky]

Lots of reasons, none of which you can counter.

1. The people of my former religion abused me, using religion.

2. They allowed my ex-husband to abuse me, using religion.

3. They lied to me, though to be fair, that was partly because they were also lying to themselves.

4. God doesn't exist.

Reasons enough.
I was fortunate enough that my experience with religion was not as horrible as Slingblades, but I too was a former believer. I gradually stopped believing in God because not one thing that God was supposed to do every happened. In fact, the world behaved exactly as you would expect it to behave if there weren't any sort of loving Father.

[Autolite]

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

Science can't prove or disprove a god exists because god doesn't exist. Science can't prove or disprove leprechauns exist because leprechauns don't exist. The same can be said for everything that doesn't exist...

[tuc0]

What is this "god" I keep hearing about?

[Zarathustra]

I would have surmised that a being omniscient enough to create, maintain, organize and govern the actions of each and every particle and its infinitesimal sub-particles of the entire universe at every given moment in time, would, in his magnificent immutableness of Alpha and Omega, bestow upon we, his finest creations, mere man, a language which would not, when spelled backwards, reveal his name to be a creature which widdles and poops on the living room carpet.

[Tricky]

I would have surmised that a being omniscient enough to create, maintain, organize and govern the actions of each and every particle and its infinitesimal sub-particles of the entire universe at every given moment in time, would, in his magnificent immutableness of Alpha and Omega, bestow upon we, his finest creations, mere man, a language which would not, when spelled backwards, reveal his name to be a creature which widdles and poops on the living room carpet.
Are you having that problem with your hawhay too?

[kilgore_trout]

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence".


I'm not sure what else you're really looking for... but yea, as long as we're not talking in terms of religion, and just off of a "what if there is something out there", then there does have to remain that possibility.

Of course there's also a problem as to what exactly there is to look for in an "intelligent creator". There's no way to observe or measure the impact of this being if there is no real definition of what should and could be observed or measured. So if there was such an "intelligent creator", how could we ever know?

In terms of why "I" don't believe in a traditional religious God I would go with religion's biggest weakness, lack of evidence, is it's greatest strength, faith.

[Furi]

I have never had the need for one, so I never invented or adopted one.

[CapelDodger]

Why would it be wishful thinking? He could be an uncaring or mean god - hmm.... I suppose someone could wish for that.

As a Christian, your god isn't mean or uncaring or even particularly bloodthirsty. What do you prefer - the world with your god, or exactly the same world without? That's the choice you have. You've no evidence one way or the other as to which is true, and that's where the suspicion of wishful thinking comes from.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there's no reason to. If gods hadn't been imagined before now there's nothing in the world we observe that would suggest their existence. Dark Matter and Dark Energy yes, gods no. The whole god-concept is on the permanent defensive. Check out how many gods have fallen by the wayside over the last few thousand years. There's no reason to think your Christian god is any more meaningful.

Psychology and anthropology explain belief in gods, which is something worth studying and understanding because it has had an enormous impact on history and tells us a lot about how the human mind works. As a man once said, the proper study of man is man himself.

[Bluefire]

First off is of course the general "burden of proof" question. Eg. It is not up to us to disprove gods existence, but for the claimant to prove that he exists.
Rephrased: until there is satisfactory evidence, "unbelief" is the default position. (Just as it is with the magic teapot claimed to be orbiting Saturn)

As for specific proof against a god, there is of course no direct proof of or against him (just as there is no direct proof against the FSM or the invisible unicorn), but there is circumstantial evidence.

These circumstantial evidence are really in the categories of evidence against specific claims by the religious, and of the psychology of humans.

For example, good arguments can be made against any claim of necessity of a supreme being (this is the first category). Also there is ample evidence that human beings psychologically make up gods, when they lack particular understanding and/or answers (or for comfort). Eg. look at the historical gods of thunder etc.

There is also extensive scientific evidence explaining the various religious emotional experiences people are reporting as to having convinced them. (Eg. sleep paralysis research, the helmet inducing "religious" experiences in controlled conditions etc.)

So to summarize:
- There is NO positive evidence of god.
- For the other phenomenas that there are evidence of, NO god is needed as an explanation. (And actually, I would argue that for arguments of design, creation etc. god is not even helpful)

This may not be 100% proof of gods nonesxistence, but it is enough to conclude that given the information we have, belief in god is unsupported and irrational.

To be more personally honest of my belief, and the thread-titles question. The reason I don't believe is purely because of a lack of positive evidence for gods existence. If I was god, and I in any way cared about my existence being accepted I would have made it painfully obvious. Hell, I would be the prankster type that layed out the dinosaur bones in the earth to form the text: "I put these here to fool you" and other similar things :).

[Bluefire]

Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

Nonbelief in god is only "faith" in the same way that nonbelief in Santa is "faith". Would you equate belief in santa and nonbelief in santa?

[danielk]

Why should I believe in god? I never did. My model of the world might not be complete, but it's a hell of a lot more consistent than it would be with a god added to the mix.

I think you'll have a hard time to convince someone who didn't grew up in a culture where god belief was the default. Also, the classic stereotype that people are atheist because of bad experiences with religion doesn't work.

[CapelDodger]

What is this "god" I keep hearing about?

A new Fragrance pour l'homme. You get a lot of this stuff in the run-up to Winter Solstice (or "Christmas" as it's known in the marketing world).

[Foster Zygote]

I was fortunate enough that my experience with religion was not as horrible as Slingblades, but I too was a former believer. I gradually stopped believing in God because not one thing that God was supposed to do every happened. In fact, the world behaved exactly as you would expect it to behave if there weren't any sort of loving Father.

That's pretty much how it happened with me. Oh, and uh... God never gave me a pony.

[CapelDodger]

Logic is cruel.

I prefer to regard it as disinterested, but inexorable.

Go with the flow of logic and you've no problem. Apart from the problems logic dictates you've got, of course, and logic can minimise those. Faith? Not so much. Maintaining it becomes a problem in itself - and let's face it, we've all got enough practical problems to be getting on with.

[danielk]

I do, however, believe that GOD (http://live.gnome.org/OnlineDesktop) will turn out to be pretty cool.


(No, it isn't a backronym.)

[Silly Green Monkey]

It seems I am not alone in giving up after pouring out my worship and hearing nothing in return.

[Madalch]

1) I never saw any reason to.
2) My Christian friends and neighbors used very stupid arguments to try to convince me to believe in God.
3) People who believed in God couldn't get their stories straight- they were always contradicting each other and what the Bible said.

[Fnord]

Nonbelief in god is only "faith" in the same way that nonbelief in Santa is "faith". Would you equate belief in santa and nonbelief in santa?

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion. And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

[articulett]

I dunno, if there is a creator, it would seem that the evidence would call their intelligence into serious question. Sex and urination through the same orifice?

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Plus, this website told me: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

[Furi]

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Well you XX types did get dealt a better genetic hand, our gonads ended up on the outside, and don't get me started on facial or arse hair.

[sol invictus]

I have no need for such a hypothesis.

[volatile]

Might I suggest the conversation would be more fruitful if you told us why you do believe in a God?

[In My Spare Time]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

[JoeEllison]

My mom told me when I was a little kid that stories involving talking animals and magic were all MAKE BELIEVE. There's no reason to change my mind on that one.

[Furi]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

At least pastafarianism and the pelagasian (have I spelled that right) are a hell* of a lot more interesting

*using hell in a nordic mythology way :p

[Silentknight]

I would ask that ACS write down all the reasons why he doesn't believe in the gods of other religions. Chances are that those are the same reasons why atheists don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god.

Also, an intelligent creator is not necessarily a god. A god by definition is a worshiped being. An intelligent creator could be anything from an alien lifeform, to any tool-making species, to one of us.

[JonM1121]

I have to not believe in God for work. I do counter-missionary work for the Chinese government.

[kmortis]

I have to not believe in God for work. I do counter-missionary work for the Chinese government.

You ministrate to counters? In case the laminate is verklempt and needs a touch of cheering up?

[Hokulele]

Why don't you believe in a god


Because it doesn't gain me anything.

[kmortis]

Because it doesn't gain me anything.

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.

[Big Les]

I sometimes wish I could believe in god. Maybe this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,950,Believe-in-God-Spray,As-Seen-on-TV) will help me?

[ChaoticLimbs]

I should think that there actually IS evidence that gods do not exist. For one, so far every event that's been documented has been found to obey natural laws of cause and effect. It would be nearly impossible for an acting deity to manipulate matter or energy without leaving some forensic trail which would reveal the interference. In studying interactions of matter and energy, and in studying archeology, paleontology, and astronomy, every time we find a cause and effect relationship that makes sense, it is evidence that no god interfered with that particular event.
Therefore, eventually over time we will build an inventory of known events, and if they continue to make sense (show evidence of non-interference), then that evidence would at least suggest that gods are not an actor in our universe.

[Hokulele]

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.


Then I would have to pay taxes on the gift. :cool:

[JoeEllison]

Those are two valid points.

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.

Semantics ... word play ... whatever ... it's all about faith.

Wrong, and very weak. But, whatever lets you live with your silly little superstition. *shrugs*

[kmortis]

Then I would have to pay taxes on the gift. :cool:

Only if you report it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No evidence.

~~ Paul

[Hokulele]

Not true, believe in three and get a free gift.


Actually, this leads to an interesting thought, why just believe in a god? Why not believe in a whole bunch of them? What is the logical process that substantiates monotheism?

Meh, I should get back to cooking dinner and maybe have a glass of wine to help.

[CapelDodger]

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion.

A nonsensical assertion can be ignored. What assertions do you have faith in?

And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

It requires the faith of a believer in a divine creator for the assertion even to be made. Nobody asserted the non-existence of a divine creator before somebody asserted its existence.

There's no good reason to think that your assertion of the existence of a god - which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not originate with you, it's something you're passing on - isn't vacuous.

You'll argue forever that I can't prove it's vacuous, but frankly I don't give a toss. I don't have faith that I don't, but I don't.

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

You know as well as I do that "faith" doesn't apply to Saint Nick. Obvious nonsense. You clearly understand where I'm coming from, and yet you have this fenced-off area defended by "faith".

I need no more faith to disbelieve in your god, or any god, or anything supernatural, than I do to disbelieve in Saint Nick. Only belief demands faith, and only believers see it where it doesn't exist.

[CapelDodger]

I should think that there actually IS evidence that gods do not exist.

Conclusive evidence for any gods that have been too well specified. And there's the rub. A lesson has been learnt. Sophistiicated modern gods are mysterious, unknowable, and to cap it all, ineffable.

[Bikewer]

Paul C. made the most concise comment.

In addition to there being no evidence to support belief in a god, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that human beings are predisposed to invent such beings.

I like the parsimony argument as well....What's simpler? The notion that there is a vast eternal "void" which has built in the energetic potential to cause "bang" events, or an eternal complex being complex and intelligent enough to create universes from scratch?

[GeeMack]

Belief or disbelief are both matters of faith. Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance of a divine creator, then one must exist. Disblief says that since there no evidence to prove the existance of a divine creator, then one must not exist.


So according to your logic: "Belief says that since there is no evidence to disprove the existance [sic] of [anything particular thing], then [that thing] must exist." It must be quite a burden believing in the existence of a virtually limitless number of things, all those things for which there is no evidence to disprove their existence. Or do you wallow in the hypocrisy of picking and choosing particular things to which you apply this line of reasoning? (And therefore, of course, completely negating the possibility that your notion is reasonable.)

[Smackety]

Because no meaningful definition of "God" can stand up to scrutiny.

[Mobyseven]

No evidence.

~~ Paul

Ditto.

[tsg]

Define "god".

[alfaniner]

There is no such thing as "evidence against". There is only "evidence for". Where is it?

[fuelair]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

There is no evidence against same - though, having said that, I personally regard the existence of evil as that evidence. The problem - on your end - is that it is your job to provide evidence of it's existence rather than mine to provide the negative (one example, impossible to examine every case, yada, yada, yada).
The faith of one person or billions of people is proof of nothing except that they have a belief. Philosophical arguments in support of same are simply words - not evidence (words are wonderful and can be used for much good or evil - but they cannot prove or disprove physical facts/physical presence).

This is at least a second thread from you on this topic. What is your point?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Might I suggest the conversation would be more fruitful if you told us why you do believe in a God?

I don't think there would be enough space for me to write all the reasons.

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

I miss relatives who have died.

I've seen prayers answered.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)

[Hokulele]

I don't think there would be enough space for me to write all the reasons.

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

I miss relatives who have died.

I've seen prayers answered.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)


Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Perhaps you, A Christian Sceptic, could answer:
1) Why don't you believe in leprechauns
2) Why don't you believe in bigfoot
3) Why don't you believe in aether
4) Why don't you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or zues, or any of the other gods you don't believe in.

Those answers would help me frame an answer to your question.

Unless you tell me one of those is the god beyond everything - the intelligent creator - it seems irrelevant to me one way or another. If I felt their existence mattered to me I'd probably spend the rest of my life trying to find them. It might be interesting if they existed (for all I know they could), they might be fun to think about, but really they don't have any implications one way or another for my life.

As for Greek Mythology - I don't think there is a supreme, supreme god. Chaos comes close, but not quite. I'm personally not interested in anything that could be considered a sub-god or less of a god than the main one.

Here's a great website though: http://www.the-pantheon.com/

[A Christian Sceptic]

At least pastafarianism and the pelagasian (have I spelled that right) are a hell* of a lot more interesting

*using hell in a nordic mythology way :p


I think you mean Pelagianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

[cyborg]

Mind you, these are reasons I believe, not proofs why you should. Here are just a few reasons why I believe in a god in general are:

Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.

Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.

I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.

Balanced to achieve what?

I miss relatives who have died.

The configuration of atoms you recognised as "relative" have been realigned. Their patterns are lost in chaos.

I've seen prayers answered.

I've seen dreams crushed.

I think flowers are beautiful.

I think humans are stupid.

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with.

You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines.

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I sometimes wish I could believe in god. Maybe this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,950,Believe-in-God-Spray,As-Seen-on-TV) will help me?

Great. Now I find out about that stuff.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?

How do you mean by applies to athiests?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:



Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.



Balanced to achieve what?



The configuration of atoms you recognised as "relative" have been realigned. Their patterns are lost in chaos.



I've seen dreams crushed.



I think humans are stupid.



You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines.

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.

So is that why you don't believe in god - or is that some sort of attempt at making me not believe?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This is at least a second thread from you on this topic. What is your point?

Just wanted to know. That's all. This is the religion section, isn't it? These are post about religious things that I'm interested in. Since it appears most of the people here are athiests I thought these posts were quite relevant.

[Hokulele]

How do you mean by applies to athiests?


Well, let's take the comment about missing relatives. You mentioned that this is one reason why you believe in a god (which is fair enough). Since I do not believe in a god, do you think that I do not miss my relatives who have died? Or that I maybe have a different idea of what death means?

I do not mean this as criticism of your belief, but rather as a means to figure out why you believe as you do, and maybe help you understand why I believe the way I do.

[cyborg]

So is that why you don't believe in god

No - I don't believe in X. The letters you have chosen to replace X with are arbitrary.

- or is that some sort of attempt at making me not believe?

Order of the day - there seems little point in communicating without the potential for beliefs to shift - even those considered unshiftable.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, let's take the comment about missing relatives. You mentioned that this is one reason why you believe in a god (which is fair enough). Since I do not believe in a god, do you think that I do not miss my relatives who have died? Or that I maybe have a different idea of what death means?.

Of course I think you still miss them, and of course you might have a different ideadof what death is. As far as I can tell grief and missing dead relatives is common in all cultures that have ever been around since recorded history. How grief is expressed has been different through cultures, but grief itself is still there.

If you're wondering if I think you could have each of the items on my list and be an athiest - the answer is yes. But the question was why I believe, and those are some reasons. I've got lots more, but really don't know what else that would be usefull for.

I do appreciate your question though, and if you have any more feel free to ask.

[A Christian Sceptic]

No - I don't believe in X. The letters you have chosen to replace X with are arbitrary.



Order of the day - there seems little point in communicating without the potential for beliefs to shift - even those considered unshiftable.

You started that post with:
Time for the cyborg to crush dreams:

I was trying to figure out what your post was for. A list of your reasons for not believing or what?

[cyborg]

A list of your reasons for not believing or what?

Counterpoints. Why I don't believe doesn't require a list - it can expand to one at will.

Dance around the X if you choose.

[tsg]

Still waiting for a definition of "god" I'm supposed to be arguing against.


But not holding my breath.

[X]

No - I don't believe in X.

:mad:

(hooray for out-of-context quoting :p)



To answer the OP:
Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.
Truth be told, I stopped believing in the Christian God of the Bible many years ago. I tried substituting for it with "there is something, but we can't say what, how, how many, why or when. The I read the God Delusion, and discovered that atheism was, in fact, a valid option. Up until then, everyone around me believed, to vrying degrees of literalness, so the possiblity of not believing in something never even occured to me. It's a great burden off my mind to realize that my logical conclusions don't have to be surrendered to support a popular viewpoint.
And it all boils down to a decided lack of that "extraordinary evidence".

[Hokulele]

Of course I think you still miss them, and of course you might have a different ideadof what death is. As far as I can tell grief and missing dead relatives is common in all cultures that have ever been around since recorded history. How grief is expressed has been different through cultures, but grief itself is still there.

If you're wondering if I think you could have each of the items on my list and be an athiest - the answer is yes. But the question was why I believe, and those are some reasons. I've got lots more, but really don't know what else that would be usefull for.

I do appreciate your question though, and if you have any more feel free to ask.


Thanks, I was trying to work the discussion towards the cultural implications of your original question. For full disclosure, my mother is first generation Japanese, and I live in Hawai'i, so it would be valid to say that I do not believe in a god since I was not raised to do so, where you may have been raised to believe in a god. Beyond culture, there have been studies in belief on a neurological basis that you may find interesting. I would recommend reading V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain for a neat look at some of the research that has been done in this. He is Indian (as you might be able to tell from his name ;)), and he does a very good job of refraining from making any judgements on the existence (or non-existence) of god(s). You would probably enjoy the book if you are interested in why people behave the way they do.

[Tricky]

Just curious, other than the prayers bit, do you think that the rest of the items on this list do or do not apply to atheists?
Actually, with a minor rewording, that one applies to atheists too. I've had deep and sincere wishes for things that later actually happened. This is the essence of a "prayer being answered".

[Diagoras]

I'm moved by how amazingly intricate all of creation is.
What do you mean by "intricate"? To me, what is truly amazing is that all the phenomena around us emerge from simple mathematical laws. I find it far more awe-inspiring to think that we humans are the product of the natural laws of matter and energy, than to think that we're only here because some god or gods or goddess or whatever decided to cook up a batch of humans and see what happens.
I'm amazed at how precriously balanced the universe is.
Preciously balanced how? We happen to inhabit a tiny rock which just so happens to be the only place we know of that is remotely habitable for multicellular life forms. The vast majority of the cosmos is vacuum, absolute nothingness, interspersed with clouds of gas and dust and the occasional star.

Remember, the life you see around you is not here because the environment was created especially for it. It is here because, through the process of Darwinian natural selection, it has adapted to the environment around it. You should not be surprised to find yourself in an environment where you can breathe the air and drink the water—if you couldn't, you wouldn't be here.
I miss relatives who have died.
I miss people who have died too. But you have to deal with the fact that they're gone. Believing in God because you miss relatives who have died is sort of like believing you're going to win the lottery because you miss all the money you lost at the casino, or believing that you're in perfect health because you felt bad when the doctor told you you had cancer. Life isn't fair, and one of the ways it isn't fair is that people's existences come to an end. Part of maturity is learning to look the unpleasant aspects of existence like death and pain and sadness in the face and deal with them realistically, instead of retreating to fantasy or trying not to think about them.

I've seen prayers answered.
I've seen prayers not answered. The prayers of the 9/11 victims, for example. How many people do you think prayed not to die that day? And yet, God did not answer their prayers. So this whole prayer thing is a hit-and-miss thing, kind of like making a wish when you see a shooting star or before blowing out the candles on a birthday cake. In fact, it would be surprising if those wishes never came true. The question is, do they come true more often than they would by chance? And there just isn't any evidence that wishing on a shooting star or birthday candles or any of the gods and goddesses of the world's religions actually increases the likelihood of having your wish fulfilled. I would love to be shown otherwise.

By the way, why do you think God answers prayers? Is he like a personal servant to you, who also happens to be an inconceivable infinite transcendental entity? That concept makes no sense to me, and strikes me as extremely arrogant.

I think flowers are beautiful.
Me too. What does that have to do with God? Do you think everything would be ugly if some magic dude in the sky didn't specifically create it to be beautiful? That is, if you found out there was no God, would things cease to have beauty to you? Can things not just be beautiful on their own?

And surely the ugliness of rotting meat, dog feces and Sylvia Browne would be reason to disbelieve in a God, right? Or does that logic only work one way, the way that happens to line up with what you already believe?

I've been blessed with an amazing wife who loves me for no logical reason I can come up with. :)
And I have not been blessed that way. I often feel alone and loveless, for no logical reason that I can come up with. Guess your God doesn't give a crap about my love life, only yours, huh? Why can't you see your amazing wife as amazing in and of herself rather than only amazing because God decided she would be amazing? Doesn't it give her more worth and value to regard her as someone whose amazingness comes from herself, rather than only being able to derive her amazingness from something exterior to her?

[Hokulele]

Actually, with a minor rewording, that one applies to atheists too. I've had deep and sincere wishes for things that later actually happened. This is the essence of a "prayer being answered".


Ah, so you were the one buying up copies of "The Secret".







(For those of you who do not spend much time in Community, Tricky and I make a habit of taking the mickey out of each other. It is all in good fun.)

[Diagoras]

Ignore this post.

[kmortis]

Ignore this post.

no

[-Fran-]

And I have not been blessed that way. I often feel alone and loveless, for no logical reason that I can come up with. Guess your God doesn't give a crap about my love life, only yours, huh? Why can't you see your amazing wife as amazing in and of herself rather than only amazing because God decided she would be amazing? Doesn't it give her more worth and value to regard her as someone whose amazingness comes from herself, rather than only being able to derive her amazingness from something exterior to her?

Not to mention that it seems to me he is putting both himself and his wife down by saying it like that. He can not see he has qualities in himself that another person can love without being influenced by magic powers? And his wife's love is a thing that was given to him by god? :boggled:

[kmortis]

Ah, so you were the one buying up copies of "The Secret".







(For those of you who do not spend much time in Community, Tricky and I make a habit of taking the mickey out of each other. It is all in good fun.)

Hok, just a point of etiquette. Don't explain jokes unless someone explicitly asks. Makes you sound like a boudin-eating Hawaiian.

[molly]

I think it's like one of those Magic Eye posters. I can never see anything in them, even when the person standing next to me points and says "Oooh, a bunny!"

I know other people have felt God's grace and love in watching the Northern Lights, or holding a newborn baby, or recovering from a serious illness (hopefully not all at the same time). But it didn't do it for me. Don't know why.

[Autolite]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

[-Fran-]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

:D

[A Christian Sceptic]

What do you mean by "intricate"? To me, what is truly amazing is that all the phenomena around us emerge from simple mathematical laws.


If you find math stuff interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio - It's fascinating.



Preciously balanced how? We happen to inhabit a tiny rock which just so happens to be the only place we know of that is remotely habitable for multicellular life forms. The vast majority of the cosmos is vacuum, absolute nothingness, interspersed with clouds of gas and dust and the occasional star.


I believe in him for that too.


Remember, the life you see around you is not here because the environment was created especially for it. It is here because, through the process of Darwinian natural selection, it has adapted to the environment around it. You should not be surprised to find yourself in an environment where you can breathe the air and drink the water—if you couldn't, you wouldn't be here.


and don't forget about Genetic Drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
That was probably pretty important too.

And yes I also think God was pretty important. But really, how he did it isn't that important to me except it's fascinating.


I miss people who have died too. But you have to deal with the fact that they're gone.


By simply saying "They're gone."? That's dealing with it?


I've seen prayers not answered.


Me too.


So this whole prayer thing is a hit-and-miss thing, kind of like making a wish when you see a shooting star or before blowing out the candles on a birthday cake.


I once prayed to see a shooting star and immediately me and the group of people I was with saw one. That was pretty cool. But really, my answered prayers are my answered prayers not yours, and my unanswered prayers are my unanswered prayers not yours. And I still believe in God because of both.


By the way, why do you think God answers prayers? Is he like a personal servant to you, who also happens to be an inconceivable infinite transcendental entity? That concept makes no sense to me, and strikes me as extremely arrogant.


Beats me why he answers prayers. I do know that most of my prayers aren't requests. I definitely don't consider him a personal wish giver.


And surely the ugliness of rotting meat, dog feces and Sylvia Browne would be reason to disbelieve in a God, right? Or does that logic only work one way, the way that happens to line up with what you already believe?


Well since those things exist and I believe in God I'd have to say "no - not for me".

I hope you understand those reasons are reasons I believe in a god in general - not reasons I ever came into the belief of God or even specifically why I believe in Christianity.

I could go on and on about other reasons I believe, but I'm not sure why that would be helpful for any of this discussion. I'm interested in finding out why you don't believe. that's the point of this thread.

[nescafe]

Reproduce or be irrelevant. That is your fate.
<nitpick> Newton and Leibnitz both died childless.
So did Stalin and Hitler. Find a better definition of irrelevant. </nitpick>

[cyborg]

Newton and Leibnitz both died childless. So did Stalin and Hitler. Find a better definition of irrelevant.

Context:

"You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines."

They are irrelevant. The machine does not care about anything else.

[danielk]

Nope, Cyborg. Humanity added the element of culture to the equation. Adds the memes to the genes.

[cyborg]

I don't think the atoms care.

(At the risk of invoking, "how much does a meme weight?")

[danielk]

Of course they care. Ideas have consequences in the real world. Also, fundamentally, both genes and memes are just carriers of information. A human being is built according to its genetic code, just like a grand bridge is built according to the plans the architect came up with. In both cases atoms are moved around.

[Lonewulf]

"Faith" comes in where there is insufficient evidence to prove an assertion. And since there is insufficient evidence to prove either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator, to assert either the existance or non-existance of a divine creator requires "faith."

Just don't tell me there ain't no Santa Claus cause I seen him at the mall last week and he waved at me and he called me by my real name. And no, my real name ain't "Ho."

:p

Fnord, I still see you're posting.

Care to answer to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100807&page=4) thread?

You left rather abruptly and you aren't responding to PMs, so I figured you were MIA, KIA, or WIA in your Christmas War. Seems like you aren't...

[This Guy]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

I used to believe there was a God. Then I studied what I thought was His book and learned that if that was his book, he wasn't much of a god.

Once I determined to my satisfaction, that the god of the bible could not be real, I considered if there could be another God, or creator.

I decided that it really didn't matter, because if there was, it appears he/she isn't active in the world today, but appears to have started things off and stepped away.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

when i was 9 and in catholic school, i liked how hot this nun looked with her straight long hair always down.........
sorry what was your question again?

[Big Les]

And now for something completely off topic (almost).


"Did the hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac"?

"He laid awake all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog".

The one good line from Highlander "Endgame" (that's #4 out of 5 for those of you keeping count of how many "only one"s there actually can be... Watch the anime version though, it rock.

Anyway, back to the topic...

I don't believe in god mainly because I was never brought up to, I guess. I would like to think that I would have come to the same conclusion if I had been, but I can't know that. I was an active disbeliever before I reassessed this disbelief with critical thought, and came to much the same conclusions that in all likelihood, that it's an emotional crutch for many, and a way to power for some, all with no basis in reality or evidence.

[sol invictus]

Not difficult to have with some 10^120 atoms.


That's way, way, way, way too many. There are only about 10^80.

[Lord Emsworth]

The notion of "God" is largely unintelligible to me. And it doesn't really get any better if antropomorphism after anthropomorphism is removed.

[Furi]

I think you mean Pelagianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

nope I actually meant pelasgian with the myths describing how the different peoples and religions where formed withinin the hellenic sphere

[Undesired Walrus]

I've seen prayers answered.


I prayed for my father to live. He didn't.

Why should God exist when he answers your prayers but not mine?

[Herzblut]

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.


For me, the "evidence" argument is worthless. I would even believe in something that's against all evidence if I feel for it, e.g. in critical phases of my live.

My lack of god believe is neither related to my scientific background. Science does not recommend nor advice against any belief, science is agnostic.

It is probably related to my view of the world as a huge self-organizing system. Self-organization is superior to any kind of central administration. That refers to political/economical systems as well as to biological ones. Organized insects, like ants, are self-organized in a way that there is no such thing as a central control instance in an ant state. There is just a set of primitive rules ants follow to build a system of amazingly high intelligence, for instance in terms of cargo transportation. I see nothing that leads towards any kind of centricity as suggested by monotheism.

Furthermore, but that might be an obsolete argument by now, I dislike referring to a catch-all answer "God did it" in case of outstanding answers to complex problems. I like to resolve those problems. Look, the idea of man we had a few centuries ago was basically that of a simple puppet, inspired only by God. Well, are we? Not a all! A human, especially its brain, is the most complex metabolism imaginable. Man is worth by itself, not by devine assistence.

Having said that, I admit I am not just a "cultural" but also a "moral christian". The teachings of Jesus fit my humanistic stance pretty well. From the paragraph before it's clear that I don't mind if Jesus were "just" another human being, quite the opposite is the case.

I also respect the social and personal role of religious faith. Freedom of religion is a human right, any attempt to withdraw it has to be combated by all means.

I hope I made myself understandable.

Herzblut

[T'ai Chi]

Organized insects, like ants, are self-organized in a way that there is no such thing as a central control instance in an ant state. There is just a set of primitive rules ants follow to build a system of amazingly high intelligence, for instance in terms of cargo transportation. I see nothing that leads towards any kind of centricity as suggested by monotheism.


If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.


I also respect the social and personal role of religious belief. Freedom of religion is a human right, any attempt to withdraw it has to be combated by all means.


I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene', many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.

[Herzblut]

If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.

She's called "queen", but is she? For me, she's the same slave to reproduction as any ant is. Genetic reproduction is the goal, anything else is tools to support it.


I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene',

That's the meaning of "human right", a right given to anybody based merely on being human.

many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.
I think your image of atheism is biased towards US circumstances. The European situation is different.

Herzblut

[Temporal Renegade]

I have several, some of which are shared with my esteemed fellow posters; but, let me ask a question, if I may:

Why do I 'need' a God?

[Temporal Renegade]

when i was 9 and in catholic school, i liked how hot this nun looked with her straight long hair always down.........
sorry what was your question again?

Ah, yes...Sister Mary Hot-Cha-Cha...wasn't she cloistered at St. Jezebel's School for Wayward Girls at one time?

:D

[T'ai Chi]

She's called "queen", but is she? For me, she's the same slave to reproduction as any ant is. Genetic reproduction is the goal, anything else is tools to support it.


Well she may be, to you, as Lyekis has 'interesting' ideas about marriage, but that doesn't make them so in reality. If one believes they are controlled by their genes, or memes, or whatever, they are welcome to believe that though.

If genetic reproduction is the goal in life, heck, why do things that don't support genetic reproduction at all?


I think your image of atheism is biased towards US circumstances. The European situation is different.


Well I was speaking about the world, so that doesn't change anything I said.

[Lonewulf]

I don't believe in a God for multiple reasons.

Reason one: No evidence for God. None at all.

Reason two: I can pick any religion, and they all have equal validity. I can be Hindu, Scientologist, Mormon, Catholic, or Santa Clause. The only difference that it possibly makes is what kind of paintings I put up, or what woo I spout; you can't say that about anything else, including economics, politics, or science. See if believing in a flat earth or a round earth are equally valid, and compare it to believing in Hindu gods or believing in Christianity.

Reason Two is true primarily for Reason One. In short: Not enough evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and nothing has ever been provided that is satisfactory except to the minds of the same kind of people that believe in Astrology, Psychics, and similar bunkum. It's all the same; stuff that's promised that gives no positive results.

I've talked with Christians about why they believe. They cite as their reasons for belief usually either because the Bible says it's right (argument by Authority), or explain that there was some event that happened to them that they couldn't explain through "natural" means; their life was saved, something strange happened, etc.

One strange event is not evidence enough, no matter what people claim. Sure, you can say it's "evidence for them", but everything is evidence to someone; that doesn't make the evidence valid. Does a train not hitting you really prove the existence of the afterlife, the soul, Heaven and Hell, God, angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, and all of the claims thereof?

[Lonewulf]

If genetic reproduction is the goal in life, heck, why do things that don't support genetic reproduction at all?
?

What?

[Herzblut]

Well she may be, to you, as Lyekis has 'interesting' ideas about marriage, but that doesn't make them so in reality.

Right. It's a (good) model of an aspect of nature, which is the best we can get in any case.


If one believes they are controlled by their genes, or memes, or whatever, they are welcome to believe that though.

I was talking about ants here, not humans. Reducing us to reproduction would be insane.

Herzblut

[kmortis]

Reason two: I can pick any religion, and they all have equal validity. I can be Hindu, Scientologist, Mormon, Catholic, or Santa Clause.

If you did, would that make you a Clausian? :p

[Lonewulf]

If you did, would that make you a Clausian? :p

Evidence?*






*That's a Clausian. A "Santa Clausian" has gifts.

[jjramsey]

Why I don't believe in God?

First off, I notice that events in the present day and recent past are pretty readily explained without recourse to the supernatural (which includes God, angels, etc.). There are some apparent outliers, but all of these so far can be grouped into three categories:

accounts of the supernatural that have been outright debunked
accounts that can be explained as a byproduct of confirmation bias, exaggeration, outright trickery, or other natural explanation
accounts that are infeasible to verify because, for example, they happen someplace that is expensive to access, like Africa, or the details of the account are sketchy enough that finding the actual people supposedly mentioned in the account is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Generally, the more impressive an account of the supernatural is, the more problematic it is to verify.

Ok, then, any good evidence of the supernatural is going to have to come from stories of the less recent past. The accounts of the Bible are an example. The Bible's credibility, though, just isn't that good, since its authors have made several errors that indicate either credulity or a willingness to fabricate. We again, then, have accounts of the supernatural that can be categorized under points 2 and 3 of the list above.

[Skeptic Guy]

Speak for yourself.

(And I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in demons or astrology or psychic powers--no evidence for the claim...tons of evidence that people mistakingly believe in these kinds of things very readily.)

Plus, this website told me: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

For me, this is the concept for my "unbelief". Personally, I think it is the same as science's reaction to something like cold fusion. It's a really interesting idea but there's no evidence for it and until there is, I'm not buying it.

I know that a lot of people consider science and Christianity mutually exclusive, but I don't agree. Christianity makes a lot of claims for its gods for which there is no evidence, so at what point do you abandon the theory and move on?

But again, just my idea and I love my Christian brothers and sisters.

[Fiona]

I am with the "why would I?" camp.

What I do find interesting is this kind of view, from T'ai Chi
I'd even say a right that is born into us, inherent right, given that the majority of people and cultures at any time in history and present are religious, some suggest a 'god gene', many many religous charities, hosptials, food drives, etc., and atheism has a negative campaign it seems by its reactive definition.

A right is, as Herzblut said, something automatic on the basis we are human. It has nothing at all to do with whether the majority of people are religious or not.
The claim that the majority of people are religious most of the time is likely to be true, but it is not certainly so. Cultural participation in socially cohesive ritual, sometimes accompanied by sanctions against dissent, does not necessarily show most people believe all or any of what is professed. I think there is some evidence to show that is not in fact how it is. For example many many people who say they are Roman Catholic quite clearly do not follow that church's teaching on contraception. They behaved very like other denominations and also like atheists once the opportunity for contraception was there. Are they in fact religious? If so how to explain that and other similar behaviour? I accept this is not a simple matter but I do not think the assertion is self evidently true, and I get a bit tired of it being brought out in support of claims that religion is in some sense a "natural" state. The "god gene" referred to may exist. But I don't have it. Some genes only manifest in some people, as I understand it, but if that is the situation then it cannot be comforting to know that one's faith is dependent on a genetic make up that is not universal. Or can it? I do not understand the religious mindset, so maybe this is how god sorts the sheep from the goats? Seems a bit unfair to me if we accept the story of the afterlife which includes eternal hell, but I suppose you could argue since god knows in advance either way this is just a different way of achieving his rather nasty purpose.

[soylent]

1. Distinct absence of any kind of evidence.

2. If there is/are deity(ies) I have no idea what they want or how they reason. There's no particular reason to assume that they care what I do or that any kind of action I can take is more likely to be useful.

3. There's no circumstance under which I could accept morals I don't agree with, without convincing evidence that they are more effective. I have no trouble pointing out deity imposed morals as imoral if I find them to be such; I don't see how religion in principle could be a useful guide for morals.

4. If a deity's purpose for me is one I don't agree with(e.g. spend every waking moment adulating god under threat of eternal damnation), it will not be a purpose I embrace. I fail to see how a deity could be a useful source of meaning or purpose in life.

5. I'm satisfied with "I don't know" as the provisionary answer to why there exists anything at all. If you insist on a first cause and that god must be this first cause; I will just point out that there's no particular reason to stop there. Accepting your argument that everything has a first cause I'm not going to grant god immunity. If you feel the need to terminate this chain of causes somewhere it may as well be the Universe. There are lots of options that do not invoke a god and I'm unwilling to spin the roulette will and put faith in any one of them.

[nescafe]

"You are a reproduction machine - gathered from a long line of successive reproduction machines."

They are irrelevant. The machine does not care about anything else.
Technically, "the machine" does not care at all.
At the level of genes, relevant and irrelevant are not even in context, because there is no intentionality involved -- to think otherwise is to commit the grievous sin of anthropomorphization of atoms and molecules. At that level there are only things interacting with other things.
(At the risk of invoking, "how much does a meme weight?")
The same as a bit. ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

nope I actually meant pelasgian with the myths describing how the different peoples and religions where formed withinin the hellenic sphere

Thanks for clarifying. I tried different spellings (except for that one apparently) and couldin't find anything else. That is an interesting subject.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I prayed for my father to live. He didn't.

Why should God exist when he answers your prayers but not mine?

I'm talking about some reasons I believe not why he exists or doesn't exist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Define "god".
Absolutely, but I've given up on this request. You shall not receive a coherent answer.

~~ Paul

[A Christian Sceptic]

I hope I made myself understandable.

Herzblut

I understood. Thanks for answering.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Define "god".

First define "define"? :D

[Hokulele]

Hok, just a point of etiquette. Don't explain jokes unless someone explicitly asks. Makes you sound like a boudin-eating Hawaiian.


I am a boudin-eating Hawai'ian. Besides, if I hadn't explained myself, people in this sub-forum would think that I am a mean-spirited hag just lying in wait to tromp all over Tricky any time he opens his mouth (figuratively speaking).


Oh, wait . . .

[Diagoras]

If you find math stuff interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio - It's fascinating.
Fascinating, yes. Reason to believe in a God, no.
By simply saying "They're gone."? That's dealing with it?
No, obviously that's not the whole mourning process. But part of dealing with it is accepting the fact that death is the end, that the dead are dead and they're not off in happy Candy-Cane Cloud Land waiting for you. Again, part of maturity is learning to deal with reality the way it is instead of believing in fantasies so you don't feel so bad. Pretending you don't have cancer isn't really dealing with the cancer, pretending people in the third world all have plenty of food isn't really dealing with famine, and pretending your dead relatives are off in some fantasy land isn't really dealing with the reality of death.

I once prayed to see a shooting star and immediately me and the group of people I was with saw one. That was pretty cool. But really, my answered prayers are my answered prayers not yours, and my unanswered prayers are my unanswered prayers not yours. And I still believe in God because of both.
How is that a reason for believing in God though? I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove? It proves you can wish for stuff and sometimes get what you want. Which totally contradicts what you say...here:

Beats me why he answers prayers. I do know that most of my prayers aren't requests. I definitely don't consider him a personal wish giver.
Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?
I hope you understand those reasons are reasons I believe in a god in general - not reasons I ever came into the belief of God or even specifically why I believe in Christianity.

I could go on and on about other reasons I believe, but I'm not sure why that would be helpful for any of this discussion. I'm interested in finding out why you don't believe. that's the point of this thread.
Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me. Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.

[Lonewulf]

No, obviously that's not the whole mourning process. But part of dealing with it is accepting the fact that death is the end, that the dead are dead and they're not off in happy Candy-Cane Cloud Land waiting for you. Again, part of maturity is learning to deal with reality the way it is instead of believing in fantasies so you don't feel so bad. Pretending you don't have cancer isn't really dealing with the cancer, pretending people in the third world all have plenty of food isn't really dealing with famine, and pretending your dead relatives are off in some fantasy land isn't really dealing with the reality of death.

How is that a reason for believing in God though? I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove? It proves you can wish for stuff and sometimes get what you want. Which totally contradicts what you say...here:

Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?

Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me. Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.
+1

I bet most of your good points will go ignored by the religious, though. No matter the logic you use, they always make their Saving Throw Vs. Logical Argument. Comes with immunity. :/

[A Christian Sceptic]

Fascinating, yes. Reason to believe in a God, no.


I agree. But it is fascinating.



I mean, if prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, what does that prove?


It doesn't prove anything. I never said it did. I said that's a reason I believe.


Then what is prayer for? What does it mean to have a prayer "answered" if a prayer isn't a request? What do you pray "for" if you can't pray "for" anything?


Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.


Well, I don't believe because there's just nothing which has convinced me.

That's fine.


Whenever people are asked to provide some evidence of gods, they always come up with arguments like yours which don't really show the existence of any of them.

I've never argued his existence. It can't be done either way.


I didn't choose to not believe in your God, any more than I didn't choose to not believe in leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus and Osiris and Allah and Vishnu. If I see some good evidence for any of those mythical beings, I'll have to change my mind, but until then, I can't just force my brain to believe in something that I have no reason whatsoever to believe is true. That's impossible.

Good. At least your open to the possibility.

[Moochie]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.

The OP appears to ask, "Why don't you believe in a god" -- I say "appears" because there's no question mark.

My answer is that I've never been presented with any compelling evidence that such a thing exists. That's all.


M.

[Lonewulf]

Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.
The funny thing about that was that Douglas Adams was an atheist, and friend of Richard Dawkins.

In fact, Dawkins even said that Adams helped him in his "conversion" to atheism. ;)

[fuelair]

Just wanted to know. That's all. This is the religion section, isn't it? These are post about religious things that I'm interested in. Since it appears most of the people here are athiests I thought these posts were quite relevant.Not arguing that - pointing out that both threads are on exactly the same topic - just different titles. That begins (especially if any more show up) to look like spamming as opposed to just asking.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The funny thing about that was that Douglas Adams was an atheist, and friend of Richard Dawkins.

In fact, Dawkins even said that Adams helped him in his "conversion" to atheism. ;)

Yep. I know. His books are funny.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not arguing that - pointing out that both threads are on exactly the same topic - just different titles. That begins (especially if any more show up) to look like spamming as opposed to just asking.

OK - well the first one I limited to science. This second one I wanted any reason. Sorry for the confusion. It's probably the missing ? that's causing it.

[DoubtingStephen]

Your question assumes that I do not believe in any God, but for me at least, this is not exactly correct. Certainly I do not believe in the amusingly paradoxical and obviously anthropomorphic Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy of Christian, Hebrew and Islamic theology. This ancient invention is laughable while also being worthy of scorn, so I do chip in and try to do my part.

Actually the Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible Pink Elephant named Pinky that lives underneath the olive tree in my front yard here in California. This is the absolute truth, and it is a well known fact because it has been revealed on this web site (http://godhatesfundamentalists.com/).

Now you might wonder, how can Doubting Stephen prove the existence of Pinky. Well, since Pinky is invisible it is rather difficult to directly observe Her. However when we examine her website it is obvious that these pages featuring video, news, and links to other websites that mock and ridicule a certain popular religion could not have just appeared spontaneously, therefore it is obvious that an Intelligent Designer, or at least a Sarcastic Designer, was required as the Creator of this and other related domains.

It is a matter of faith that it is Pinky, and not some imaginary yet uneaten pasta meal, that has created the entire Universe and the website linked above using nothing but Invisible Pink Elephant excretions and maybe a copy of Dreamweaver.

Once you have accepted Pinky into your life as your Personal Pachyderm you will be liberated from ancient and primitive superstitious cults that call for barbaric actions like genocide, infanticide, and anti-gay amendments.

So act today, accept Pinky, and you will be born again, possibly as a more festive and fashion conscious being, but certainly in the spirit of having lots of fun making fun of stupid religions.

[billydkid]

I know there are probably a few ways of phrasing this question. Feel free to make up a better one to answer.

At this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101143

the understanding is that science can't prove or disprove a god exists.

But many of you have come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

I understand the common answer already given of "there is no evidence". Are there more reasons.

And yes - this is purposely vague. But to help out a bit - what is the evidence against an intelligent creator.

I do plan on reading Richard Dawkins book but you can use any evidence he presents too.

I'm not looking for evidence against the Muslims God, or the Christians God, or the Hindus god, etc. - but a general overall intelligent god.The word or name "God" means nothing unless you ascribe to it some attributes - any attributes of any kind. Otherwise it is just a word that means nothing in particular.

[blobru]

I don't believe in God because my belief is irrelevant.

On the off chance that it's not, God knows what He can do.

[Diagoras]

It doesn't prove anything. I never said it did. I said that's a reason I believe.
How is it a reason to believe though? If prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, just like wishing on wishbones or shooting stars, that seems to me like a reason to think there's no God there. Not a proof of the absence of God, but it is one reason to disbelieve, right?
Prayer is simply talking to God. You can talk to God and ask him for something. Mainly I just thank him. I usually end my prayers with "Thank you for Life, the Universe, and Everything." Thank you Douglas Adams.
Truly a genius...

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" —Douglas Adams
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." —Douglas Adams
Good. At least your open to the possibility.
Are you open to the possibility that God doesn't exist?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Your question assumes that I do not believe in any God, but for me at least, this is not exactly correct. Certainly I do not believe in the amusingly paradoxical and obviously anthropomorphic Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy of Christian, Hebrew and Islamic theology. This ancient invention is laughable while also being worthy of scorn, so I do chip in and try to do my part.

Actually the Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible Pink Elephant named Pinky that lives underneath the olive tree in my front yard here in California. This is the absolute truth, and it is a well known fact because it has been revealed on this web site (http://godhatesfundamentalists.com/).

Now you might wonder, how can Doubting Stephen prove the existence of Pinky. Well, since Pinky is invisible it is rather difficult to directly observe Her. However when we examine her website it is obvious that these pages featuring video, news, and links to other websites that mock and ridicule a certain popular religion could not have just appeared spontaneously, therefore it is obvious that an Intelligent Designer, or at least a Sarcastic Designer, was required as the Creator of this and other related domains.

It is a matter of faith that it is Pinky, and not some imaginary yet uneaten pasta meal, that has created the entire Universe and the website linked above using nothing but Invisible Pink Elephant excretions and maybe a copy of Dreamweaver.

Once you have accepted Pinky into your life as your Personal Pachyderm you will be liberated from ancient and primitive superstitious cults that call for barbaric actions like genocide, infanticide, and anti-gay amendments.

So act today, accept Pinky, and you will be born again, possibly as a more festive and fashion conscious being, but certainly in the spirit of having lots of fun making fun of stupid religions.

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

[A Christian Sceptic]

How is it a reason to believe though? If prayers are sometimes answered and sometimes not, just like wishing on wishbones or shooting stars, that seems to me like a reason to think there's no God there. Not a proof of the absence of God, but it is one reason to disbelieve, right?


It's a reason many people have for disbelieving.

I also believe in God because of the Big Bang.

I also believe in God because of evolution.

I also believe in God because there's evil.

I also believe in God because there's good.


Are you open to the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Of course. But in this life I could never say I know he doesn't exist. I've never found a way to prove he doesn't. At the most I'd simply say "I don't know". But in all honesty - if all I had was to choose whether he did or didn't exist without any other factors (and no one lives in such an environment) - I'd assume he did exist. And yes - at that point it would probably be just wishful thinking. So I'd be a Diest at that stage I suppose. But once you decide there really might be a God then comes the hard part. Because if he exists there are many hard questions that appear and I'd want to figure out - like what is he like, is anything required of me, is it even possible to know much more about him, should I ever stop trying to learn more about him?

[Lonewulf]

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

And thank God I'm an atheist. :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

And thank God I'm an atheist. :)

Yeah - that Pinky sure wouldn't like either of us much.

[T'ai Chi]

...I get a bit tired of it being brought out in support of claims that religion is in some sense a "natural" state.


Well, "natural" is not the word I used. I did say that freedom of religion is probably born into us.

But in any case, looking at history and present day, it certainly seems abundant. Perhaps there is some evolutionary advantage to theism and atheism in general got selected out of the picture long ago?

[DoubtingStephen]

haha. Thank God I'm not a Fundamentalist.

Pinky respects your avoidance of a Fundamentalist view, I suspect. And I hope it was clear that my earlier post in this thread was aimed only at one of the religions that are currently doing so much harm to human society, not at you at all.

[cyborg]

I also believe in God because of the Big Bang.

I also believe in God because of evolution.

I also believe in God because there's evil.

I also believe in God because there's good

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

[Hindmost]

The violence in all aspects of nature points to evolution and certainly a lack of intelligence in the design.

The poor design of the earth in general...who needs earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and tsumamis that randomly kill people independent of their religious beliefs.

The conflict of science and any religious text. i.e. If the bible were correct on creation of the universe and gave a timetable that was reasonable along with explanations that were plausible would give some indication of a super being.

Having studied the origin of certain religions also helped turn me into an atheist...so much of it is just a power play to control the sheeple. (and it works)

The absolute willingness of so many christians to throw 2/3rds of the worlds population in hell was always something I found horrible as well.

glenn

[A Christian Sceptic]

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

Yes that would be true too. Someone wanted some reasons so I posted some reasons. I tried to think of a few examples from different categories like the natural (pretty much everything), the supernatural (answered prayers), and intangible things (beauty, love). Those are all reasons I believe.

[CapelDodger]

First define "define"? :D

What do you mean by "first"?

[kmortis]

I am a boudin-eating Hawai'ian. Besides, if I hadn't explained myself, people in this sub-forum would think that I am a mean-spirited hag just lying in wait to tromp all over Tricky any time he opens his mouth (figuratively speaking).


Oh, wait . . .

Hold on, let me fix that for you.

But it's ok, we all do it. It's a right of passage around here. In the Words of the Profit "you're nobody till everybody in this town thinks you're a bastard."

[CapelDodger]

I know other people have felt God's grace and love in watching the Northern Lights, or holding a newborn baby, or recovering from a serious illness (hopefully not all at the same time). But it didn't do it for me. Don't know why.

Nothing does it for me either, and it's not for lack of feeling. I think it needs the god-germ to be already present, but I can't see a practical way to test that hypothesis. It would require a pool of subjects who had grown to maturity without being exposed to a god-concept at all and then seeing if the idea sprang spontaneously to any minds when presented with some such wonder.

Perhaps one far off day ...

It is, of course, possible for people to be exposed to the god-idea and not buy it for a moment. There are plenty of examples of us :).

(And welcome :).)

[CapelDodger]

It would be far easier if you just said, "I believe in God because of X for all X."

:D

Snappy!

As an aside, and by distant recall, formal logic owes a lot to an 18thCE Anglican bishop (name escapes me) who expected to use it proving the existence of the Anglican god. Being an honest scientist he never claimed success.

[Silentknight]

I would like to point out that just because I do not believe in any God or gods does not mean I'm closed off to the possibility that there is something more out there, perhaps even beyond human comprehension. In fact, I would grant you that there is. After all, we have only explored an infinitesimal fraction of a percent of the universe, so it stands to reason that there is plenty that we do not know about and lack the capacity to explain.

However, that does not mean that God exists, let alone that we should regard the unknown as supernatural. Should we one day discover the existence of a supremely powerful entity, I believe the best approach would be to learn as much as we can about it, or possibly from it; not to get on our knees and start sending prayers and sacrifices. A god is only a god if it is worshiped. It is extremely improbable that anything we find out there would ever match the profile of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal war deity of Hebrew mythology, let alone legitimize any one religion.

[CapelDodger]

Yes that would be true too. Someone wanted some reasons so I posted some reasons. I tried to think of a few examples from different categories like the natural (pretty much everything), the supernatural (answered prayers), and intangible things (beauty, love). Those are all reasons I believe.

From an outsider's perspective, these appear to be conjured-up confirmations of a belief already held. They're not reasons to believe. "Answered" prayers conform to the laws of chance; there's no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural. The natural world, by definition, can do without a supernatural being. Intangible things are (again by definition) subjective, and the human mind is a thing of nature.

The reason I don't believe - and I'm not alone in this - is that I never started and have never been presented with any persuasive reason to.

If I'm not being too forward in asking, when did you start believing?

[CapelDodger]

However, that does not mean that God exists, let alone that we should regard the unknown as supernatural. Should we one day discover the existence of a supremely powerful entity, I believe the best approach would be to learn as much as we can about it, or possibly from it; not to get on our knees and start sending prayers and sacrifices. A god is only a god if it is worshiped. It is extremely improbable that anything we find out there would ever match the profile of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal war deity of Hebrew mythology, let alone legitimize any one religion.

That's hard to argue with, and the field is even bigger. It's extremely improbable that Homo is the only genus with a religious sense that the Universe would spawn. The variation in human religions is nothing compared to what xeno-anthropologists have/have had/will have to play with.

[A Christian Sceptic]

From an outsider's perspective, these appear to be conjured-up confirmations of a belief already held. They're not reasons to believe. "Answered" prayers conform to the laws of chance; there's no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural. The natural world, by definition, can do without a supernatural being. Intangible things are (again by definition) subjective, and the human mind is a thing of nature.


I understand. And I understand that these aren't reasons for you to believe. For all I know these are not even good reasons. But it's true these are why I believe.


The reason I don't believe - and I'm not alone in this - is that I never started and have never been presented with any persuasive reason to.


Makes sense to me.


If I'm not being too forward in asking, when did you start believing?

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so. I still can't believe it though. :)

As for becoming a Christian - that happened later - during the summer after that. That happened for much more personal reasons - but I'll just say I took Jesus up on one of his challenges (well - actually invitations, but at the time I looked at it as a challenge.) I doubt that will make any sense to someone who doesn't even believe in god at all.

[Foster Zygote]

If you remove the ant queens, do they still organize? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. They'd either die out or not organize anywhere near as efficiently.
That's the problem with ignoring anyone who ever disagrees with you. You fail to learn a lot of interesting things.

The "queen" of an ant colony is simply the reproductive organ of the colony. In the event that a queen dies the ants will respond by changing the environmental conditions of certain eggs, then feed the hatched larvae on a special diet so that they will develop into breeding females. Queens do have some influence on the behavior of the colony through the same chemical means as any other member of the colony. But she is not the "brain" or "central nervous system" of the colony. When a queen dies some of the workers will go about replacing her, but the great majority of the other ants will continue their housekeeping and gathering duties uninterrupted.

[CapelDodger]

Well, "natural" is not the word I used. I did say that freedom of religion is probably born into us.

Where do you summon this stuff up from? What's born into us are the desire to conform and distrust of those that don't. Freedom not to conform has been fought for, long and bloodily, against our innate tendencies. WTF do you think our history is about? The fight's over for us, and I take my hat off to the people that fought it on my behalf.

But in any case, looking at history and present day, it certainly seems abundant. Perhaps there is some evolutionary advantage to theism and atheism in general got selected out of the picture long ago?

Atheism can hand theism its ass any day. I'd relish a full-on War On Islam - a matter of weeks, and I want the CruiseCam video of the Grand Mosque's last moments as my screensaver. Just to keep it properly secular we can take out the Vatican as well (after a thorough sacking, of course).

You're sitting at a frickin' computer typing out "atheism in general got selected out". I think you've missed the bigger picture.

[volatile]

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so.

Who says that? Who says that the organisation of the cell is "accidental"? Not a single scientist, that's for sure.

The whole point (and the magical, atheistic beauty) of evolution is that it isn't accidental. Your entire belief system is based on this facile and adolescent misunderstanding of evolutionary biology?

[articulett]

Where do you summon this stuff up from? What's born into us are the desire to conform and distrust of those that don't. Freedom not to conform has been fought for, long and bloodily, against our innate tendencies. WTF do you think our history is about? The fight's over for us, and I take my hat off to the people that fought it on my behalf.



Atheism can hand theism its ass any day. I'd relish a full-on War On Islam - a matter of weeks, and I want the CruiseCam video of the Grand Mosque's last moments as my screensaver. Just to keep it properly secular we can take out the Vatican as well (after a thorough sacking, of course).

You're sitting at a frickin' computer typing out "atheism in general got selected out". I think you've missed the bigger picture.

He has the big picture on "ignore" just like he has most of the people on JREF. It takes a lot of selective attention and self righteous blather to keep some delusions alive. So long as you keep facts and evidence at bay, you can remain clueless for a lifetime! Yee Haw! T'ai Chi keeps the dream alive for another self-important year.

[dacium2007]

Here are the main reasons I do not believe in god/creator:

The theory of evolution has given logical and rational answers to all of the following questions:
-Purpose of life (none- just to naturally propagate gene's)
-Reason for there existing a life-death cycle (efficient way to passes genetic mutation to a complete new individual by forcing individual to grow from single gene)
-Consciousness (the brain is a highly complicated chemical arrangement, that does not need any special explanation to the point where I can be 100% certain there is no consciousness or 'life after death' once the brain is destroyed).

Astronomoy/physics and other sciences have give us extremely good knowledge of the universe, the way stars and planets formed etc. all the way back to the big bang. If anything the only thing any creator could have done, is set the variables of the universe and started the big bang. But since we are living in a universe with these variables and there was a big bang, this a circular reasoning to suppose someone thus created it. It happened because if it didn't we wouldn't exist to question it. Thus there is no reason to believe a creator started it, even if there was you would have to explain the creator and the creators universe etc.

[CapelDodger]

In the existence of God? When I was 16 (I'm 33) and was studying cells in biology class. As I studied and drew the different parts of the cells I couldn't believe something so amazingly organized was simply an accident. I still can't. Could it be possible it's all an accident or chance - many people say so. I still can't believe it though. :)

As for becoming a Christian - that happened later - during the summer after that. That happened for much more personal reasons - but I'll just say I took Jesus up on one of his challenges (well - actually invitations, but at the time I looked at it as a challenge.) I doubt that will make any sense to someone who doesn't even believe in god at all.

It makes sense to me; I lack belief, but I don't lack empathy :). I was even a teenager once, seeking meaning.

The summer Jesus experience suggests to me that you grew up in a Christian environment before your epiphany, you just didn't take it seriously before. When you started seeking meaning that's naturally where you went first.

What I wonder is why now, at 33, you're asking people about their disbelief. As I recall, that's a difficult age :).

[CapelDodger]

He has the big picture on "