Do you believe in God/s?

Not saying religion = bad. I just don't agree with it the majority of the time. I do agree that religion is used to rule over people; I always viewed it as a form of control. Usually by losing your rewards as well as met with violent consequences. It's true that there are numerous factors that do contribute to how society is what it is today. Religion might not be the true factor but it most certainly contributes to it; the good and the bad. To me religion(s) are the shackles of humanity the inhibit us from progressing into something greater. But in fairness... maybe something worse? (Which I don't agree with but hey, time will tell on that one huh?) Whoopsie, got sidetracked off topic.

I am non-religious as well. You could call me atheist or agnostic, depending on what your definition of those two terms are (the terms are actually not as clear cut as most people believe). I believe in evidence based living. I was raised Baptist (Christian) as a child but quickly turned non-religious in my teenage years. There is no way I'd ever go back to religion. I have studied hundreds of arguments against religion and the chances of any man-made religion being true is zero. The theoretical possibility of some kind of "god" or "creator" on the other hand (i.e. deism) is a fair theory, but one without a shred of evidence. One cannot know whether there is a such a being or not. Unlike many non-religious people who believe in complete "live and let live" I think it is important to actively work against religion and hopefully one day get rid of it entirely through honorable civilized discussion. Here's a thought exercise for any religious people reading this: Consider the following 4 cosmological theories of why/how the universe exists: 1) The universe has simply always existed as it is, based on the laws of physics. (This agrees with the law of conservation of energy and is the simplest explanation for the universe. After all, if god exists then god is just as complex as the universe or more, therefore wouldn't it be simpler if he simply did not exist?) 2) The universe was created by some kind of "god" or "creation force" of some kind. 3) We are all part of a computer simulation (i.e. like in the movie "The Matrix"). 4) We are all just part of one person's dream. Whoever is conscious right now is literally the universe itself. This is known as solipsism. Moreover, there are an INFINITE number of alternatives explanations for the universe besides these. For example, it could be that we are all part of the dreams of a giant octopus alien living in the core of Saturn, etc. So here's the thought exercise: Tell me which theory is correct. Tell my why you believe your relgion (e.g. Christianity) has any more chance of being right than any of the other alternative theories I have listed. A person with a disciplined mind and unbiased perspective, after completing this exercise honestly, has basically no choice but to become non-religious. Any other conclusion is an arbitrary and unjustified assumption. Here's yet another thought exercise: There are tens of thousands of religions in the world. Every single religion believes their own religion to be correct and all others to be wrong (well, almost all of them do). The religion that a person "chooses" can be predicted with extreme accuracy entirely by observing the religion of the family in which they are raised. No strong link to any other factor other than upbringing has ever been found. So here's the question: Why do you believe with such certainty that all the other religions are wrong and yours is right even without reading the other tens of thousands of religions? Moreover, consider the fact that a religious person is an atheist with respect to every religion in the entire world except their own. In other words, the only difference between an atheist and a religious person is the atheist believes in one less religion. Therefore, religious members of this forum, why not simply take it one step further and make the rational conclusion that your religion is no more trustworthy than any of the others and become a full atheist. You already are more than 99.99999% atheist with respect to the religions of the world. Here is a third much shorter argument: The only religious viewpoint that is basically guaranteed to exist on all planets with sentient life is atheism and non-religion. In contrast, earth religions will only occur on earth. Which is more likely to be true? A belief system that probably exists in every part of the universe with highly intelligent life, or one that only exists on individual planets where those religions came into existence by chance and are deeply arbitrary? I have a massive list of very interesting and extremely solid atheist arguments against religion, all of which are just as strong as these arguments and all of which each individually all but disprove religion. I have many hundreds of old bookmarks though and they're just in a big stored heap so I don't have the time or energy to dig them up. I think I've made my point clear though. The arguments in favor of non-religion are extremely strong, whereas the arguments for religion amount to nothing but blind assumptions. Furthermore, I find that being non-religious has greatly enhanced my life. Being non-religious is actually far more comforting than being religious. Religions are filled with crude and often violent nonsense. Spiritual growth is actually DECREASED by being religious, whereas non-religious people are free to soak in the wonders and unanswered questions of the world. Besides, why would you want to worship any of the vindictive and petty little gods that man-made religions have invented. I have never seen a god of a man-made religion that is anything less than pathetic when analyzed rationally. Pick almost any random person off the street and chances are that person is nicer than almost all gods people have ever conceived of. Those are my thoughts on the matter. I hope it helps free as many people as possible from the dark grips of religion and guides them to the light of non-religion and science and real truth.

@ Boundbyluck 1. I like your username :p 2. I understand that. I used to want to be an attorney, so I read up on all that junk which is why I'm so obnoxiously tormented by my own consciousness. Yes society was formed in that matter, but the summerians worshiped gods as well, heavily. I can't think of a single society that did not worship a god, ever. Expect of course the botched attempts by the French and what have you. But religion has always played a role, in some cases bad (as in the case of controlling the masses.) But religion as a concept is benevolent, some people misuse it, as is the case with science. I suppose both just depend on the people being enlightened enough to understand the responsibilities that come with assuming the righteousness of both. @ Rainstride You say you have studied hundreds of arguments against religion, aren't you just biasly coloring your view on the matter lest you devote the same exertion for the opposite viewpoint? Also, no offense, really, but that was hogwash. I don't even know where to begin. Yes there are an infinite number of explanations, sure, but why is God rule of the list? You say being non-religious gives you the freedom of being able to marvel at the mysterious questions of the universe, guess that excludes the god question altogether. Also, many religious do not believe all other religions are wrong. I've studied Judaism and Islam aside from Christianity, catholism, and protestant (Which is what I call myself.) Muslims, for example, believe Jesus was in fact a prophet, and thus he is revered in that religion just as strongly as in Christianity. Also, you stated the only religious viewpoint garaunteed to exist is atheism or a non-religious one? So.. it's a religious non-religious viewpoint? xD I'm just teasing, I understand what you mean. (:

@ Yassuka I can dig it. But other things are used to control people as well, even more so than religion, imo. Politicians, money, so then, why isn't there a crusade (using that term loosely here) against them? We just take their shit, but when it comes to god it's as though it's intolerable. Which is more noble? To believe in a god and possibly be mislead, or not believe a politician and still be misled? It makes no difference. My point is religion is, imo, the greatest chance humans have for true progress towards world peace. Also, I'd like to add, I find it funny how world peace seems to be associated with religion; i.e., "I'm not religious, (thus) world peace is a fallacy." Not everyone does it, but most of the people I've spoken with regarding topic seem to lean that way.

I don't follow any particular religion but I do believe in a creator of the universe and people. I know a big argument against this would be "well what is the origin of the creator then?" but it just feels right. How do we explain how we are created in a particular manner, the amazing abilities that a human body consists of, the beautiful nature of this world, and so on? I sometimes have dreams that come true, it could be the next day, a couple weeks, even a few years until it happens. I don't believe any of it is coincidence nor do I look down on the thoughts of others. I am open minded to other theories as well and find it a pleasure to talk about. I find science to be very fascinating as well. I am also not saying any religion is wrong due to not following any either.

I don't believe in any gods. I don't mind if others believe them, though. They can be nice in art and history, too.

@crimsonsun2xseries You said "But religion as a concept is benevolent, some people misuse it, as is the case with science.". Religions are all about faith, and faith is equivalent to blind assumptions basically. Blind assumptions can never be "benevolent". Blind assumptions can sometimes lead to good results, but the *justification* for a blind assumption is always non-existant by definition. There's nothing benevolent about pretending to know things you don't know. That's like arguing that driving with your eyes closed is benevolent. You assert that religion is benevolent but you have no evidence for it, and you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary. There are of course tons and tons of wonderful and nice religious people. But that's not what we are even discussing here. That is a red herring fallacy (i.e. a distraction from the actual point being discussed). We are discussing what is or is not true. Benevolence is irrelevant to that. Furthermore, name one good action that a religious person could do that a non-religious person could not. There aren't any. Thus the core difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is that the religious person is willing to assume things without evidence whereas the non-religious person requires real reasoning and coherent logic with proof. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You also said "You say you have studied hundreds of arguments against religion, aren't you just biasly coloring your view on the matter lest you devote the same exertion for the opposite viewpoint?" I will amend the number "hundreds" to instead somewhere between 50-100 arguments. These are all of varying sizes of course, ranging from concise arguments a couple of lines long to 5 minute youtube videos to much longer ones. Anyway, when you say "aren't you just biasly coloring your view on the matter lest you devote the same exertion for the opposite viewpoint?" you are assuming (with no justification or evidence whatsoever) that I haven't devoted as much time to considering the opposing view. Remember, I said I was raised baptist. I have read and listened to arguments made by the religious side, and have taken care to even seek out their strongest arguments. After doing all that extensive research, I have concluded that the religious side of the arguments is vastly weaker. You shouldn't make blind assumptions about me. You know almost nothing about me. Then again, it isn't surprising that you did that anyway, since making blind assumptions about things is the defining characteristic of religious behavior. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "Also, no offense, really, but that was hogwash. I don't even know where to begin. Yes there are an infinite number of explanations, sure, but why is God rule of the list?". Why do you keep making straw man fallacy arguments against me? I NEVER SAID THAT GOD WAS RULED OUT AS A POSSIBILITY! You are pissing me off a little bit now. Don't say I said things that I never said. I said it is impossible to decide which of the cosmological arguments is correct, and that even included the naturalistic explanation (i.e. the "scientific default" of choosing the theory with the smallest number of extra assumptions, e.g. Occam's Razor). Ask any atheist "Is it possible that god exists?" and almost every single atheist will say "yes". I've literally never even met one who said "No". It is a common propaganda misconception of the religious that non-religious people think they know with absolute certainty that god does not exist. Almost nobody in the non-religious community thinks that. You are arguing a against a position that I don't even hold. Prove to me that there isn't an invisible and intangible unicorn sitting on your desk right now. You can't. The claim is not falsifiable, because it is inherently designed to be not falsifiable in order to always have an easy way out in any argument. The various cosmological arguments (including god, living in the matrix, etc) are exactly the same. They are virtually impossible to prove or disprove. They are thus pointless to pursue until evidence is found. This is the atheistic perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "You say being non-religious gives you the freedom of being able to marvel at the mysterious questions of the universe, guess that excludes the god question altogether.". Again, I never said that god has been ruled out. God has not been ruled out. Almost no atheists believe that god has been disproven. Atheists and scientists in general are free to wonder and marvel at the world, and this includes wondering about and fantasizing about god and devising experiments to test for the possibility of god existing. Thus the point I made is precisely true. What makes you think you have the right to assume you understand atheism? You criticized me for not giving the religious side more study (despite the fact that I have actually studied it very thoughtfully and in depth) and yet you literally do not even understand the most basic premises of what atheists actually believe, otherwise you would not be asserting that I have claimed that god does not exist. Again, I never claimed that god does not exists. I said there is no evidence by which to decide upon the theories. Therefore, the logical choice is to disregard the theories altogether and live an evidence based life. THAT is basically all that atheism and agnosticism is, contrary to the propaganda religious people spread. You can fantasize about the cosmological possibilities all you want, but it is never correct or even ethical to presume without evidence that you somehow magically know the answers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "Also, many religious do not believe all other religions are wrong." Yes this is a true statement. It is also a statement THAT I ALREADY CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN MY ORIGINAL POST. I literally said that not all religious believe other religions to be wrong. You apparently either didn't fully read my post or deliberately ignored what I said in order to try to make it look like I am arguing a weaker position than I actually am. This is yet another straw man fallacy. You seem to be fond of misrepresenting your opponent's views. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "Muslims, for example, believe Jesus was in fact a prophet, and thus he is revered in that religion just as strongly as in Christianity." No. Jesus is not revered equally in Islam as in Christianity. Muslims have a rule that says that they have to tax members of other abrahamic religions (Judaism and Christianity) more than they tax Muslim citizens. This is strongly discriminatory. Muslims often like to try to say that they treat other religions charitably, but it is a complete and total lie. Their book literally instructs them to systematically discriminate against members of other belief systems. In fact, in the Quran there is even a rule that says that being an atheist is punishable by death. How is that supposed to be peaceful or harmonious or loving? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "I'm just teasing, I understand what you mean. (:" No. You are not just teasing and you do not understand what I mean. You are wrong on both accounts. You have asserted that what I am saying is a load of "hogwash" but have provided no actual logical counterargument to any of my arguments. You have assumed many thing about me without evidence. You are spreading objectively incorrect information about several different religious (or non-religious) viewpoints. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "But other things are used to control people as well, even more so than religion, imo.". It is certainly true that other things are used to control people. Nobody ever said that they weren't. But that is irrelevant to the argument. You are committing a red herring fallacy (an irrelevant distraction that confuses the audience to prevent the real point from being discussed). The question being asked is "Would the world be better (or would people be more free from control) if religion didn't exist versus if it did, all else being equal so that this is the ONLY variable being changed?". All other possible sources of bad behavior and influence are IRRELEVANT to this question. Economics and corrupt politicians of course have a bad influence and the world it would of course be good if we stopped them. However, economics and political corruption are independent of religion. The question is would the world be better with people making lots of blind faith assumptions (i.e. religion) or would it be better off with people making their decisions based on evidence and logic and secular ethics (i.e. non-religion and science)? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "My point is religion is, imo, the greatest chance humans have for true progress towards world peace." Prove it. You are asserting that it is better for people to live based on blind faith assumptions than to live based on evidence and logic. This is an extraordinary claim and doesn't even appear to make sense. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Present your evidence. Why is your view correct and the opposition is not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said "I find it funny how world peace seems to be associated with religion; i.e., 'I'm not religious, (thus) world peace is a fallacy.' Not everyone does it, but most of the people I've spoken with regarding topic seem to lean that way." No atheist I've talked to has ever said anything like that. It is completely logically incoherent. A person who lives a strongly evidence based life would try to avoid making such nonsensical statements. It appears that you are just making this up in order to make your opposition look bad. Religions are associated with peace only because they constantly spread propaganda designed to make their believers think that morality and religion are somehow synonymous. I have often heard religious people say "How can you be good without god?" or "How can you be moral without god?" or "What's to stop someone from committing evil if there's no threat of eternal hell?". Name one ethical choice made by a believer that couldn't be just as easily made by a non-believer. I find the idea that you need the threat of eternal punishment hanging over your head to prevent you from being evil to be very very creepy. Basically, what it implies is that you'd have no reason to be good unless you are threatened with punishment. The kind of person that that would apply to would have to be someone who is basically morally bankrupt and has no real concept of ethics. In the atheist and agnostic world, people are nice simply because it is the right thing to do. Why would you ever need divine retribution just in order to be nice? The very idea of it is disgusting. Ethical thinking shouldn't require you to be rewarded or punished for your deeds. You should do it because it is fundamentally right and reduces human suffering and increases well being, rather than for selfish after-life based reasons. I was honestly completely floored by your response to my post. I am not sure if you actually read the whole thing or if you really are that committed to not thinking honestly and rationally about this. Anyway, have a good day everyone.

@RainStride Those last few paragraphs are something I've always questioned myself. Some of the super religious people I hear seem to think that they require a divine being in order to do good, and it makes me wonder if they'd be criminals themselves without their divine being. @_@ I think that it's important to do/be good no matter what religion or belief you are into, just because it makes you yourself feel better, helps you make friends, and makes the world a better place if everyone contributes to being good. It's what keeps us from being barbaric monkeys. I don't believe in true selflessness.

World peace cannot be achieved unless humanity as a whole finds a binding greater purpose. Our base nature is for thinking for our own preservation and needs before that of others. We are aggressive by nature and that factor might never change for we love conflict. This (repetitive) religious debate is older than any of us, and it will never end unless some cosmic catastrophe happens or we evolve beyond our base nature. Also debates are a form of conflict for two or more people with conflicting points of view share their arguments. Truth be told only way we unite everyone on earth at the same time for the same purpose is when a greater enemy arrives. Whether it be alien, plague or just a catastrophe of natural causes in epic proportions; it is the impending doom of humanity at the hands of a single threat that would bring us together as a species. @ kohagura Selflessness does not exist for our subconcious obligates us to secure our basic needs first at all times. Once met we can give away our excesses and even our health to help others. But we always make sure our own existence is always secured first. @crimsonsun2 Benevolence is not related with religion. Remember too many doctrines exist, and amongst many of them they had religions of "war". I don't think the war religions where very benevolent. And just so you know if we all believed in the same things we would stop growing as both a species and society, since we would lose one important aspect called indivuality.