I do not believe in God. It is based on a book, the Bible. Just as much as I don’t believe in the book ‘Quickest and easiest ways to drop 20 pounds’.

What other things with no evidence do we ask people to explain why they don't believe in? QAnon? Flat earth? The illuminati? Alien abductions? It's not incumbent upon me to explain why I don't believe in those things just like I don't believe in a god.

I grew up in Canada, which isn’t super religious. Whenever I would ask my Mum about religion or God, she would reply “I believe in evolution”. So, just like religious kids grow up believing in a creator, I grew up believing in Darwin, if that makes sense.

No one really pushes religion on you in Canada. In politics, if you start talking about religion, you won’t get elected. Where is in the US, I feel like people need to pledge allegiance to the Lord or some thing, to be elected. Americans seem to grow up really surrounded by Christianity, but in Canada, we just don’t talk about religion, unless we are talking about all religions and beliefs.

When I moved to the US, I really tried to become a believer. I went to church, I read the Bible, and I just tried so hard to believe there was someone up there, because I love the community of a church. I was jealous of people who could just blindly believe in God, because I wanted to have something like that to believe in, but I just don’t. I can’t get my head around God allowing things like child cancer, school shootings, pedophiles etc. because I understand free well, but why not do more to stop it? It’s also hard for me to believe in a creator or a Bible that doesn’t allow people to be themselves, because in Canada I grew up always feeling like everyone is equal. I tried to go to really progressive churches that accepted gays, but I just never felt like I fit in or believed in anything in the Bible.

My mom told me that she is agnostic, and my brother is an atheist. After my dad died, my mom shared that he had become a believer in his 20s after he survived a terrible car accident down a cliff. But, he never once spoke to us about religion, because my mom said he wanted us to decide for ourselves.

I don’t tell Americans that I don’t believe in God, because I feel like there’s so much judgment, but since this is anonymous I’ll tell you that I really tried so hard to believe, but I just don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fully believe in science, as well as God, for those who have been treating those two as mutually exclusive.

Who is that, exactly?

Literally the third person on page 1:

I also do not believe in God. I believe in Science.

Also, many others who said they don't believe in God because they believe in science, as if you can't believe in both.

I agree the sentences "I also do not believe in God. I believe in Science." are not mutually exclusive and I do not read them as such from that poster, although I must admit I was not here on 07/13/2011 when that was written 69 pages ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fully believe in science, as well as God, for those who have been treating those two as mutually exclusive.

Who is that, exactly?

Literally the third person on page 1:

I also do not believe in God. I believe in Science.

Also, many others who said they don't believe in God because they believe in science, as if you can't believe in both.

Anonymous wrote:I fully believe in science, as well as God, for those who have been treating those two as mutually exclusive.

Who is that, exactly?

I went to church as a child, always dragged by my mom. I did not enjoy the community and often felt like the theology didn't make sense, so I dropped religion as a teen and considered myself agnostic. In college, I made a good friend who was atheist and my gut reaction to her (which surprised me) was that of course there is a God.

After trying out different brands of Protestantism for a while, I still struggled with the theology not making sense to me. I don't understand the concepts of the Trinity or original sin, and I don't like the focus on heaven and hell. I ended up converting to Judaism and am a regular at my Conservative (theologically, not politically) synagogue.

I fully believe in science, as well as God, for those who have been treating those two as mutually exclusive.

8 billion people on earth, and probably as many interpretations of what God is.
This "immanent creative force stuff" is just pointless metaphysics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

How is he wrong? For the THIRD TIME:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

And I will stop calling out your fallacies when you stop committing them.

I have some sympathy for your argument, but you should be aware that there is tons of active work in physics by people who are well regarded doing exactly that. The majority of whom are probably atheists.

+1

Exactly.

Without citations of references of relevance, it is impossible to accept “+1” on this point and it does nothing to bolster your argument. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” as Hitchen’s Razor goes.

The refutation above of Penrose’s calculations and the fine tuning arguments are posted above, and they are tried and true. Not to mention the fact that they still don’t show any evidence of a god even if accepted.

They are very, very weak arguments for a deity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

How is he wrong? For the THIRD TIME:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

And I will stop calling out your fallacies when you stop committing them.

I have some sympathy for your argument, but you should be aware that there is tons of active work in physics by people who are well regarded doing exactly that. The majority of whom are probably atheists.

+1

Exactly.

I might believe in god but the Christian god still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t understand the idea of people living on this earth and then going somewhere else when they die. I don’t understand why a god would be all powerful but allow evil. I don’t understand why a god would need so much from humans. I don’t feel like a lot of Christians in my life have been accepting of their own sin. I feel they deflect it onto others rather than incorporating themselves as a whole of good and bad. I see people not religious flailing so that doesn’t work for me either. Still struggling but can’t say I believe or don’t believe in God. I believe in accepting our shortcomings and working towards the good in ourselves and others. I pray to god whatever it is to give me strength to do that but don’t expect god to do it without my own effort and compliance. That’s where I am in my faith now.

Anonymous wrote:The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

This is what the sentient puddle metaphor addressed. And, as Stephen Hawking said, if the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it is black holes.

Anonymous wrote:There is as close to zero as possible odds life exists anywhere in the universe, including us.

As I have pointed out multiple times, close to zero does not equal zero, in fact it equals a number that is, by definition, >0.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

How is he wrong? For the THIRD TIME:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

And I will stop calling out your fallacies when you stop committing them.

I have some sympathy for your argument, but you should be aware that there is tons of active work in physics by people who are well regarded doing exactly that. The majority of whom are probably atheists.

Not sure that matters, and certain it does not matter out of context to this question. This is the fine tuning argument, math version. It's been answered in every debate about the existence of a god since they began.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

How is he wrong? For the THIRD TIME:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

And I will stop calling out your fallacies when you stop committing them.

I have some sympathy for your argument, but you should be aware that there is tons of active work in physics by people who are well regarded doing exactly that. The majority of whom are probably atheists.

Anonymous wrote:The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

There is as close to zero as possible odds life exists anywhere in the universe, including us.

We can’t find evidence of life anywhere else.

Immanent eh?

immanent
ĭm′ə-nənt
adjective
Existing or remaining within; inherent.
Restricted entirely to the mind; subjective.
Remaining within; inherent; indwelling; abiding; intrinsic; internal or subjective; hence, limited in activity, agency, or effect, to the subject or associated acts; -- opposed to emanant, transitory, transitive, or objective.

that sounds about right.