Why would you be religious?

[Treznor]

omg...Why do NS People continue to post these damn things? I believe we have gone over this HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

And every time we get an influx of newbies, we'll go over it again. Welcome to NSG.

[Southern Patriots]

I don't understand the difficulty here, religion is painfully obviously true. God created the universe and then wrote a best-selling series of books about it through ghost writers. And he created things he hates and wants to die.
Clearly logical and true. Atheists need to back off.

[Dyakovo]

omg...Why do NS People continue to post these damn things? I believe we have gone over this HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

And every time we get an influx of newbies, we'll go over it again. Welcome to NSG.

Don't even need an influx of newbies...

If it goes to long without a religious discussion on the front page I'll make one.

[Kotlas]

How are we to understand the mind of God?

God is omnipotent. If he wanted us to understand, we would.

I argee

Just another instance of religious people having no decent argument and instead resorting to the "mysterious ways" of their alleged "God". Its like when I present an argument to a believer, and then they stare at me blankly for a few seconds before saying "I just know it in my heart."

If there was an all knowing, ever present, and all powerful, and not to mention immortal God, would he not view life and plans differently than you?

We would be like an ant to him- so little in comparison, and unable to understand nearly as much in comparison.

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

Uh-huh. Right. You people always make God sound so mysterious and then suddenly act like you know all about him.

[Consaria]

Other then being raised religious

I was.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I suppose people are religious because of their upbringings. Well, except me. I was raised catholic and I'm an atheist. But, I also think religion is for people who...can't accept or understand science, so they turn to religion for answers. Oh, and their afraid of death.

[Islamic Hazarastan]

I suppose people are religious because of their upbringings. Well, except me. I was raised catholic and I'm an atheist. But, I also think religion is for people who...can't accept or understand science, so they turn to religion for answers. Oh, and their afraid of death.

Religion and science used to go hand in hand in early Muslim times. Also, Iran's making a lot of progress in science, despite being religious.

[Kotlas]

I suppose people are religious because of their upbringings. Well, except me. I was raised catholic and I'm an atheist. But, I also think religion is for people who...can't accept or understand science, so they turn to religion for answers. Oh, and their afraid of death.

Religion and science used to go hand in hand in early Muslim times. Also, Iran's making a lot of progress in science, despite being religious.

True, Nuclear Fist.

@Hazarastan: The so-called "Islamic Golden Age" was actually a time of rationalism and secularism. Look it up. And as for Iran making progress, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! Iran making PROGRESS?!? First of all, on average, their people make 3160 USD annually. Also, women have their own "special corner" in mosques and they are treated like cattle. If that is progress, move to Iran. As for scientific progress, I wouldn't call stealing the nuclear bomb technology from more advanced and secular nations "scientific progress".

[Caninope]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

[Dyakovo]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

[Caninope]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

There's also Hell.

[Kamsaki]

There would be a void if there was no God.

Maybe there is a void, and all you see is pure unfiltered Chaos, but where pure unfiltered Chaos, being Chaos, is temporarily undergoing the illusion of order.

[KotoMarzos]

Like, seriously. Other then being raised religious, I can't find a logical reason for anyone to believe in an omnipotent creator. If you have a reason, feel free to post it here.

Because Jesus came down from heaven, healed my crippled mother, fixed the drywall, and brought my dog back from life. He then gave me a bible and left.

[Tokos]

@Hazarastan: The so-called "Islamic Golden Age" was actually a time of rationalism and secularism. Look it up. And as for Iran making progress, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! Iran making PROGRESS?!? First of all, on average, their people make 3160 USD annually. Also, women have their own "special corner" in mosques and they are treated like cattle. If that is progress, move to Iran. As for scientific progress, I wouldn't call stealing the nuclear bomb technology from more advanced and secular nations "scientific progress".

You're right on the first one, the second is pure Zionist propaganda (not that Iran's regime is nice or anything!).

[Treznor]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

There's also Hell.

Simply asserting it is insufficient. I understand that you want this to be true (although gods help me if I can comprehend why), but that isn't enough to make it true. Reality doesn't care what you want, and you haven't provided a salient reason why anyone should agree that there's a God or a hell or anything other than a void.

[Pope Joan]

I like logic puzzles but find real-life applications limiting.

As for omnipotence, it is an unnecessary fiction.

[Karnei Shomron]

Insurance. If there is not a god, then everything's ok. If there is a god, everything's ok.

[Treznor]

Insurance. If there is not a god, then everything's ok. If there is a god, everything's ok.

What if it's the wrong god? What if it's the right god, but you're not meeting that god's demands? It is not a binary choice.

[Pope Joan]

Insurance. If there is not a god, then everything's ok. If there is a god, everything's ok.

Is that like Pascal's wager?

[Caninope]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

There's also Hell.

Simply asserting it is insufficient. I understand that you want this to be true (although gods help me if I can comprehend why), but that isn't enough to make it true. Reality doesn't care what you want, and you haven't provided a salient reason why anyone should agree that there's a God or a hell or anything other than a void.

Personal Anecdotes convinced me, however I realize that personal anecdotes can only serve as a basis for you and not the argument.

[Kamsaki]

As for omnipotence, it is an unnecessary fiction.

Oooh, you're missing the real power of omnipotence in the discourse of religious justification. It's the lynchpin of facilitating unusual action, because as a self-conflicting notion, it's what renders conventional logic inappropriate in normalising religious assertion.

Omnipotence can, and is, used to justify arbitrary assertions, and such is why those who accept it are hesitant to yield to logical argument.

[Fantasy Encounter]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

There's also Hell.

I have always been partial to the Buddhist version of the afterlife. The biggest punishment anyone can receive is having to be reborn into this world. I guess that would be Hell.

[Caninope]

So what's the difference between an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and immortal God you can't prove and no God at all?

The difference is what happens after death.

In other words, you don't know.

There would be a void if there was no God.

You don't know that there isn't. Also you don't know that those are the only two choices.

There's also Hell.

I have always been partial to the Buddhist version of the afterlife. The biggest punishment anyone can receive is having to be reborn into this world. I guess that would be Hell.

At least they aren't forced to go hunting with Cheney.

[Tokos]

Omnipotence actually makes the idea of Christian/Jewish God impossible.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Insurance. If there is not a god, then everything's ok. If there is a god, everything's ok.

What if it's the wrong god? What if it's the right god, but you're not meeting that god's demands? It is not a binary choice.

What if god only lets atheist into heaven?