Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[WinePusher]

What religion claims that a magical creature lives in the clouds? Christianity claims a transcendent being exists outside of the natural world, not a magical being that lives in the clouds.

You could have fooled me.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Well, you make two errors. The fact that the bible says that Jesus ascended into the clouds is quite different from a magical creature lving in the clouds. Secondly, it is nice to see Christians prohibited from quoting scripture as evidence for their claims but when the atheist/non-theist does it, its perfectly fine. It seems that you, when you literally quote the bible, are doing exactly what the fundies are doing.....

Takes much more faith to be an atheist and believe that no higher order or purpose exists......

Why do you say that?

Its simply my humble opinion. I think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that there truly is no ultimate purpose.

Notice, that the great philosophers and scientists of the ages were Christians.

You mean Albert Einstein, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Stephen Jay Gould, G. H. Hardy, Peter Higgs, Julian Huxley, Frdric Joliot-Curie, Alfred Kinsey, Richard Leakey, Linus Pauling, Steven Pinker, Oliver Sacks, Carl Sagan, Alan Turing, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Noam Chomsky, Auguste Comte, Daniel Dennett, Denis Diderot, Michel Foucault, David Hume, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Felix Bloch, Benot Mandelbrot, Leo Sachs, Paul Erds, Hermann Minkowski, Wolfgang Pauli, Leo Kanner, Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Averroes ...

I don't believe I ever claimed that there were absolutly no atheist scholars.........You have just knocked down a straw man.

I guess you've never heard of them.

Of course I haven't, thus I thank you for educating me.

Do you see God's hand in cancer and the HIV virus? Or do you blame the victim?

I see God's hand at work in the doctors and nurse who care for the patient. I see God in the hospital chaplain and the friends and family that come to comfort the ailing patient. I see his or her suffering as only momentary affliction in light of eternal happiness awaiting them in heaven.

Of course, that is only my faith speaking and you may see things differently.

[Flail]

It is within the rules to quote the bible as support for what the 'bible says' or to support tenants of christianity...but not as authoriative for any other purpose.

[bernee51]

Takes much more faith to be an atheist and believe that no higher order or purpose exists......

Why do you say that?

Its simply my humble opinion. I think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that there truly is no ultimate purpose.

Why?

There is absolutely no evidence of any 'ultimate purpose'...why dos acknowledging that require a 'leap of faith' of any dimension?

Notice, that the great philosophers and scientists of the ages were Christians.

You mean Albert Einstein, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Stephen Jay Gould, G. H. Hardy, Peter Higgs, Julian Huxley, Frdric Joliot-Curie, Alfred Kinsey, Richard Leakey, Linus Pauling, Steven Pinker, Oliver Sacks, Carl Sagan, Alan Turing, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Noam Chomsky, Auguste Comte, Daniel Dennett, Denis Diderot, Michel Foucault, David Hume, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Felix Bloch, Benot Mandelbrot, Leo Sachs, Paul Erds, Hermann Minkowski, Wolfgang Pauli, Leo Kanner, Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Averroes ...

I don't believe I ever claimed that there were absolutly no atheist scholars.........You have just knocked down a straw man.

Yes...the one you built.

Do you see God's hand in cancer and the HIV virus? Or do you blame the victim?

I see God's hand at work in the doctors and nurse who care for the patient. I see God in the hospital chaplain and the friends and family that come to comfort the ailing patient. I see his or her suffering as only momentary affliction in light of eternal happiness awaiting them in heaven.

Of course, that is only my faith speaking and you may see things differently.

I do (see it differently)...I see humanity's work.

AFA the 'afterlife' is concerned....I see wishful thinking.

[Crazy Ivan]

Its simply my humble opinion. I think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that there truly is no ultimate purpose.

Notice that the assertion "there is no ultimate purpose" is akin to "there is no god". In the same way that it is courteous of you to acknowledge an atheist for what he understands that label to convey (lacking belief in god, as opposed to claiming its nonexistence), it is also courteous not to assume the non-believer claims an "ultimate purpose" is nonexistent, but to acknowledge one just lacks belief in it. Lacking belief in either assertion (god's existence, or ultimate purpose) is a natural, effortless, consequence from lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. You lack belief in a great many things for the exact same reason, with no effort involved.

[kilese]

Wow, I didn't expect this to get as many answers as it did. To any Christians reading this, if i offended you, I apologize, but i was only saying it in my own words. In this post, I was simply giving my opinion, and asking the opinion of others too. Thank you to all that replied.

[WinePusher]

There is absolutely no evidence of any 'ultimate purpose'...why dos acknowledging that require a 'leap of faith' of any dimension?

Those who do not believe in God (atheists) and deny any ultimate purpose are, in my opinion, taking a huge leap of faith. Taking into account the enormous complexity we see in nature, it is a leap of faith to deny that is was designed by a designer, and instead came about by natural means which we cannot fully answer. quote]

Yes...the one you built.

No. If you read the OP, you'll see that the author wrote something about how humans are clueless and worshipping a magical sky creature in the modern century. My point is that there are many "non-clueless" (philosophers, scientists and scholars) people who believe in a God.

I do (see it differently)...I see humanity's work.

You see humanity, I see God working through humanity.

[WinePusher]

Notice that the assertion "there is no ultimate purpose" is akin to "there is no god".

Yes, by God, I mean a transcendent being. I see no other possible way that an "ultimate purpose" and comphrehensive teleology can exist without a "God." Unless, I'm missing something.......

In the same way that it is courteous of you to acknowledge an atheist for what he understands that label to convey (lacking belief in god, as opposed to claiming its nonexistence), it is also courteous not to assume the non-believer claims an "ultimate purpose" is nonexistent, but to acknowledge one just lacks belief in it. Lacking belief in either assertion (god's existence, or ultimate purpose) is a natural, effortless, consequence from lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. You lack belief in a great many things for the exact same reason, with no effort involved.

The atheist is not one who LACKS a belief. The atheist is one who blatantly BELIEVES God does not exist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Main Entry: athe-ist
Pronunciation: -th"-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

The person who lacks a belief is the agnostic. So, with regard to God, the theist believes he exists, the atheist believes he doesn't, the agnostic makes no decision, therefore the agnostic is the one that lacks the belief, not the atheist. You use the term "non believer" that term encompasses all those who are not believers, including agnostics and atheists. When you begin to look at the categories of "non believers" there are two, the agnostic and the atheist.

And I will repeat this for emphasis and for all those who do not yet understand the difference.

The agnostic: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

The atheist: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
1) one who believes that there is no deity

[bernee51]

There is absolutely no evidence of any 'ultimate purpose'...why dos acknowledging that require a 'leap of faith' of any dimension?

Those who do not believe in God (atheists) and deny any ultimate purpose are, in my opinion, taking a huge leap of faith. Taking into account the enormous complexity we see in nature, it is a leap of faith to deny that is was designed by a designer, and instead came about by natural means which we cannot fully answer.

I do not consider an argument from ignorance to be any reason to believe in a designer.

How is the I dont know in relation to the fully answer a leap of faith?

Yes...the one you built.

No. If you read the OP, you'll see that the author wrote something about how humans are clueless and worshipping a magical sky creature in the modern century. My point is that there are many "non-clueless" (philosophers, scientists and scholars) people who believe in a God.

And many who dont. Two straw men do not cancel out the argumentum ad populam.

I do (see it differently)...I see humanity's work.

You see humanity, I see God working through humanity.

I see no need or reason (nor evidence) to believe god is there for humanity to work through...ergo it is, and always has been, humanity evolving.

[bernee51]

The atheist is not one who LACKS a belief. The atheist is one who blatantly BELIEVES God does not exist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Main Entry: athe-ist
Pronunciation: -th"-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

It is not quite as simple as that...

...and it helps if you get your understanding in order.

To get a wide view of the topic here is how an atheist may regard belief/disbelief

And wiki has a few things to say as well.

Specifically, "...Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists..."

Note two statements:

I do not believe in god
I do not believe god exists.

They are not identical


a theist believes in god
an atheist does not believe in god.

An agnostic does not claim to know whether god exists an can be either a theist or an atheist.

Atheism/theism are on a different continuum to agnosticism/gnosticim

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Crazy Ivan]

The atheist is not one who LACKS a belief. The atheist is one who blatantly BELIEVES God does not exist.

So much for the courtesy I mentioned... Etymologically, "atheist" means "without god". The "belief that there is no god" is an extrapolation, that doesn't necessarily follow the etymology. Since "without" cannot logically refer to "possession", it logically refers to "belief". So "without belief in god(s)" is the most basic definition, that all atheists relate to, and all you're entitled to assume.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Main Entry: athe-ist
Pronunciation: -th"-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

Notice that "atheism" does not convey the exact same sentiment you're pushing:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And disbelief is defined as:

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

Obviously, an "atheist" following the definition for "atheism", is "one who disbelieves the existence of deities".

The person who lacks a belief is the agnostic.

Incorrect. "Not committed to believing" does NOT mean one believes, or one doesn't. It means one doesn't "commit" to whether one does, or one doesn't. Not the same.

So, with regard to God, the theist believes he exists, the atheist believes he doesn't, the agnostic makes no decision

"Belief" isn't a matter of "choice" or "decision". The only "decision" possible is whether or not to commit to our beliefs, or lack thereof.

-edit: And I will add that the "thefreedictionary" is more consistent with their two definitions:

atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Just because some people decide to extrapolate on a definition (even if creating inconsistencies with other definitions of their own), that doesn't mean you're suddenly entitled to pick that definition and demand atheists accept it or find new words to describe themselves.