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.

[Crazy Ivan]

Also, I have the distinct impression Merriam-Webster changed the definition for "atheist" recently. I'm fairly certain it read "one who lacks belief in gods". For what it's worth I left them a comment...

[WinePusher]

So much for the courtesy I mentioned... Etymologically, "atheist" means "without god".

Hmm? I was practicing courtesy without even realizing it I guess, all those years of mom telling me to use pleases and thank you's really paid off

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.

That may be the etymological roots of the word (which I'm not so sure about )
but the meaning of the word "atheist" is "one who does not believe in God," as provided by Merriam. Words do not always derive their definition from their etymological roots.

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".

Wikipedia writes: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." So tell me, what is the difference between rejecting a belief in God and rejecting God.

According to wikipedia, the only two possible declarations that an atheist can make are

"I do not believe God exists"
"God does not exist"

What is the difference? Now, if an atheist were to say "I don't believe God exists" don't they carry a burden?

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.

If I don't commit a crime, that means I didn't do it. If I don't commit to eating a burger, that means I didn't eat it. If I don't commit to choosing a belief, that means I didn't choose one, thus I lack a belief.

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.

Notice that second definition of atheism is "doctrine that there is no deity." Notice that the definition of atheist is "one who believes there is no deity." Nowhere is the word dis believe found.

[bernee51]

Wikipedia writes: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." So tell me, what is the difference between rejecting a belief in God and rejecting God.

According to wikipedia, the only two possible declarations that an atheist can make are

"I do not believe God exists"
"God does not exist"


What is the difference?

The first speaks to belief, the second, knowledge.

Now, if an atheist were to say "I don't believe God exists" don't they carry a burden?

Yes. The burden to support their lack of belief.

I do not believe in god because I know of no reason or need for, nor evidence of, any god.

If I don't commit to choosing a belief, that means I didn't choose one, thus I lack a belief.

Do you really choose to believe?

[Flail]

Wikipedia writes: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." So tell me, what is the difference between rejecting a belief in God and rejecting God.

According to wikipedia, the only two possible declarations that an atheist can make are

"I do not believe God exists"
"God does not exist"


What is the difference?

The first speaks to belief, the second, knowledge.

Now, if an atheist were to say "I don't believe God exists" don't they carry a burden?

Yes. The burden to support their lack of belief.

I do not believe in god because I know of no reason or need for, nor evidence of, any god.

If I don't commit to choosing a belief, that means I didn't choose one, thus I lack a belief.

Do you really choose to believe?

The proposition of the atheist that "God does not exist" is comparable to the proposition of the Christian that "Jesus is God". Both are claims that purport absolute 'knowledge' about 'God' and both necessarily carry a burden of proof to demonstrate by verifiable evidence the truth of either claim.

On the other hand, the propostion "I reject the notion of the Christian God" is not an assertive claim but rather a denial of the specific Christian claim about a particular God. The burden of proof remains with the Christian to prove his God with verifiable evidence.

[Flail]

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.

If you see the universe as evidence of a 'designer gods', I can certainly see some logic in that general proposition. We do not have precise knowledge of how the universe came to be, let alone it's content, complexity and expansivness. But what is your evidence as to the characteristics and intentions of any particular 'god'? How do you presume to know anything about gods? How can you presume to know what a 'god' would be? How do you know there is but one 'god'?

If you are using the universe as your evidence of a 'designer god', you can't use the bible as evidence of any particular god, because we have strong evidence that 'designer man' created that book.

[Crazy Ivan]

That may be the etymological roots of the word (which I'm not so sure about )

Have you bothered to research?

Theos: greek word for "deity", "god"
a: greek prefix used before consonants meaning "no", "absence of", "without", "lack of", "not"

What exactly are you "unsure" of?

but the meaning of the word "atheist" is "one who does not believe in God," as provided by Merriam. Words do not always derive their definition from their etymological roots.

As provided by others, it is not. Have you simply ignored a different definition provided to you because it does not suit your whims? I do not hold "Merriam-Webster" as inherently authoritative over others, particularly when there is clear dissonance between their "atheism" and their "atheist". Interestingly enough, they have replied to my comment, and stated others have enquired similarly, and that they have "been making careful note of all such comments for review by our editors during the preparation of future editions". We shall see...

What is the difference? Now, if an atheist were to say "I don't believe God exists" don't they carry a burden?

I understand why the person making the positive assertion of belief in existence, would like the person making the positive assertion of disbelief in existence, be ALSO the person making a positive assertion of belief in nonexistence. It must be frustrating not being able to argue against disbelief, which derives only from the inability of the believer to convey sufficient (or any) evidence supporting their belief. What I believe in is one thing, what I am willing to commit to in debate is quite another. Obviously, I personally believe Zeus does not exist, as you don't. I suppose that makes me anti-Zeus, as opposed to atheist regarding Zeus. However, I am unable to prove Zeus' nonexistence (though quite capable of substantiating my belief), so I simply do not claim it. I do claim lack of belief in Zeus or any other gods, and this requires no substantiation.

If I don't commit a crime, that means I didn't do it.

"Committing a crime" is quite different from "commit to committing a crime". To commit as in "to carry into action deliberately" has nothing to do with "commitment" in this context.

If I don't commit to eating a burger, that means I didn't eat it.

No, it does not. It means you "make no promises" as to whether or not you will eat one.

If I don't commit to choosing a belief, that means I didn't choose one, thus I lack a belief.

It seems to me you are greatly confused as to what "commitment" means.

1 a : an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee b : MITTIMUS
2 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b : something pledged c : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>

Notice that second definition of atheism is "doctrine that there is no deity.

Yes. Are you claiming "atheists" must conform to the "second" definition, which carries baggage beyond what the etymology conveys? Any particular reason besides you saying so? There should be a first definition of "atheist" conforming to the first definition of "atheism", as other dictionaries have figured out.

-edit: And to further establish the dissonance, Merriam's etymology for "Atheism" states:

"Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god"

Plain "godlessness" is oddly ommitted from the definition of "atheist", despite being acknowleged in the etymology of "atheism".

[WinePusher]

Have you bothered to research?

Theos: greek word for "deity", "god"
a: greek prefix used before consonants meaning "no", "absence of", "without", "lack of", "not"

What exactly are you "unsure" of?

No, I did the reseearch and you are right.

As provided by others, it is not. Have you simply ignored a different definition provided to you because it does not suit your whims? I do not hold "Merriam-Webster" as inherently authoritative over others, particularly when there is clear dissonance between their "atheism" and their "atheist". Interestingly enough, they have replied to my comment, and stated others have enquired similarly, and that they have "been making careful note of all such comments for review by our editors during the preparation of future editions". We shall see...

Please type in the word atheist into another online dictionary, and then provide the definition and URL for us. Now, I base my conclusion off of respectable dictionaries and if the linguists decide the the word "atheist" is simply one that lacks a belief, I will happily sway my opinion. You, however, reject the definition provided by the dictionary and rely off your own ideas on what the word means, to the point that you begin to argue with language scholars.........

I will say it once more, since you did not respond, the definition of a word is not always derived from its etymological roots.......Wikipedia reconigzes that:

Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time. will you now argue with wikipedia?

I understand why the person making the positive assertion of belief in existence, would like the person making the positive assertion of disbelief in existence, be ALSO the person making a positive assertion of belief in nonexistence.

What I would like is for the atheist (WHO BELIEVES THEIR IS NO DEITY) to stop hiding behind agnosticism and make an attempt to prove their position. We hear no atheistic arguments aganist God in this forum, all we hear is the condemnation of fundamentalists and attempted refutations of theistic arguments. Proving a theist wrong does not prove you case.

It must be frustrating not being able to argue against disbelief, which derives only from the inability of the believer to convey sufficient (or any) evidence supporting their belief.

I do not attempt to argue aganist dis-belief. I actually think the agnostic position is more logical than the theist and the atheist position.

What I believe in is one thing, what I am willing to commit to in debate is quite another. Obviously, I personally believe Zeus does not exist, as you don't. I suppose that makes me anti-Zeus, as opposed to atheist regarding Zeus. However, I am unable to prove Zeus' nonexistence (though quite capable of substantiating my belief), so I simply do not claim it. I do claim lack of belief in Zeus or any other gods, and this requires no substantiation.

Let me post something said by Richard Dawkins, what he says is very clear and straightfoward. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... rd-dawkins

Colbert: Those are pagan God's they don't exist.
Dawkins: Yea, you're an atheist about those Gods, everybody here is an atheist about all those Gods, some of us go one God further.

In what context do you see Dawkins using the word "atheist." A reasonable person would see dawkins saying that we do not BELIEVE in pagan Gods. But what you do, and probably will do, is throw in more word salad.

"Committing a crime" is quite different from "commit to committing a crime". To commit as in "to carry into action deliberately" has nothing to do with "commitment" in this context.

No, it does not. It means you "make no promises" as to whether or not you will eat one.

Yes, that was my bad, I posted a bad example. I used the word "committ" in a passive form. If I did not commit a crime, if I did not commit a robbery, if I did not commit an action, it means I didn't DO it.

1 a : an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee b : MITTIMUS
2 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b : something pledged c : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>

You find the Merriam's definition for commit reliable? Yet you do not find merriam's definition of atheist reliable. Hmmmmm

[bernee51]

What I would like is for the atheist (WHO BELIEVES THEIR IS NO DEITY) to stop hiding behind agnosticism and make an attempt to prove their position.

I refer you to my response in post 43. I gave a firm account of why i do not hold a god belief.

(I also explained your confusion over the two statements which you claimed to be identical but clearly are not)

We hear no atheistic arguments aganist God in this forum, all we hear is the condemnation of fundamentalists and attempted refutations of theistic arguments.

Please help me here...what would you see as evidence of non-existence?

Think of something you may not beleive exists - eg. the Easter Bunny. Now what would be evidence of its non-existence?

Proving a theist wrong does not prove your case.

No - but it shows that the arguments a theist uses to support god's existence in reality only support a belief in its existence.

Besides the arguments you have brought forward (cosmological, ontological, teleological) only support beleif in agod.

A christian believes in a specific god - how do these arguments support that belief?

I do not attempt to argue aganist dis-belief. I actually think the agnostic position is more logical than the theist and the atheist position.

i.e. no matter whether there is belief in god or not - there can never be knowledge of god.

Do you agree that you are an agnostic?

In what context do you see Dawkins using the word "atheist." A reasonable person would see dawkins saying that we do not BELIEVE in pagan Gods.

That is EXACTLY what he is saying.

Do YOU believe in pagan gods?]

[Crazy Ivan]

Please type in the word atheist into another online dictionary, and then provide the definition and URL for us. Now, I base my conclusion off of respectable dictionaries and if the linguists decide the the word "atheist" is simply one that lacks a belief, I will happily sway my opinion. You, however, reject the definition provided by the dictionary and rely off your own ideas on what the word means, to the point that you begin to argue with language scholars.........

I have. Post #40. There are others. Any definition that states "disbelief", states "lack of belief". These definitions typically offer a basic, more encompassing definition, and one that extrapolates on it.

I will say it once more, since you did not respond, the definition of a word is not always derived from its etymological roots.......Wikipedia reconigzes that:

Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time. will you now argue with wikipedia?

I don't acknowledge wikipedia as particularly authoritative, and I address these matters on the particular merits of each case... like gods. In this case, you have atheists telling you how they relate to the word, and you rather not indulge, and demand they relate to a narrower definition, that you can personally attack. Interesting how you make a case that "words change meaning", but apparently deny self-proclaimed atheists the right to exact change on YOUR perception of the word.

What I would like is for the atheist (WHO BELIEVES THEIR IS NO DEITY) to stop hiding behind agnosticism and make an attempt to prove their position.

I am not agnostic, I am committed to my atheism, or lack of belief in deities.

We hear no atheistic arguments aganist God in this forum, all we hear is the condemnation of fundamentalists and attempted refutations of theistic arguments. Proving a theist wrong does not prove you case.

"My" case? What would that be, exactly? The imaginary case brought about by your whimsical demands on how "atheist" should be defined? I have not made the case that your god does not exist, no matter how much you'd like that.

I do not attempt to argue aganist dis-belief. I actually think the agnostic position is more logical than the theist and the atheist position.

I find it is just "safe". The agnostic is one that does not commit to their theism or atheism.

Let me post something said by Richard Dawkins, what he says is very clear and straightfoward. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... rd-dawkins

Colbert: Those are pagan God's they don't exist.
Dawkins: Yea, you're an atheist about those Gods, everybody here is an atheist about all those Gods, some of us go one God further.

In what context do you see Dawkins using the word "atheist." A reasonable person would see dawkins saying that we do not BELIEVE in pagan Gods. But what you do, and probably will do, is throw in more word salad.

A little Freudian Slip there? Or are you really still oblivious to what we're discussing here?

You find the Merriam's definition for commit reliable? Yet you do not find merriam's definition of atheist reliable. Hmmmmm

So if I have an issue with how they define one word, I'm no longer entitled to use their definitions, even if we both agree to their meaning? How do you figure?

[Skyangel]

If I or anyone else were to turn back, they would be separated from God.

Where is God? He is omnipresent.

Please tell me how can anyone be separated from God If God is omnipresent ?