There are 5 choices, 13 votes for aztec ghost's debate

why do people still need a god?

we are raised to believe what our parents believed, and so were our parents.

• security purposes

  god isnt real. not in the sense taht people say he is. god is a character created by man to make themselves feel better about the mysteries in life they cant answer straight forward. humans are naturally uncomfortable with the unknown and it scares them. so to fix the problem humans created an answer: god or religions in general. at the moment i think that people are losing their faith more and more and begining to think for themselves instead of relying on a practice. god is the security blanket keeping the questions oof mankind at subdued... for now anyway.

  38%  Voted for by qwestman, Neros Decay, The Blind Bandit, Kei-Aira, minniemouse.

  View 26 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • minniemouse
    August 30, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    i totally agree with this comment, i think people take comfort in thinking there is a god especially when they lose someone in there family or when they have a trauma in there life. If people find comfort in thinking that after life there is a 'heaven' then good on them, if it gives them hope and happiness. But it really..pisses me off to be honest when people push there idea's and thoughts on me. When i go into town and people running around with bibles chase after me to tell me about there beliefs i feel like shouting at them and telling them to get a life! believe in what you wish but for goodness sake dont push it on me !
  • 
    qwestman
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    This makes the most sense to me and I've believed it since i was young. This is the same reason most who follow a religion based on faith that says they will be going to "heaven" argue and debate so heavily for their beliefs. They have made a comfort zone for themselves in their mind and don't want it disrupted. At the same time the more people one can get to believe in the same religion (god) they do, the more this reinforces one's belief of "heaven" after death. Hence, calming the fear of the unknown after death. What i like most about this opinion is that it relies more on reasoning and understanding. as oppose to believing in god with only faith and strength in numbers
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I really feel for you Minniemouse. Maybe we should persecute them for engaging in their rights and liberties. I feel the same way when an athiest comes up to me and rambles on about his 'I know God is not real' bulls***t. Personally I feel like bashing his/her face in (and yeah my anger doesnt care what gender). But I refrain, nevertheless. Your theory poses no reasoning as to why, and how it shows itself to be verified, and, in my interpretation, implied as truth. But if you want to know it from my experience (as this appears to be a theory on experience; you are theorising as to how I conduct my affairs with God, what for, how it makes me feel etc) then I will elaborate for you.
  • • minniemouse
      September 12, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      ..

      Im sorry i didnt mean to cause offence i am just saying that i dont want to be preached to that is all.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        September 13, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Your sincerity is dearly noted. I compassionately refrain. Question(s): If one is aware that it is possible that there may be a way to find God, how would one wish to go about this if not by being preached to? Or have you grounded yourself in your atheistic notions and given up on the notion of God? Are you willing, should He wish to contact you?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I 'experience' God, in the same sense as the Biblical interpretation offers. I feel Him, I 'sense' Him, I recieve revelation and empowerment from and through Him. I cannot validate this as proof of His existence, merely because experience does not produce axiomatical knowledge, although it may cause one to think they 'know it all.' I don't know it all (unlike those pesky athiests.) I don't know that God exists. Sorry. And no I don't use God as a comfort, assurance for heaven; I don't mind the idea of death and nothingness, in fact it seems to me to be a state of bliss. I would be happy with the knowledge that Iwas going to die and my very existence would cease to exist. But what I don't want is this so called 'seperation from God' which is referred to as hell. I will do ANYTHING to stop myself from going there. No thanks. So, in my state of knowledgelessness (cool word; the implications are self-evident), I find something that gives me more understanding, realisation, actuality, discernment, revelation, percieved truth, insight, awareness, conceptualisation, than anything else. So I submit to this, and I believe it in my barren state, through faith, I create desired meaning through a foundational truth that provides promises, so that I may escape a nihilistic fate, through my submission and faith.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    The athiest is the one who is truly ignorant. Ignorant of the philosophical skeptic's claims. When I ask them to validate their experiences and proclaimed knowledge, they fight for a while, but realising their plight, they simply back down, saying "We just DO know. It is self-evident" followed by a stream of 'bag you outs'. If knowledge is self-evident and unable to be challenged when percieved and recieved, then it is transcendental, and seperate to natural law. Natural law has no way of proving itself except by simply being itself and allowing one to observe it. However, the observer has no way to verify this as axiomatical proof, simply because natural law does not proscribe to inducing any mystical notion of its forebearance. The one who denies, has as much right as the one who accepts, because it is not ethically verified. The skeptic's claims would still be rightly so even if, hypothetically, natural law was all there is, because the possible, without ascertaining the known, transcends the natural truth. Natural law does not validate itself through conceptualisation by the man, or by inducing revelation upon the man. If natural law = all truth, one cannot obtain this knowledge, because their is no metaphysical property that supports one's realisation of such a truth.
  • • 
      qwestman
      September 8, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      thank you for supporting my earlier comment
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    no probs, however, I wish to see you elaborate on how one percieves this to be so. You look at it in negative light, while I see it as power. Power over slavery to the rational mind and percieved objective reality. Power over something that may very well cease to exist, and replaced with one reality so different to what is known. Power to deny all but what one has initially recieved and aims to be. Power, through Christ.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Explain to me as to why you claim to have beliefs of your own yet attempt to belittle belief systems through this belief. Explain to me why one wishes to ignore my posts, simply by stating that I supported yours when in fact I was debasing atheism.
  • 
    qwestman
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    because judging by your defensivness on this opinion (like i stated in the above comment about those who believe in a god or heaven) and so many other replies I've seen on this website by you. I can't help but think you have insecurities about what you believe. Believe it or not you use your beliefs as a crutch to protect you from what you do not know. Even if it's only at a subconsious level
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You can attack my character, but ultimately, you should be trying to debase my posts. You can see it as a crutch if you want, and that may be an accurate analogy, but I see it as so much more than that. Even if one does have insecurities, it does not mean to say that these insecurities are due to a failing system. It is merely me who is failing the system, at times. But I am relatively secure in my faith, and will continue to grow even more so everyday.
  • BT37
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Opinions are always personal and usually as such naturally defensive to the individual. qwestman, do you not use your own belief (that TeChNoWC is insecure about his belief) as a crutch against the possibility of his belief actually holding to be at all true? For you to claim otherwise is to contradict your own belief system. I believe that not all Christians simply believe out of faith alone, instead some believe out of combined faith, reasoning and understanding. Not all Christians only believe out of fear of the unknowable, but instead out of love of what they claim to be knowable on a personal level. That is my opinion.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    thank you for added insight. I did in fact address that issue earlier, that qwestman quoted having 'believed' his analysis into existence rather than verifying it. This seems to pose a contradiction, unless of course qwestman is willing to explain his intention in making such claims. My faith isn't purely fideistic in the empirical sense, in fact in the empirical sense, in my experience, both non-God and God believing approaches seem rational. But with further analysis one finds that empiricism is not seemingly inducive of knowledge and so therefore my faith is, in a philosophically skeptical sense, fideistically based. I still have immense experiences and realisations of God though, however, one requires faith and trust to regard these as truth (as with anything, in my opinion). The only alternative to convincing oneself of truth if not by faith is by faith's evil twin brother; deception (to decieve oneself).
  • 
    qwestman
    September 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    My beliefs do not require verification. The simple point I'm trying to make is how arguementative and defensive those who believe in god tend to be.(through my experiences) If you were really that comfortable with your belief why do feel the need to defend it? for instance, I'm comfortable with the way I look. I am confident that I am a beautiful person. If someone makes a comment about how I'm not an attractive person don't you think it would look a little silly for me to rant and rave in my defense that I am attractive? I would appear weak and insecure. The fact is I'm confident and would simply pay no such attention to such a remark because of my security. so I pose the question, why do most (I'd say 80 to 90 percent) of "believers" defend and argue so strongly when there is only a scent, if you will, of athiesm in a conversation? Most of the athiests I know and have seen are very open minded. The few debates I've witnessed or experienced the athiest tends to be very calm and civil while the non-athiest tends to be very aggressive and easily offended. All I'm saying is that with these experiences I'm led to believe most non-athiests are insecure and need the comfort of knowing their life and existance is under control instead of accepting the fact that it is out of control.
  • BT37
    September 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    No belief reqires verification to initially be held, but any belief should be verified when questioned. qwestman you are defending your own belief by claiming that it does not require verification, and by what means are you excluding yourself from the scrutiny of your own belief? I am defending my belief not out of insecurity, but out of the desire to explore and grow in my own understanding of it. I'd be glad for any who support it or debase it, since either way I'll learn from the experience. I agree that it would be silly for you to justify your attractiveness to another person, since their concept of attractive qualities is entirely relative to them. The existence of God is not a relative opinion (although some do hold to that), it is either true or false. God can't be proven, God can only be believed. Some theists would be insecure in their belief, but many theists I personally know (and I am a theist too) do not rant and rave in their own defense, but reason and explain their faith with assured confidence. Also how did you come up with the "80 to 90%" statistic? A sample statistic has a high potential for misrepresenting the population. qwestman it is good if you are secure in your personal belief as an atheist, however currently you are not actually reasoning against the theist belief, but against those who hold the theist belief. Anyways I've seen both theists and atheists remain calm or become aggressive in discussion. Also it is an incorrect assumption to generalise atheists as open-minded (since many are close-minded to the theist belief) even though some would obviously be considered open-minded.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Well, I must say, my experience with athiests in debate has been a lot different. In fact, they may even remain clam but yet hide their insecurity by trying to belittle and derogatise their opponent as much as possible. The initial thread added by Without a Heart seems to me to appear very attack orientated, and emotive. Considering that the opening sentence is 'God isnt real', this seems to me to convey an attack, which only begs for return fire. I am not going to be submissive and back down when challenged in such a fashion. Of course she/he is entitled to say what they want, but I wish to 'stand up' for what I believe, but only when push comes to shove. Seeing error in a post, if I don't oblige myself to try and correct this error, then the post that I do not agree with will stand to convince whoever wishes to look upon it.
  • • 
      Neros Decay
      January 28, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      perhaps its better for you to know who someone is before you start to confine them into whatever category you think they belong in. im not an atheist. im comfortably nested in between atheism and agnosticism, meaning i dont believe in anything now but when provided with proof i could very well adapt into a system of beliefs. saying, "god isnt real" is a sure way to get strong opinions about whatever, as i've noticed. its exactly what im looking for, and its not a personal attack. as of this moment, i do believe god isnt real. thats my opinion and im free to express it as i wish. i dont blow up in the face of anyone who wishes to try to educate me about religion, im not threatened by it and when someone does go as far as to make a personal attack or attack, i find it makes them weak. i enjoy learning and reading about whatever people have to say, which would be the reason for posting such threads. i dont attack, but you can fire as you may. there was no error in the post, only in how it was percieved.
  • 
    qwestman
    September 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "god isn't real" is an attack? So am I to believe that the statement "god is real" is an attack towards athiests? I could be the exception but if someone says "god is real" i feel they are simply making a statement. I feel they are mistaken but i don't feel attacked. If i said "2+2=5" would you feel attacked? It is wrong, no doubt, but how can somebody's ignorance or assumed ignorance in this situation be interpreted as an attack? The American dollar says "in god we trust" on it and almosts all Americans don't have a problem using it atheists and non-athiests alike. However, What if tomorrow the American dollar was changed to say "there is no god" I apologize I didn't clarify. the 80 to 90 percent statistic is based only on my experience and is an assumption I base the understanding or "verification" of my earlier comments. Having been raised Christian, I went on an LDS mission to probably the most diverse christian area in the world. (Bible Belt of America). I've talked to hundreds if not thousands of different athiests and non-athiests alike From many different religions. It was all I did for 13 hours every day for two years. Don't confuse this to believe I still am LDS or christian. Granted this was only a minute part of the Christian world, I believe I'm more qualified then most to answer why "people need a god". I'm sure both of you will give a rebutal after this comment but I'm going to agree to disagree. If it would help you feel more secure with your beliefs you can call our debate a defeat on my part. Thank you both for your comments and all I ask is to keep your mind open.
  • BT37
    September 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Thank you for your clarification qwestman. I wouldn't call this debate a defeat, since we are merely sharing opinions. But you still won't explain why your belief does not require verification. I acknowledge your Christian upbringing, since I was also raised a Christian and knew many Christians, but in my case I was influenced by their hypocrisy to distance myself from it, before later returning to the belief and exploring the belief so it is no longer a mere source of comfort for me, but a reasoned and understandable relationship with my creator caused out of love instead of fear. My reasoning for it not just being a comfort blanket is because I don't use it as a copout explanation of every unknown factor, instead I claim to feel God's presence of love and simply know that from personal experience. The theist point of view would hold that absolute knowledge as such is transendental, as I have interpreted from TeChNoWC's earlier post. If it is not, then on what basis could anyone truly know that it isn't? So in the end qwestman, you are only justifying your positon within this debate, not actually reasoning against the theist argument. You can claim to be more qualified to answer a question, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll know the best answer (however I agree that some Christians do seem to hold to their belief as a security blanket). To remain open-minded, I hold that both the theist and atheist opinions are valid, and both have ample reasoning and understanding along with faith in either the existence or the non-existence of God. Even so, I personally believe that God is real, and desire to defend Him out of my love for Him.
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    the answer to your question is right there in your reply. you will defend your belief in god out of love for him. so you wouldnt need to verify and validate anything to continue believing in it. you would sit there and say, having me believe, that if you were questioned about your belief in god that it is a requirement to state why and provide ample verification and to validate it? no belief requires any fact to follow it or to defend it. the whole point of backing a debate when its centered around your belief is just having faith in that belief to show how powerful it is to you, god or no god. so you dont need verification to back your belief, you just need to have faith in it no matter how many people drill you as to why.
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    my reasoning for saying religion in general is reduced to a security blanket is because religious people will still use god as a reason for things that have already been proven by science. prime examples: disease epidemics, war, evolution. we know why those things happen but ultimately religious people fail to notice and still credit higher beings for it. that alone is sufficient enough for me to conclude that since these discoveries couldnt be drawn up back years and years ago, people ran to religion and god to seek answers fabricating it as we know today.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    To clarify, BT37, no I don't claim revelation to be absolute knowledge. I claim it to be an integral part of my faith because if I was to be an empiricist, then, hypothetically, it would be rather knowledge inducing, and so would be enough for me to have a rational faith in God. However, as a skeptic, I am seemingly forced to have a somewhat, what may seem to you as an 'irrational' faith, as an escape from nihilism, so in that regard qwestman's theory holds credit, but disregarding the philosophical skeptic notions, I would have no trouble (and did not, before I was a skeptic) believing in God and regarding revelation as truth bearing.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Neros, unfortunately no. Revelation, although not inducive to knowledge, is however a strong empiricistically defended claim, and so could be regarded by many as a rational approach to a belief. While faith is a component to the belief, it is still a seemingly rationally held belief within a seemingly irrational world (and concepts). It seemingly pervades that many people claim to have knowledge. The chrsitian claims he knows God is real. The strong athiest claims he knows God is not real. Even some adherents to other religions, beliefs and philosophies may claim knowledge. So, either only one of these people is actually right, or logic is actually a fallible truth bearing system. While one is experiencing revelation or the Holy Spirit they are convinced of its truth bearing. However, while one is at loss (having not recieved a certain revelation or unable to obtain one at a certain time), this person, while not seemingly convinced, requires a level of faith to keep them 'believing'. While one does not seemingly need faith while experiencing revelation directly, it does however appear that faith is a needed component to obtaining revelation in the first place. Many people seem convinced that our senses, being infallible, provide us with axiomatical, infallible knowledge. However, without some sort of metaphyscal notion or transcendence of knowledge one has no basis for such claims. Many claim that they are convinced that such senses are truth bearing, and reliable for knowledge induction. However, one being convinced of something, seemingly, does not make it inherently true. Chemical induction of the mind to be convinced of a certain notion and any other as irrational is not a basis for knowledge, nor would many people consider it a reliable means when stated like this, yet they still do, conscious of it or not. If natural law is the only factor involved in our creation, then no sort of metaphysical notion, transcendent diety or super power is present to acknowledge ones convictions as truth bearing. When the athiest is sure of being right, this is only due to chemical induction upon the brain, and is not in relation to actualisation of a universal, transcendent truth and rationality. When one is convinced of a knowledge basis as being rationalised and truthful, it is only because their brain tells them so. And the brain, having being evolved as a result of its notions being inducive of the ability to survive, has no trouble in involving active deception and flawed perception. If one survives better up to reproduction time because they are convinced of a particular notion, wrong or right, will survive better than the unconvinced. No God or supreme being, according to the athiests claims, would be present to be ethically persuaded to ensure active deception is not involved. So, seemingly, a level of faith is needed to accept the convictions of any proposed notion. One must trust that their experiences are 'trustowrthy' and reliable. But why trust something that has no desire to appropriate? One must trust the Creator before the creation, whatever your notion of creator may be (natural selection, God, Satan, unconscious mind, unknown factor X), whatever. And revelation, being the only method of experiencing such a creator, and only ever seemingly experienced in relation to ones understanding of Christ and the Holy Spirit, seems to me, a 'rational' choice of placing ones trust.
  • BT37
    September 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Thanks for correcting me TeChNoWC. I've already admitted that to me, God would be considered as comforting; along with being much more personally out of reasoning and understanding. Whilst I honestly don't use God an explanatory reason for any scientifically proven concepts or even any unknown concepts, just feeling His love is a source of comfort at all times. However I'm not afraid of simply dying and ceasing to exist at that point, since if this godly love I feel is entirely delusional then I'd say that it has actually served to enrich my temporary earthbound life.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Marvellous! I couldnt have said it better myself. This observation is in sync with my argument on religious ethics seeking to support an evolutionary system (in that the belief in God, and the "serotonin" response to such a belief is inducive of an ethical system within the man himself). Neitszche observed that the elimination of christianity would lead to nihilism as an ethical system that motivated man to action was not intrinsically present.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: