Research on Belief in God

[Descender]

@bigmac, whoops I somehow missed your post



Well surely being free means you have the possibility of rejecting God if you want to. Furthermore, almost everybody in the world does have some hunch that there is something divine.

Which is evidence that almost everybody has some hunch that there is something divine, not that evidence that there is something divine.

It took quite some time and philosophy and reasoning to try to get rid of the idea of God(s) or something like that, which up to this very day still seems perfectly obvious to the vast majority of the worlds population.

You talk as if reasoning was bad. There are a gazillion amount of things that seemed perfectly obvious to the vast majority of the world's population, but which we now know to be false. For millennia, it seemed perfectly obvious to most people that the sun moved around the earth, and that time was fixed.

Now of course we can imagine a world in which God's existence would be (even more) obvious. Now why didn't he create such a world? I don't have a clue and to be honest it doesn't particularly bother me.

God, the ultimate cop-out. When I think I found a good explanation, I'll use it. When I can't find a good explanation, I'll just say I don't have a clue and it's not important. Which is another way of stating the proverbial "God works in mysterious ways".

Nope, I'm saying that from a naturalistic worldview a belief in determinism should logically follow.

I agree.

Hence there would be no free choice and without free choice I don't see the point of ethics.

This I can't understand. Whether determinism is true or not, the well-being of conscious creatures matters. It's still wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to a conscious being. That suffering will still be there whether free will exists or it doesn't.

Now that doesn't mean an atheistic society, where everybody believes in naturalism, can't still do it all fine in practice, I'm just saying I can't follow the theory behind that practice.

For lack of trying, I suspect.

Note I specifically talk about 'naturalistic atheism'. But yes, I am indeed associating naturalism with nihilism.

To me it seems to be the logical conclusion, even though I know in practice many atheists are not nihilists. I'm glad people can be atheists and not nihilists, I just don't understand them.

A common short-coming of theists, again related to the lack of empathy towards atheism. I am a naturalist and a determinist. My realisation that free will doesn't exist moved me towards a greater sense of compassion towards my fellow sentient beings in ways that 16 years of Catholic upbringing couldn't.

I doubt one can find a naturalistic purpose.

Hi! Nice to meet you.

I think you can explain human behaviour and ethics in a naturalistic way, but I don't think you can go from there to a normative statement which is needed for a purpose in the sense I'm talking about. So I mean you might be able to argue that the purpose of human behaviour is reproduction because of evolution and so on.

I don't know any naturalistic atheist that thinks the purpose of human behaviour is reproduction due to evolution.

But that's a descriptive statement, not a normative statement, which will be needed for ethics. You can describe why people do what they do based on natural processes, but you can't tell them what to do. Or least, I've never met a naturalist telling me I should go on and reproduce because that's the purpose of my life, or anything along those lines.

No wonder: there aren't any. You're using a strawman argument, again stemming from your inability to comprehend one can believe in normative ethics without believing in God.

And sure, you can add value to things yourself. I guess that's how most atheists go along. They're their own god, ascribing value and meaning and purpose to whatever they like.

This is such an old chestnut, and such a hollow and offensive one. Atheists aren't their own god. Atheists don't believe in gods.

They're truly autonomous; a law unto themselves. Fortunately because of general human moral consciousness, cultural conditioning, law enforcement and so on, it doesn't go out of control. But you know, to me - maybe I'm a coward again - I can see this type of thinking lapse into moral anarchy without using much imagination.

Maybe you should use your imagination. Or just look around. The most atheistic society on earth is Denmark. It's hard to find a theistic Dane. Yet there are few societies on earth that are more compassionate, fair and just than the Danish society.

Stop bashing your own biased and extremely uninformed conception of atheistic morality. Give secular normative ethics a try. On What Matters, by Derek Parfit, for instance.

You won't be surprised to find out I strongly disagree with this. Logic and reason are very important for me and I don't see how my faith contradicts those at all. All arguments against Christianity I'm familiar with I don't find to be very threatening at all. Some pose a challenge, but not one that can't be overcome. Now, I guess it's up to you whether you believe I reached those conclusions in an intellectually honest way or whether I'm being intellectually dishonest. Can't help you much with your (lack of) faith in my intellectual honesty I guess.

I very much doubt you're as dismissive of the objectivity of intellectual honesty in other facets of life.

 

[Jspear]

The talmud and commentators on it say that Moses asked God why the righteous suffer in this world whilst the 'wicked' often seemed to have an enjoyable time. One of the opinions is that God answered because the more the righteous suffer now the less they will after they die. Contrastly the 'wicked' are using all their enjoyment now and will suffer after they die.

All my ideas originate from the bible or commentators on it.

Sorry, let me be a little more specific. You said, "and justify for ourselves as high a position as possible in the world to come after we die. " I don't believe this is a biblical mindset. Yes we want to serve God well in this life, but we are not suppose to be down here thinking of a way for us to have a "greater" place in heaven. That misses the entire point of what heaven is.

 

[alspacka]

Interesting, cycling fans are a more atheist demographic than the general populace. Well done.

 

[frenchfry]

...

And sure, you can add value to things yourself. I guess that's how most atheists go along. They're their own god, ascribing value and meaning and purpose to whatever they like. They're truly autonomous; a law unto themselves. Fortunately because of general human moral consciousness, cultural conditioning, law enforcement and so on, it doesn't go out of control. But you know, to me - maybe I'm a coward again - I can see this type of thinking lapse into moral anarchy without using much imagination.
...

I find this to be an extremely offensive point of view, and one that is too often expressed by "believers"

In no way does believing in god make you intrinsically a better human being. You just have to take a look around you to confirm this.

The problem with your analysis is that it takes "belief" as the starting point, and uses time worn ideology to convince yourself and others that this is the natural state of consciousness. Non-believers are systematically considered (judged) to be less worthy.

I have no problem with you believing what you want, but please show a little respect for those who don't share your beliefs.

 

[Pentacycle]

Interesting, people on internet fora are a more atheist demographic than the general populace. Well done.

Fixed that for you This forum is not representative of the general cycling audience.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Which is evidence that almost everybody has some hunch that there is something divine, not that evidence that there is something divine.

You talk as if reasoning was bad. There are a gazillion amount of things that seemed perfectly obvious to the vast majority of the world's population, but which we now know to be false. For millennia, it seemed perfectly obvious to most people that the sun moved around the earth, and that time was fixed.

Right, I completely agree. I wasn't using this as an argument for God's existence at all. But Bigmac was saying something along the lines of God should have made his existence for obvious and I was pointing out that to the vast majority of the world the fact that something like God exists is perfectly obvious. Now that doesn't prove he exists at all, I agree, but I wasn't busy arguing that. I just thought the fact that something like God seems obvious to most people in the world was a relevant fact in this topic.

Furthermore, maybe you're right I should have phrased myself differently. Of course reasoning isn't bad, but I'm just saying it took quite some effort to get rid of the notion of God. Again this doesn't prove anything, other than that it again supports the fact that the notion of the existence of something like God seems obvious to most people, which is exactly what I was arguing.

God, the ultimate cop-out. When I think I found a good explanation, I'll use it. When I can't find a good explanation, I'll just say I don't have a clue and it's not important. Which is another way of stating the proverbial "God works in mysterious ways".

I don't know, I don't think I was really explaining anything. I was responding to the argument that God should have made his existence more obvious. I was just saying I don't see why he should.

This I can't understand. Whether determinism is true or not, the well-being of conscious creatures matters. It's still wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to a conscious being. That suffering will still be there whether free will exists or it doesn't.

Okay sure, but I guess ethics usually talks about choices. So I don't see how you can talk about ethics if there are no choices to make, because choices don't exist, but everything's determined. I mean, what's the point of exhorting people not to cause unnecessary suffering, when they're not free to choose whether they cause it or not, because it's been determined already. Even you're exhorting is determined already then. Again, if I don't really have a choice in what I do, it wouldn't motivate me to put a lot of effort and reflection in to the choices I make. I'd feel worse than a chess piece, because at least a chess piece is moved for some purpose, whereas in such a deterministic mechanical worldview humans and what they do just happen without any purpose or freedom to choice what they do.

A common short-coming of theists, again related to the lack of empathy towards atheism. I am a naturalist and a determinist. My realisation that free will doesn't exist moved me towards a greater sense of compassion towards my fellow sentient beings in ways that 16 years of Catholic upbringing couldn't.

I guess I come up short here indeed, because indeed I can't understand it at all. But I'm glad it's the case for you, compassion towards your fellow sentient beings is a good thing.

Hi! Nice to meet you.

Hi!

I don't know any naturalistic atheist that thinks the purpose of human behaviour is reproduction due to evolution.

No wonder: there aren't any. You're using a strawman argument, again stemming from your inability to comprehend one can believe in normative ethics without believing in God.

Oh sure, this was a random generalization. You're right there I guess. I think it was bigmac who suggested - not as a very serious suggestion I suppose, just supplying a random example - that a naturalistic purpose of life might be reproduction. Now to my knowledge in evolution the behaviour that spreads genes the best is the one that survives. So therefore you can explain human behaviour in terms of this evolutionistic drive to spread your genes or something along those lines. So then you might try to argue that spreading your genes, in other words reproducing, is the purpose of life from an evolutionistic point of view. Cause that's what we evolved for.

Now I agree with you; I never met an atheist who thinks like that either. So this type of reasoning clearly doesn't work and atheists don't think this way and I'm glad they don't. Now then my question is, how do you describe a purpose in naturalistic terms? What kind of purpose can you derive from a naturalistic worldview?

This is such an old chestnut, and such a hollow and offensive one. Atheists aren't their own god. Atheists don't believe in gods.

Maybe you should use your imagination. Or just look around. The most atheistic society on earth is Denmark. It's hard to find a theistic Dane. Yet there are few societies on earth that are more compassionate, fair and just than the Danish society.

Stop bashing your own biased and extremely uninformed conception of atheistic morality. Give secular normative ethics a try. On What Matters, by Derek Parfit, for instance.

Woah woah, I wasn't talking about atheists in general here. Bigmac said that an atheist might find "a naturalistic purpose like reproducing" or that they might add value themselves even though they don't find a purpose. So first I discussed finding a naturalistic purpose like reproducing and then in this paragraph I expressed my concern for finding value by just adding it yourself. You have to read my post in it's context, you know.

Although I have actually heard atheists say something like people being their own god, of course most of them don't use that type of language or if they do it's obviously a kind of metaphor and they're not claiming some sort of religious self worship. But saying, okay there is no purpose to life, I'll add value myself. Now either I'm misunderstanding this phrase, or it worries me a lot. Because any sort of moral objectivity is gone with the wind imo, if people make up their own purpose and value and whatever. But again, I'm not bashing atheists in general here, I'm referring to a specific line of thinking.

Now I'll take back the line 'this is probably how most atheists get along'. But let me explain what I was thinking there. In my experience not every secular person has this type of elaborate ethics that some thinking atheists might ascribe to. In the secular postmodern society where I grew up in - I don't have 16 years of catholic upbringing and in the Netherlands I grew up in a secular society - most people just try to get along with the people around them and do what they like. You know, there is no grand purpose, no big ethical system, just their own will. Now fortunately, when my secular friends - and I have many of them - do what they feel is right, they're usually very nice friendly people. What they feel is right usually isn't that bad. And when people do have a disturbing feeling of what is right, there's always laws to keep them from doing harm. But what worries me, is that in this secular postmodern society peoples feeling is their highest moral authority. I find that very disturbing. I know I'm probably being too harsh if I accuse the majority of atheists of this, but I certainly see this trend in postmodernism and in society at large. It pops up in cliches like 'just be yourself', 'do what you want', 'follow your heart', 'if it feels right for you it's okay'. Now that's the type of thing that I'm worried about. Because in those types of phrases what people want, what they are and what they feel is their law and moral authority. Then people are truly autonomous. In Greek autos is 'self' and nomos is 'law' so if you're autonomous, it means that you are your own law from an etymological point of view; that's why I hate the term autonomy. Nobody really wants autonomy, because they want the state to enforce some laws as well don't they? But I know the word is used in a different sense in modern English.

Okay, so I got annoyed about something random again and starting ranting; but maybe you can see where I'm coming from a bit. Again, I have many atheist friends and I don't think they're immoral people at all with regard to how they treat me and the people around them. I just don't understand how they do ethics, but I'm glad they and you do.

I find this to be an extremely offensive point of view, and one that is too often expressed by "believers"

In no way does believing in god make you intrinsically a better human being. You just have to take a look around you to confirm this.

The problem with your analysis is that it takes "belief" as the starting point, and uses time worn ideology to convince yourself and others that this is the natural state of consciousness. Non-believers are systematically considered (judged) to be less worthy.

I have no problem with you believing what you want, but please show a little respect for those who don't share your beliefs.

Hopefully this has been addressed a bit in my post above!

But at no point was I discussing the moral practice of atheists. I have many atheist friends and they're often perfectly moral in how they treat their fellow humans. And I certainly also know some theists who aren't. But it's with the idea's behind the ethics that my failure to understand and sometimes worry lies.

 

[alspacka]

Fixed that for you This forum is not representative of the general cycling audience.

I reckon cycling fans have an above average inclination towards internet fora.

We can demonstrate this with a poll here. 100% correlation

 

[Echoes]

Jesus said in Matthew 5, "do not think that I came to abolish the law. I came to fulfill the law." Jesus came on this earth bringing in a New Covenant. He was a "more perfect sacrifice." The Law (Old Covenant) shows us our need for a Savior. It shows us how we can not keep God's high moral standard. In the New Covenant Jesus came and kept the Law perfectly for us. All we have to do is believe in Jesus Christ.

It's a classic objection.

First the reader should be careful with word meaning, in particular the meaning of the word "to fulfill" which does not mean "to enforce" (but that's ok for you, I think).

It's very clear to me that Jesus came to restore an earlier tradition of the Law, when it was universal (Israelite tradition vs Judaite tradition), while Judeans transformed it into one which only held for fellow Judeans. That is what he meant by "Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemy".

I don't think one can equate old alliance or covenant or whatever you want to call it with the old testament.

Okay "Covenant" is the word in English? I just use the word "Alliance" because it's the word in my language. Sorry.

As for the particularism of the Old Testament; Jesus himself says that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). Through faith us gentiles can share in the promise God gave to the people of Israel and in this way through Christ God offers salvation universally to all the peoples of the world.

Also a classic objection (& finally an interesting post on this thread after 1201 ones ). The "Salvation through the Jews" is an idea that has long been debated. Title of a famous book by Léon Bloy, that I have on my tablet but am yet to read.

Actually Jesus didn't use the term "Jews" because it's an anachronism. He would have referred to "Judeans". But that doesn't matter.

I think the explanation is that Jesus predicted that Judeans/Jews would eventually condemning Him to death, so the Romans could crucify Him, hence He could resurrect and save us.

So mankind couldn't be saved if Judeans hadn't done the dirty job. But it doesn't mean that salvation comes from Judaism.

But indeed accusing you of Marcionism is way too harsh. Marcion came up with a bunch of silly stuff and falsified some New Testament books, which obviously you don't do.

Thank you. I didn't really mind though. I know that my thoughts sometimes seem close to Marcionism. I haven't studied Marcion, so you might teach me thinks here.

 

[BigMac]

Peter Singer on the Judeo-Christian God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXsMI1vBx0o

 

[pregalblvd]

If one is certain of the unexistance of gods, then no, it is not faith, for faith implies having doubt on a subject you wish - or not - it is either true or works out on a certain way.

Those who voted for the last option find it clear that God and gods are a human projection or creation, and not the other way 'round. God is denied because it becomes impossible to conciliate it with logic, cosmological science and physics, as well as biology at certain point. Note that Descender writes God and not god(s) which means he can be directing specifically to the Abrahamic religions. The notion of God (which implies an original creator) is incompatible with modern day science - unless you consider the Universe to be God metaphorically.

I guess it depends on your definition of god.
I don't think god implies a creator.
In fact if you wiki "god" you will see this: "god is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith."
I don't think science can rule out a supreme being.
In fact it's very likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe and it is also very likely that there is life that is way more advanced than us.
This would be a supreme being.
There could totally be some sort of creator and science does NOT rule this out either.
A supreme being (an alien) could have seeded life with single celled organisms.
It is not very likely but science does not rule it out.
I don't think anything we have learned in science rules out the possibility of all knowing being somewhere.

However, the god spoken of in the bible can definitely be ruled out by science.

 

[Jspear]

I guess it depends on your definition of god.
I don't think god implies a creator.
In fact if you wiki "god" you will see this: "god is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith."
I don't think science can rule out a supreme being.
In fact it's very likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe and it is also very likely that there is life that is way more advanced than us.
This would be a supreme being.
There could totally be some sort of creator and science does NOT rule this out either.
A supreme being (an alien) could have seeded life with single celled organisms.
It is not very likely but science does not rule it out.
I don't think anything we have learned in science rules out the possibility of all knowing being somewhere.

However, the god spoken of in the bible can definitely be ruled out by science.

How so?

10ch

 

[Ruby United]

I guess it depends on your definition of god.
I don't think god implies a creator.
In fact if you wiki "god" you will see this: "god is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith."
I don't think science can rule out a supreme being.
In fact it's very likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe and it is also very likely that there is life that is way more advanced than us.
This would be a supreme being.
There could totally be some sort of creator and science does NOT rule this out either.
A supreme being (an alien) could have seeded life with single celled organisms.
It is not very likely but science does not rule it out.
I don't think anything we have learned in science rules out the possibility of all knowing being somewhere.

However, the god spoken of in the bible can definitely be ruled out by science.

Scientific theories such as evolution and how the universe was created can clash with the God in the bible but science and that God actually work hand in hand ruling out some theories (not proven facts)

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Peter Singer on the Judeo-Christian God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXsMI1vBx0o

It's interesting that he starts in this fragment by saying that you need to look at the evidence and not what you want in order to determine truth, but then proceeds to make a case for how horrible he thinks God is concluding that he wouldn't want to believe in a God like that........

Also, he talks about looking at the world around us. Now I agree that's what we should do, but I don't agree with his conclusion. Here's a video of John Lennox, who is a professor of Mathematics at Oxford and reaches a very different conclusion than Peter Singer from looking at the world around him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur5GwTi6IpE

 

[Descender]

It's interesting that he starts in this fragment by saying that you need to look at the evidence and not what you want in order to determine truth, but then proceeds to make a case for how horrible he thinks God is concluding that he wouldn't want to believe in a God like that........

What is so interesting about it? He doesn't say he doesn't believe in God because he wouldn't like to believe in him.

Also, he talks about looking at the world around us. Now I agree that's what we should do, but I don't agree with his conclusion. Here's a video of John Lennox, who is a professor of Mathematics at Oxford and reaches a very different conclusion than Peter Singer from looking at the world around him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur5GwTi6IpE

The difference between Singer's and Lennox's conclusion is that Singer's is rational and consistent, while Lennox's is pure wishful thinking with no basis on logic and reason.

Not that it matters to anyone, but reading Peter Singer's work, watching his debate with Dinesh D'Souza and watching John Lennox's debate with Richard Dawkins were the last things I did as a theist.

 

[Jspear]

What is so interesting about it? He doesn't say he doesn't believe in God because he wouldn't like to believe in him.



The difference between Singer's and Lennox's conclusion is that Singer's is rational and consistent, while Lennox's is pure wishful thinking with no basis on logic and reason.

Not that it matters to anyone, but reading Peter Singer's work, watching his debate with Dinesh D'Souza and watching John Lennox's debate with Richard Dawkins were the last things I did as a theist.

I would beg to differ that Lennox's presentation was wishful thinking. I think it is very rational to think that something as amazing and complex as our universe was created by an amazing Designer. Everything in this world, you automatically assume had a creator, a designer. We would call someone crazy and insane if they came onto this forum and tried to say that no one made this website, that it came together by chance. I just bring that same rational thinking into my idea of the origins of the world. Here is an amazing universe....obviously it had a Creator.

 

[kingjr]

I would beg to differ that Lennox's presentation was wishful thinking. I think it is very rational to think that something as amazing and complex as our universe was created by an amazing Designer. Everything in this world, you automatically assume had a creator, a designer. We would call someone crazy and insane if they came onto this forum and tried to say that no one made this website, that it came together by chance. I just bring that same rational thinking into my idea of the origins of the world. Here is an amazing universe....obviously it had a Creator.

Why "a creator", why not many creators?

 

[Jspear]

Why "a creator", why not many creators?

The argument that I just gave only establishes that there is a "creator." It is an entirely different argument to establish who this creator is. I believe the Bible and that there is only "a Creator." I believe the Bible because I believe it is self-authenticating, because of it's accuracy - it has stood through scrutiny all through the centuries, and for many other reasons....Of course it is a huge subject (and one that has been discussed many a time here) and more can be said. I was simply stating that Lennox's view wasn't irrational.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

What is so interesting about it? He doesn't say he doesn't believe in God because he wouldn't like to believe in him.

Well, of course it doesn't really discredit him if he gave different types of arguments in the rest of the lecture, which I don't know because I didn't see it, but it was a little ironic when watching just this fragment.

Furthermore, when I hear Peter Singer or Dawkins or Hitchens or some of these atheists apologists talking about God, I realize that they really really don't want there to be a God. Of course that doesn't discredit their arguments, but they seem to be about as neutral as the christian apologists; which is not at all.

Not that it matters to anyone, but reading Peter Singer's work, watching his debate with Dinesh D'Souza and watching John Lennox's debate with Richard Dawkins were the last things I did as a theist.

Oh I think it's very interesting. Especially when you mention the debate with John Lennox and Dawkins. Before watching the debate I heard a lot about Dawkins but I never heard or read anything by Dawkins himself. But when watching the debate I was surprised to find out it wasn't threatening to me at all. I honestly thought it would be more challenging before watching it, it was almost an anti-climax. In my perception Dawkins was attacking some god he made up himself, a straw man maybe, a figment of his imagination, that had little to do with the God people actually believe in.......

Btw, I don't have a clue who Dinesh D'Souza is. I'm a bit allergic to some of these christian apologists myself. But John Lennox and Alvin Plantinga are two thinkers who have helped me a lot with these questions.

 

[rhubroma]

Furthermore, when I hear Peter Singer or Dawkins or Hitchens or some of these atheists apologists talking about God, I realize that they really really don't want there to be a God. Of course that doesn't discredit their arguments, but they seem to be about as neutral as the christian apologists; which is not at all.

One asks, though, when have the various priestoods ever been neutral in their argumants, in that they want there to be a god?

 

[kingjr]

The argument that I just gave only establishes that there is a "creator." It is an entirely different argument to establish who this creator is. I believe the Bible and that there is only "a Creator." I believe the Bible because I believe it is self-authenticating, because of it's accuracy - it has stood through scrutiny all through the centuries, and for many other reasons....Of course it is a huge subject (and one that has been discussed many a time here) and more can be said. I was simply stating that Lennox's view wasn't irrational.

Which religious books apart from the Bible have you studied and to what extent if I may ask?

 

[rhubroma]

Furthermore, when I hear Peter Singer or Dawkins or Hitchens or some of these atheists apologists talking about God, I realize that they really really don't want there to be a God. Of course that doesn't discredit their arguments, but they seem to be about as neutral as the christian apologists; which is not at all.

The question thus remains which bias is more credible?

 

[Jspear]

Which religious books apart from the Bible have you studied and to what extent if I may ask?

The Book of Mormon, The Jehovah Witness Bible (forgetting the exact name of it right now), and the Quran. These 3 are the main one's (there are others, but none as much as these) that I have looked at. I can't say exactly to what extent I've studied them (don't know exactly how to gauge it), suffice to say I have not studied them as closely as I have the Bible. I guess I could say I've studied them a "fair" amount....??

 

[kingjr]

The Book of Mormon, The Jehovah Witness Bible (forgetting the exact name of it right now), and the Quran. These 3 are the main one's (there are others, but none as much as these) that I have looked at. I can't say exactly to what extent I've studied them (don't know exactly how to gauge it), suffice to say I have not studied them as closely as I have the Bible. I guess I could say I've studied them a "fair" amount....??

What made the Bible stand out for you, in terms of accuracy, compared to these other books? Can you point me to any flaws or inaccuracies these other books possess?

 

[Christian]

Furthermore, when I hear Peter Singer or Dawkins or Hitchens or some of these atheists apologists talking about God, I realize that they really really don't want there to be a God. Of course that doesn't discredit their arguments, but they seem to be about as neutral as the christian apologists; which is not at all.

Yes and no. I don't know Peter Singer, I'll have to check him out. Hitchens of course is famous for comparing religion to totalitarianism. But he also states on many occasions that in some ways yes it would be nice if there was a god, but that doesn't mean that there is, and it doesn't mean that it's moral to tell children and people who have no access to education that there is. It's wishful thinking is all it is.

I attended a funeral two weeks ago. The priest said a lot of nice stuff and I really found myself thinking it would be nice if all this were true. It's comforting and I can see why it helps certain people to believe it. But that doesn't mean it's true

 

[Christian]

I would beg to differ that Lennox's presentation was wishful thinking. I think it is very rational to think that something as amazing and complex as our universe was created by an amazing Designer. Everything in this world, you automatically assume had a creator, a designer. We would call someone crazy and insane if they came onto this forum and tried to say that no one made this website, that it came together by chance. I just bring that same rational thinking into my idea of the origins of the world. Here is an amazing universe....obviously it had a Creator.

Nothing that you see is the result of chance. It is the result of evolution, which is the exact opposite of chance.