I asked an theist this and didn't get an answer. Can you help?

[Baby Tea]

You don't need to believe in anything. Some people believe in both the science and the religon (most scientists will hate anyone for this as it is a contradiction).

Pardon?
Religious people don't not agree with science. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. I also haven't heard of any scientists 'hating' anyone for believing in 'both'. Where did you get that information?

But I really hate that terminology that one 'believes in science', since science isn't a belief system. The many different religions of the world? They are a worldview, a belief system, a moral compass, even a social structure in some eastern religions.
Science isn't a worldview, or a belief system, or a moral compass, or anything like that. It's the observation and the recording and theorizing of the world around us for the better understanding of how things work and operate.
Let me toss out this excellent quote from Wikipedia:

"Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work."

So to say that religious people 'don't believe in science' is a really silly thing to say. Not only that but it's a very generalized thing to say, since you're assuming every religious person fits within the narrow mold you've apparently created for what a religious person is and what they believe.

Slightly more on topic:

Theists would think you do as they believe belief is the path to 'salvation'
very simple.

That's pretty much the case. From many a theist's standpoint (Though, admittedly, not all) the believe in God (or gods, depending on the faith) is very much soteriological.

 

[thedelightfulme]

If God IS real...which one is it? Personally I'm hoping for the Norse religon to be right...roll on Valhalla!

 

[albinoterrorist]

If God IS real...which one is it? Personally I'm hoping for the Norse religon to be right...roll on Valhalla!

It could be Big-Boss. O_O

 

[Baby Tea]

To the OP, your question gets no answers because it is itself biased. You start by talking about a need for god, then limit it to 4 religions. If the question is "is there an inherant built in need for god" you need to remove that limitation. With the limitation the answer is no, there is by definition no such built in desire to be part of one of 4 religions, only 3 of which (here I exclude Christianity) are even related in any meaningful way.

Wait, just so I'm seriously understanding you (Because I'm not sure I do): Are you saying that Christianity isn't related to the other Abrahamic religions in a meaningful way?

 

[TheEvilDuck]

Do you need to believe in God? No.

Do you need to be a good person? Yes.

I'm Jewish, and I believe that as long as you're a good person (i.e. benevolent, kind, forward thinking, unselfish, helpful, respectful) you're "fine." What I mean is, being a good person is good enough. And no I don't think believing in God makes you a better person. A lot of dick-holes believe in God and it makes them no...smaller...a dick-hole.

John Lennon = Atheist and a good person.

George W. = Theist and a bad person.

One has no relation to the other in my mind.

 

[Platinum117]

Its a good question i think. I don't believe there is any real need as such but people on both sides of the figurative war between Atheism and Theism can and do lead perfectly happy and perfectly miserable lives.

On a side note many people seem to have taken the view that religious people do not 'agree', whatever the fuck that means in this context, with science. I think a lot of people have just assumed that science is somehow the polar opposite of religion and that religious people must somehow think its is (wrong, evil, lies whatever).

I respect anyone who chooses to believe in a god of any sort but i do ask of them that i am allowed to rip the shit out of their beliefs for my personal amusement. They are welcome to do the same.

 

[Uncompetative]

Christians are theists as well...

...monotheists to be more precise...

I always found that slight amusing, where Christians insist that the God they believe in is both one single God, and at the same time, three separate beings, all of whom are no less than the one single God

The idea just doesn't work. Here it is in algebra

1 God = 3 Gods
(divide by God)
1 =/= 3

or

God/3 = God
(divide by God)
1/3 =/= 1

I believe its called 'reducto ad absurdum', or proof by contradiction. The idea put forward leads to something that cannot happen, therefore the first idea also cannot happen.

Er...

Replace 'God' by "infinity" and you will find that the math works fine.

i.e. infinity divided by any number smaller than infinity is still infinity.

As we have all been told... 'God is infinite'

QED

 

[Sayvara]

Just answere the question; To whom did you ask this?

The original post stated that I asked the question to YouTube user Philos71.

/S

To the OP, your question gets no answers because it is itself biased. You start by talking about a need for god, then limit it to 4 religions. If the question is "is there an inherant built in need for god" you need to remove that limitation. With the limitation the answer is no, there is by definition no such built in desire to be part of one of 4 religions, only 3 of which (here I exclude Christianity) are even related in any meaningful way.

Well I could have said "any god" but since I directed the original question at what I presume is a Christian I chose to ask him if it was necessary to believe in that particular god.

/S

 

[Platinum117]

If you're not too fond of having unanswered questions and aren't all that bothered about the correctness of those answers, then go Abrahamic.

Nonsense. Jewish teaching is all about questioning, understanding, and getting answers. Don't lump all religions related to Abraham together.

To the OP, your question gets no answers because it is itself biased. You start by talking about a need for god, then limit it to 4 religions. If the question is "is there an inherant built in need for god" you need to remove that limitation. With the limitation the answer is no, there is by definition no such built in desire to be part of one of 4 religions, only 3 of which (here I exclude Christianity) are even related in any meaningful way.

Why does it matter what religions he said? Im pretty sure he says earlier on that any religion or god will do. He gave those religions as examples. I don't think the qeustion was baised at all. No opinions were given and the qeustion was merely a question with examples given to explain its points.

 

[albinoterrorist]

Infinity is not a set number, you may as well just stick in X. :/

 

[Baby Tea]

Naw Christians believe in 3 gods that are linked.

No we don't. Trinitarian theology isn't three gods in one, but rather three parts of one God that are distinct.

 

[ThreeWords]

Christians are theists as well...

...monotheists to be more precise...

I always found that slight amusing, where Christians insist that the God they believe in is both one single God, and at the same time, three separate beings, all of whom are no less than the one single God

The idea just doesn't work. Here it is in algebra

1 God = 3 Gods
(divide by God)
1 =/= 3

or

God/3 = God
(divide by God)
1/3 =/= 1

I believe its called 'reducto ad absurdum', or proof by contradiction. The idea put forward leads to something that cannot happen, therefore the first idea also cannot happen.

Er...

Replace 'God' by "infinity" and you will find that the math works fine.

i.e. infinity divided by any number smaller than infinity is still infinity.

As we have all been told... 'God is infinite'

QED

Touche =D
Well said

However, infinity is not a real number. It only exists theoretically for the purpose of wierd and wonderful advanced calculations. It is no more than an abstract, and in the real world, cannot exist. Are 'God' and 'infinity' still interchangeable?

For the record, I'm not against God, but I like to have a hack at things.
Like testing for weak points in an idea to improve the greater whole.

 

[somethingprofound]

My own concept version of Pascal's Wager that covers whole mono/duo/trio/pantheism....
essentially I don't consider the possibility of a 'The God'which is exclusionist, but an 'A God'which makes it appropriate doing whatever e.g. surfing the internet in the name of... A God.
Alas this may sound a bit Aleister Crowley-esque with the whole 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'... oh well

 

[Connor Lonske]

I don't care if god is real or not, i just want people who believe or don't believe in him to get of my way. I'm a neutral party.

 

[Sayvara]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager... personally I'd never use that. It's cheap and dishonest and any kind of deity I would chose to believe had better be able to look through that kind of false lip service or it's one heck of a gullible god which I would think pretty much disquialifies the being from the position.

As far as my position on the theist-atheist scale goes... I don't like labels so here's my personal explanation:

I believe in that which is observable and/or scientifically provable, with the reservation that I myself is an unrealiable observer.

I make the assumption that we will keep being able to produce observations of things and phenonema previously not observed. Exactly what these things are, I have no idea and I make no assumptions about the nature of these new observations.

I also think that we cannot prove the non-existence of anything... we cannot prove there is no god, just as we cannot prove there is no santa claus, tooth fairy, invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster.

/S