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

[JohnSmith]

Your question is somewhat strangely put. If it isn't necessary in a Maslow's hierarchy of needs style then (drumroll) it isn't necessary. The fact that atheist can and do lead healthy, productive, law abiding lives (well some of them do), which means that there is no societal reason to believe in god abrahamic or otherwise.

 

[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.

Right, just like the Hindu belief.

Except yours argue with eachother/themselves, very odd...

Oh, so you know nothing about Christianity! That makes sense.
Or perhaps you could enlighten me how they argue, since you're obviously quite the trinitarian theologian?

And the Hindu faith has over 3 million gods.
I'm not sure how that's similar.

 

[Estelindis]

Well, I'd like a bit of further clarification on the question. You say that "do I need?" means "is it necessary?" - but necessary for what? Do you mean "is it necessary for me to believe in God to live a fulfilled human life?"? (Erk - punctuation implications of questions about questions...) Do you mean "is it necessary for me to believe in God in order to enter whatever theoretical afterlife may exist?"? Or perhaps something else? Necessity tends towards specificity.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Your question is somewhat strangely put. If it isn't necessary in a Maslow's hierarchy of needs style then (drumroll) it isn't necessary. The fact that atheist can and do lead healthy, productive, law abiding lives (well some of them do), which means that there is no societal reason to believe in god abrahamic or otherwise.

I suspect he's using the philosophical definition of "necessary". Which doesn't map to the hierarchy of needs, because it's talking about a different set of things. Maslow's heirarchy of needs only works on intentional stance objects, the philosophical concept of "necessary" works beyond that. For instance, it is necessary for a square to have four sides.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Except yours argue with eachother/themselves, very odd...

Show me a pack of gods who don't argue with each other..

It's one of the principal indicators that all gods thus far have been man made, they embody all of our best and worst traits magnified, depending on the point the author is trying to make with them at the time.

 

[JohnSmith]

Your question is somewhat strangely put. If it isn't necessary in a Maslow's hierarchy of needs style then (drumroll) it isn't necessary. The fact that atheist can and do lead healthy, productive, law abiding lives (well some of them do), which means that there is no societal reason to believe in god abrahamic or otherwise.

I suspect he's using the philosophical definition of "necessary". Which doesn't map to the hierarchy of needs, because it's talking about a different set of things. Maslow's heirarchy of needs only works on intentional stance objects, the philosophical concept of "necessary" works beyond that. For instance, it is necessary for a square to have four sides.

But since religion doesn't define humanity. It isn't necessary that way either.

 

[Dugarel]

It is never required that anyone believe in God. What's truly important is that you ask yourself if you believe or not. That doesn't mean if you do that you have to follow any particular religion. You can believe in A God and not be religious, I know I am (if that makes any sense).

I personally believe in A God or some creating force that can be understood but not completely comprehended. He/She/It is neither good or evil but just exists since good and evil are a cultural construct.

I hope I at least came close to answering your question.

 

[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

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.

Actually, I never said God was real.

"However, God is not a real thing. God only exists theologically for the purpose of weird and wonderful advanced metaphysics. God is no more than an abstract (existing in thought or as an idea, but not having a physical or concrete existence - hence a metaphysical existence), and does not exist in tangible reality. So 'God' and 'infinity' are still harmonious concepts."

By the way, I am a devout Atheist.

 

[GloatingSwine]

But since religion doesn't define humanity.

That's confusing necessary with sufficient. It is necessary for a square to have four sides, but not sufficient, because trapezoids also have four sides.

It isn't necessary that way either.

However, many of the most outspoken theists, particularly in the American religious right claim that belief in god is necessary in precisely that way, and that people who don't believe are somehow faulty human beings [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html].

So, you've provided your answer, but what the OP was asking for was justification from those who answer otherwise, that belief is necessary.

 

[fletch_talon]

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.

You're not thinking right, its like if there was a 3 person fusion dance in dragonball z, Jesus God and the Holy Ghost all time their movements just right and they fuse into Yahweh but it only lasts 30mins.

 

[beddo]

Of course it is not a human need, this is why people do not.

 

[Abedeus]

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

Yeah. As Christian I am and my family is, I often wonder - what if Allah is real, and our God isn't? Or what if Ganesh/other Hindu gods are the real ones? We'll all go to hell.

 

[Sayvara]

Well, I'd like a bit of further clarification on the question. You say that "do I need?" means "is it necessary?" - but necessary for what? Do you mean "is it necessary for me to believe in God to live a fulfilled human life?"? (Erk - punctuation implications of questions about questions...) Do you mean "is it necessary for me to believe in God in order to enter whatever theoretical afterlife may exist?"? Or perhaps something else? Necessity tends towards specificity.

You can chose any level of "need" you like here.

Firstly as in "Is there anything that necessitates beliving in God". In that sense you may for instance want to add conditions... such as you may try to postulate that I feel it necessary to enter an afterlife, and that this would require me to bdlieve in god. This would leave it up to you to prove the existence of an afterlife (is there one?), how necessary to would be for me to try to enter it (maybe I don't want to?), and that etrance to it requires a belief in god (or I might try to gain access to it in otehr ways?).

And secondly, I specified the following pretty clearly: "...if there is something that necessitates me to believe in God in order to lead a good, healthy, productive and fulfilling life".

So pick any kind of need you want from this. Either try to find a specific kind of need or just use the one I wrote as an example.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

You're wrong by the way. One shouldn't ask rhetorical questions because they might get an unfavorable answer; they shouldn't ask rhetorical questions because asking a question without expecting an answer is a monumental waste of time.

I don't agree. Asking a question may very well be for other reasons than expecting an answer. Rhetorical questions are not meant to be able to prduce answers but rather make some kind of statement in the form of a question. Well put rhetorical are not so much meant to be answered to the qustioner but rather that you should think ask the question to yourself and examine what the answer implies in correlation to some opion you might have.

For example: "If we can show scientifically that nuclear power in fact less polluting and produces better and more reliable electricity to lower prices than say wind power, why are environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, that say they want to save the environment by cutting down on pollution, opposing nuclear power?"

The objective of the question in this case is to make the statement that "greens" are acting counterproductively when they oppose nuclear power and that they should stop doing that.

The problem is though that questions commonly begets an answer which means that someone may completely ignore that you had other another intentions for the question and may instead answer it in order to smash your intended message to bits.

In the example above the greens may try to counter the message by trying to claim that the question is faulty, that there are other things to concider or in any which way oppose the message.

/S

 

[Ago Iterum]

Nobody needs to believe in anything really.

Do they?

 

[GloatingSwine]

Nobody needs to believe in anything really.

Do they?

Nope. Things that exist go on existing irrespective of human belief in them, things that don't exist don't.

 

[Ago Iterum]

Nobody needs to believe in anything really.

Do they?

Nope. Things that exist go on existing irrespective of human belief in them, things that don't exist don't.

Hurray! I can finally stop believing in oxygen.

 

[Danzaivar]

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

Yeah. As Christian I am and my family is, I often wonder - what if Allah is real, and our God isn't? Or what if Ganesh/other Hindu gods are the real ones? We'll all go to hell.

Do Hindu's even have a hell? Allah is the same God as the Christian one btw, you'd just be told off for worshipping him wrong/using outdated rules.

--

OP - Your opening post, to me, reads as 'Do Atheists think you need to believe in a God, and don't say no'. It just looks kind of self-defeating. It's like asking a guy with one arm 'Do you need 2 arms to survive?'...

 

[Sayvara]

OP - Your opening post, to me, reads as 'Do Atheists think you need to believe in a God, and don't say no'.

Uhm... ok? If that is what it reads to you then that's your own lookout I guess. I simply refuse to take any kind of responsibility for that interpretation.

/S