Which is better, believing in a god or not?

No problem, we're in no hurry, I assume you must live a real life with more important things than more or less pointless discussions about religion, at least I hope you do.

I don't know why people believe what they do, people believe all kinds of crazy stuff, even if their God(s) that are neither fair, benevolent nor omnipotent. (Just check about every polytheistic religion out there, those tend to be quite "weak" in terms of divinity.)

And that brings me to the next point, if some kind of God existed there would obviously be a number of factors to whether or not I'd follow it; What are his commands? What will he do to me if I don't obey? What will I gain from following him? Let's take the Christian God for example, him I would most likely try to follow out of fear, fear for my life, fear for my soul. But if he were not omnipotent, like let's say the Greek or the Norse gods, putting up a fight would obviously be an option. Or let's say that the God is not omnipotent, but his message resonates well with what I think myself, why would I not follow him? What would I have to lose?

Well, I'd say that religion limits you down, but not necessarily in a bad way, and I agree with you that babies are not born religious, since they have no understanding of the concept.

Well, I thought that there were reason to point that out; I thought you were using it as an argument for atheism, so I pointed out that it could be used for an argument for something else as well. That was clearly my bad, I should have read it differently.

As long as there are more than one person on earth they will have a different opinion on what justice is, nothing that is subjective can ever be completely universal. Despite that I think that, I understand what you mean but believe that sort of thing to be impossible, it'll work to a certain degree but never completely.

I don't really see what you mean here, and I don't dare to come with a retort, please elaborate.

Firstly, it's she. Hard to tell by the way I phrase things.

And yeah, I get a little wound up sometimes. Oh well. I'm the type that believes in a universal consciousness, that everyone is a small part of the greater whole, yatta yatta yatta. All that.

What I find funny is that people remarked on my comment about atheism, but not that I lumped Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews together in one all-encompassing word.

It is funny because it is the same argument someone on an Apple forum made when they said that Apple invented network addressing since "MAC address" has the word "MAC" in it. There are many ways to describe Atheism, and if you used the term "divine being" rather than "higher power", SeaKitten's argument becomes completely irrelevant. Do you see?

At times and for many people in crisis (or even normal times), it does help to have some belief in a higher power "watching out" for you and your loved ones.

But always remember: most religions' gods are said to have granted humanity free will. So you need to be proactive in your life as well, and not simply use faith or belief in a god as a crutch. :)

So, in short, you can really believe in a god or not: it won't affect your life beyond the realm your personal beliefs and morals, if you are rational about it.

The answer to that question was, "No, there would be no possible reason to follow anything that wasn't benevolent and fair, because that would mean I'm malevolent and not fair. In other words, a dickhead".

I'm saying you don't need to be "not sure". If a God existed that was benevolent and fair, why the hell not support and follow him? Your wave-length pisses my wave-length off.

*Shrug* If it was an agnostic quote, Tyson would have mentioned at least "a possibility of God", right? So by itself, I would say that's an atheist quote.

So are you saying everyone's justice is right? People will have to be wrong, and people will have to be right. There definitely exists a "correct justice".

Have you ever tried to square root one? You can keep doing it, but you'll never reach zero. Life is a lot like that. We should always strive to make the world a better place, even though we'll never reach perfection. In a way, an unreachable goal may be a good thing, as it means we'll always improve. But more specifically, my definition of "better" is where everyone is happy.

I hope you're joking.

It's nothing out of the ordinary. It's not like we're a cabal or something. We live our lives just like anybody else.

What if he is not benevolent or fair, but offers you power, or wealth, or something else? For some people that would obviously be worth following him for. Kinda like the God of Abraham, all those religions have all kinds of promises of rewards in the afterlife, and as we were talking about earlier, that might not be the "right" thing to do in our eyes, but you understand why people would follow him right?

Even if he is benevolent and fair but can't offer you anything, why would you follow him? There would be no reason to do it either. My entire point about this is that these factors obviously plays a part in who people would follow, even if they knew he existed. But then it would no longer be a question about belief, but of worship.

And no, I'm not saying that everyone's justice is right, but neither are they wrong. I'm saying that the concept of right and wrong doesn't exist past a personal level, thus making it irrelevant.

This is basically what I've been trying to say, we will never reach perfection, since as long as there are two views that are not exactly the same (something I think impossible) the will always be confrontation on some level. Now I know what I believe would make the world a better place, and obviously I will strive for that, and if it resonates well with someone else's thoughts, no matter what the motivation behind their opinions are, even if they only do it because they think a magic thunder-wizard in the sky will give them a cookie for it, I'm just happy that we can tag along for a bit on the road.

Then that would be NOT benevolent or fair, thus making that person a dickhead who can only think about themselves. I understand people make mistakes, people can be swayed. That's why I'm saying giving people a magic thunder wizard in the sky as a reason to be good and fair is bad, because then they will just as easily be bad. For me, I use people being happy as a reason to do good. For me, happiness is something I can always count on. The best possible choice, to make as much people as possible happy. Including myself, of course.

Alright, yes, I'm starting to see that you mean wealth and power can sway people to follow a magic thunder wizard. Thusly, they are called dickheads.

Hmph, one justice has to be correct. That is the one that transcends the personal level.

In my eyes, religion is not part of my vision of perfection.

The exact opposite for me. I was never 'instructed' on religious stuff from anyone and wasn't 'informed' about this God character for quite some time. No frame of reference, ya know?

Yes of course, it would be possible for these very same people that do good with the hope that in the end they will be rewarded for it, to do bad things for the very same reasons. (Like, extremists in general) But that doesn't make their good deeds any less good, it only makes their reasoning behind it a bit messed up, but you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Let's just agree to disagree on the concept of justice, I think that the only justice that can ever be "correct" is the justice of the last living organism in the universe, but as long as there are two consciouses there will be different ideas of what justice are.

Religion is part of my vision of perfection, the possibility not to have any religion forced upon you, but to be able to believe in whatever God you wish without having to take crap from others because of it.

I like this narrowing system of discussion.

The reason why we judge people based on their deeds is because intent usually cannot always be proven. Intent does matter. But intent vs. deed can lead to a whole 'nother thread.

All this time you've been saying, "But a God CAN exist, if he's just malevolent". Not only can my proof work both ways, but you should've come to this conclusion already: A benevolent God logically doesn't exist. A malevolent God, regardless of whether he exists or not, I should not follow him. At that point, you might as well say God doesn't exist.

Well, that would depend on each one. Although it´s good to have faith in something, even if it´s yourself.

No, all this time I've been saying that any God can exist, benevolent or not, but whether someone chooses to worship him has more aspects than malevolent vs benevolent.

This thread reminds me of Pascal's Wager