Okay, Ubuntu.
I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference. Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.
I think this is a false statement. While we can't 100% disprove the existence of God, we can disprove many of the claims made about God, and more importantly we can explain why people feel the way they do about God. With things that we don't know the answer to, we can look at all the evidence and then make a decision based on that evidence as to the likelihood of the existence of God. In this case we can see very strong neurological explanations for the phenomenon attributed to God and we can't see any objective evidence
at all suggesting the existence of God.
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.
Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.
How can you make this statement? What logic did you use to come to that assumption? Why does the Universe have to be created at all? Isn't it just as possible that the Universe has always existed as it is possible that God has already existed? Or else what created God? Another God higher than God?
The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence. Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.
How do you make the assumption that the creator would be rational? Natural selection explains perfectly how life began and became as complex as it is, there's no need for a rational being to create life or to guide it. Given the estimated number of planets in the Universe, it seems unlikely it was necessary for the rational creator to set up Earth and our solar system. What did this rational creator do that is rational? Create a lot of big explosions? How can you assume that that is rational? What actual evidence do you have to base this claim on?
You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.' I will try to defend that here: If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was? Before the Universe existed, what was it?
Specifically I'm attacking the point that you've made all these claims without backing them up with a single piece of evidence.
I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.' Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'
What evidence do you have to attribute these "miracles" to God? Do you see how explaining things that you don't understand as the work of "God" is false logic? Why don't you attribute the miracles to Zeus instead?
I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference. I WANT to believe that my mind will go on. This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief. Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.
Yes, on the face of it, that's a nice belief but it's not based on any evidence at all. You have as much reason to believe that your soul will go on as you have to believe that in the afterlife you'll be in a world run by beans. There are plenty of other things that would be nice. You should believe that there is a pirate treasure chest in your backyard as well.
I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell. I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.
I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence. I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.
Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'
The obvious thing wrong with your religion is the fact that you have all these beliefs but you have no reason to back them up. Now on the face of it you haven't demonstrated any beliefs that would cause problems for the rest of people but in fact when we look at the world we can see just what an effect religion has on the world. Because you believe in God, you're really giving more power to all the people who believe in God. If we have to tolerate your beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting them, then we have to tolerate the beliefs of all religious people. How would it be logical to say; "We can respect those beliefs, even though you can't back them up at all but we can't respect your friends beliefs, even though he also can't back them up at all." Religion in the world has a huge amount of power at the moment, and it is power based on a belief in something that has no evidence to support it. Some religious people may not use their power to influence the world but many do. So long as we continue to tolerate the idea that people can hold a view and dictate other people's lives based on it, despite a lack of evidence for that view, we will be forced to tolerate all the many bad points of religion.
You said earlier that a person's religious belief is a small matter, but that's simply not the case. Look at the major conflicts going on in the world at the moment and tell me what it is that is separating those two sides. Ask yourself this, if those two sides suddenly both gave up their religion, would they still be fighting. Who would be fighting who? Over what? But even beyond war we can see a massive influence on the lives of everybody. For example in Australia a few weeks ago we had a debate about therapeutic stem cell research. I'm sure you'd understand that a number of politicians voted in this debate, not on the evidence presented by the scientists or qualified ethicists, but instead, on their own interpretations of what God wants - despite the complete lack of reason to believe this, or even any kind of example of God's views on us living our lives having any credibility at all. Luckily the bill passed but imagine if it hadn't. That would mean that my rights to carry out stem cell research would be censored because of religious opinions that I don't have. Of course, there are plenty of times where that has actually happened, and no doubt it will continue to happen until we move to a society where people base their decisions on rationality and human reasons, not superstition. While your views may not directly effect me, they give more credibility to the people whose views do effect me and all of humanity and are therefore views I have problem with.
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.
Surely an open minded person looks at all the evidence and then decides on the option that is most likely. Evidence against God - well there are 3 major religions in the world, and a huge amount of other religions, all of which contradict each other. It is therefore clear that all but one have to be wrong - at least partially. How can we decide which is correct? How much evidence is there to back up each religion? The fact is that there is no objective evidence and if we accept the fact that they're all equally likely to be right (by keeping an open mind) then we have to accept the fact that the existence of the other religions is evidence that any particular religion is wrong, coupled with the fact that there is no objective evidence, we have to assume that all religions are false and that God is a human construct. In fact the work of many scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, psychologists and neurologists have led as to be able to explain very well why people believe in God and even what they experience when they have religious experiences. We can explain so much. We've also managed to prove large parts of religions wrong through science. For example the world cannot be as young as the bible says it is. We can disprove specific religious claims and we can explain the world in far more detail without God.
So you can claim that atheists are not open minded, but the fact is that they've actually looked at the
evidence and made an assessment based on that. You, on the other hand, have looked at the world, ignored the evidence, and made an assumption that because you can't understand things, there must be a supernatural power. Not being able to understand something doesn't mean you should invent an answer - which is what religion does - it means you should pursue the real answer with great vigour, until you find it.