Why do you(or don't) believe in God?

[StrangerDanger]

Is there a specific reason you believe in a deity? Do you agree with all his(her?) teachings? Do you fear him/her? Or do you just not believe in one and why?

[PinkFloyd]

I'm an agnostic because there's really no way to prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife.

[abc983055235235231a]

Don't believe in the existence of a God in the case that they have to be all good, all knowing, and all powerful. I just think it's implausible.

I'm agnostic in regards to whether or not our existence is, to some extent, contingent on some kind of "creation" at the hands of other beings.

[Ethe14]

I do believe in god but there are something I don't agree with, which is the homosexuality deal and the fact that we need to be as perfect as we can be. I truly believe that god has lenience, not that if we screw up once that it should be ok.That's what confession is for but still. But I still do believe in god even if science says it's not true.

[Croconaw]

I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. You should actually do something to solve your problems, as praying about them is useless. I was bullied all through middle school. My grandma kept on telling me she would pray for me, but it didn't help. Things got better when I did something about it. I transferred school districts, and it was a great decision. A god didn't make things better; I did. I just don't see a reason to believe there is a god.

[maddogmj77]

When I was younger I gave religion a chance, I was agnostic. Then I gained common sense now I'm an Atheist. As George Carlin explained it pretty well, "Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."

[MechaSniper]

I'm not an Athiest but im not a believer. Frankly all that is missing for me to believe is physical proof that he/she/it exists.

[maddogmj77]

I'm not an Athiest but im not a believer. Frankly all that is missing for me to believe is physical proof that he/she/it exists.

That means you are agnostic. You do not deny nor believe the existence of god.

[MechaSniper]

That means you are agnostic. You do not deny nor believe the existence of god.

Thank you. I knew there was a word but I diddn't know it.

[xxdrakeTxx]

im a theistic satanist i dont fear my god he is often helpful and i believe in the conection between enki and satan. and yeah i agree completely with the few teachings we have since its a spirituality more than a religion it basicly says to reach god head (nirvana) through meditation and chakra meditation im also an occultist who enjoys the study of demons and paranormal

[conniption]

I'm atheist because the idea that a supernatural being(s) created the universe and is all knowing just seems like a ridiculous idea. Also, there's absolutely no proof that supports the idea of a God or Gods.

[Tatii99]

I just don't have a reason to believe in any god... but, that doesn't mean I don't believe in some supernatural things.

[backjruton]

EDIT: Here you go, another essay (kinda TL;DR at the bottom :D)

I think I'm an agnostic but I'm still not too sure of that either.

In the stupid examples I've been provided by people I know, if there is a God that people all think of as good and powerful he wouldn't let bad things happen, life would be a lot better and some animals / people wouldn't go through the pain they've gone through. I think I stopped believing completely for some reason when one of our 2 cats was put down for somehow very stupidly breaking 2 of her legs one time, getting them fixed then breaking the other 2 legs while the front 2 were already weaker than before. She was raised in a farm and my parents adopted her so that is partly to be expected as I was told they're mostly weaker, but I was fine before and that put me in really severe depression for quite a long time 2-3 years ago and I think I'm still recovering from part of it, I had to delete all of the pictures off facebook and get rid of a lot of evidence because I couldn't stop crying and for someone like me when you're crying you KNOW something is REALLY bad. But, I started to make things better for myself around that time because I knew I needed to be careful about setting my storms off, so I moved form into the group where all my friends were and even invited one around my house, but that was only twice.

Praying does nothing... Luckily I don't think I have anyone in my family who tries praying to get things they want, it seems a crazy and stupid idea to me. I severely doubt the existance of a God because of these things I've been told, or atleast thought I'd been told because I hated my mum over things I thought she did too, I still don't properly like her but I don't hate her either, that's another good example in my opinion. No thugs, no war, no bad people at all, no illness or terminal disease. I want to believe in an afterlife but I also don't think I can. I believe there MIGHT be something there, but I'm not part of a religion even though I've been christened/baptised (I don't see how sprinkling some water that's apparently holy on your head really works, especially when you're forced to go through it as you can't talk...) and I refuse to go by any proper religious beliefs. All these stupid theories about the end of the world and all the war that's caused because people can't agree with eachother. But I also DON'T believe much of what scientists say, and I really don't want to because I've literally had more panic attacks caused by reading stuff on science or religion than anything else. I unfollowed the DailyMail page on facebook because I saw another stupid religious theory that put me in a 10 minute panic attack, it doesn't take too long for me to calm down but I'm REALLY stressy and it's not very helpful when this kind of thing happens... The thoughts about the big bang, I just find that really stupid, but I also find it stupid that there was one being that existed before anything else. And I don't know whether to believe in creationism or evolution, both of these make sense to me; but I really don't see how everything could have evolved from single cells - my thoughts are that things were created at a certain stage and left to evolve from there. I couldn't really see how we humans evolved from monkeys before, but I certainly do now after meeting my bet friend; and monkeys have always been my favourite animal too, so... :)

I need more proof, because I really do think believing in something would solve my emotional problems quite a bit as I always have the feeling that I'm trapped. Not because I'm never allowed out or anything and my autism is stopping me from making extremely close friends which means I've never been around anyone's house and only had ONE friend around my house TWICE around the time my cat died because I needed cheering up, but because of some of my issues, but because of something about "everything must come to an end", I don't see why everything would happen just for it to cease to exist. THAT is one of the main reasons I considered suicide in the past, so I could put a stop to these thoughts, but I think I soon realized killing myself really wouldn't change anything except for mainly my brother killing himself too as he actually said he would in the long run, I dismissed the thoughts as best I could but I still wasn't perfectly happy and I still aren't now. It has too much of an impact on me. I don't think there's something there, but I don't know that, no one does. And the "homosexuality deal" is Christianity and Catholicism's fault, not what's up there. If anything, it sounds like this is more from Jesus... I just found this online and don't know if I can make any actual sense from it: “Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

Long story short, I don't believe in the thoughts of Jesus, but I do slightly believe in a God. I need physical proof and more evidence on both before I can be sure, because I've dismissed all religious ideas. I think having more proof could sort out some emotional problems, but that's it. I need closure, because science is making me feel worse about everything. That's all there really is to it.

:confused:

[Cognizant]

I'm quite a weirdo when it comes to religion.

Basically, I believe the story of Jesus Christ, but I follow the rules of science instead of what the bible says.

[Dalcourt]

When I was younger someone thought me about Christianity and her views on it...even if I'm not really a Christian, I believe that this person was right. For her religion was not about stories in a book or an invisible man in the sky, it is simply philosophy and ethics. I don't really feel like going in depth here as I usually don't discuss religion with other people. It is too sensitive a topic for most.

As for myself I like to believe in a certain religion...not one of the "mainstream" ones but still...it's kinda nice for me to see a view besides the modern scientific one on how the world works and it gives me some peace in times I need it. Apart from that it is part of my cultural background which I'm proud of and want to preserve.

[Stronk Serb]

I am a Slavic Pagan. Sort of. I don't really believe all the myths and stuff, I just practice the religion because I easily identified with it. If the gods do exist, I don't think they meddle in our affairs. Perun will mot smite my enemies with lightning, not because he doesn't like me, but because he might not exist. What makes me think he might not exist? The fact that there is no evidence of his existence, even the fabricated ones.

[thathelperguy]

I believe in God and here's why. The idea that there is no God and our existence here on earth was completely by chance and random coincidence makes no sense to me. For example plants that carry their own seed to make more plants, or trees that "breathe in" what we breathe out and in return the same trees "breathe out" what we breathe in? Those are just two examples of life that surrounds us all that is too perfect to be total coincidence. There has to be SOME kind of intellectual thought behind it to make it all happen. I choose to call that intellectual being God.

[Left Now]

I'm a Shia Muslim and I follow the Mullah Sadra-Sheikh Baha'ei and Ibn Sina's philosophy about existence of God.In fact,according to this philosophy,sth is ruling this world with superior knowledge and logic which can keep the world in balance,both physically and metaphysically ,and without its rule,the world will lose its stability and turn into an unstable being.

In fact,the thing which is ruling the universe is something Alive,Absolute,Unique and Extraordinary,both physically and metaphysically.We call that absolute thing the God-Allah(means "Unique God"or simply "The God"),which we believe doesn't have any kind of physical structure(by physical i mean body and shape)but it exists;because the balance of the universe exists.

[Miserabilia]

I do not beleive in a god because I don't feel the need to. I don't feel like it really answers any of my questions or grants me personal reasurance, plus I find there is more beauty in a world that explains itself.

[Lovelife090994]

I believe in God because I can feel his love. I also see no wrong in believing in a benevolent figure who blossomed existance. I have always seen myself as Christian and although I am not the most religious I still see by faith, prayer, and love. I guess the reason why I believe is because I love my Lord and Saviour and I have faith in that. I know some don't like religion, but I do just not in a purely religious way since I follow no doctrine.

[phuckphace]

I would be happy to be shown that there is a God or some other higher power, but I'm agnostic with regards to his existence. from what we've discovered about life as we know it, it seems to have arisen without anyone's help, so if I had to hazard a guess I would say God's existence isn't very likely. *shrugs*

[sqishy]

I do and do not believe in god, It depends, I don't take absolutes. Why? Because I find living to be much better if I experienced things more than try and validate meaning and logic in them, which I do, but not as much as before. I have not asked the question of "how?" or "why?" to quite a few things. I find accepting them as exisiting more useful than trying to find a possibly useless truth behind them, whatever it may be. A work in progress really, complicated-ish. In the end I like the relative value and change and difference of things.

[Gamma Male]

I do not believe in God, or any religion or new age spirituality stuff that a lot of other liberal vegans believe. I believe in logic, science, hard determinism, and evolution. There is no fate, or destiny, or choice, or free will. Life is just a ride, and we need to learn to stop worrying and enjoy it for what it is without constantly fretting over an afterlife or a creator.

I believe in God and here's why. The idea that there is no God and our existence here on earth was completely by chance and random coincidence makes no sense to me. For example plants that carry their own seed to make more plants, or trees that "breathe in" what we breathe out and in return the same trees "breathe out" what we breathe in? Those are just two examples of life that surrounds us all that is too perfect to be total coincidence. There has to be SOME kind of intellectual thought behind it to make it all happen. I choose to call that intellectual being God.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, because well, life is wierd. It's fascinating. It's awesome, and unique. And to believe that life exists because of chance, and we evolved all on our own may at first seem completely irrational, but if you look at the facts I think you'll find that it really isn't all that unlikely. The universe is big. Really big. Like, really, REALLY, unimaginably, giganticly, extremely, unfathomunably big. When you consider the vastness of our universe, and all these hundreds of trillions of planets, and all of these elements and minerals just floating around on these hundreds of trillions of planets, and the nearly 10 billion years these elements and minerals have had to float around on these hundreds of trillions of planets, does it really seem so far fetched that maybe, just maybe, on one of these planets, some of these elements could accidentally combine, and replicate? And that over billions of years, the ones that are slightly better at replicating would continue to replicate, and the ones that aren't wouldn't replicate. And that since only the compounds that were good at replicating survived, eventually they became more and more complicated, and grew better and better at replicating until they grew eyes, and legs, and, ears, which helped them to stick around longer and replicate more, and that these randomly occurring chemical compounds grew into microbes, and these microbes grew into plants and fish, and these plants and fish grew into nature today?.

The nature of the universe is self-evident, if only you ask questions, and refuse to be content with something boring as "God did it". The truth is so much more awe inspiring, so much more fascinating. I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs, but if you ever want to get goosebumps and learn something about the nature of your existence, there are plenty of great resources. The "Cosmos" remake on Fox is a pretty good start. :)


-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream.

[mrmee]

Im Christian, so yes, I believe in god. Probably because I was raised in a Christian family. I fear him like I fear my grandmother. She was deadly with a wooden spoon, if you know what I mean. Im not sure I believe everything about him though. Stories probably got stretched over time.

[thathelperguy]

I can definitely see where you're coming from, because well, life is wierd. It's fascinating. It's awesome, and unique. And to believe that life exists because of chance, and we evolved all on our own may at first seem completely irrational, but if you look at the facts I think you'll find that it really isn't all that unlikely. The universe is big. Really big. Like, really, REALLY, unimaginably, giganticly, extremely, unfathomunably big. When you consider the vastness of our universe, and all these hundreds of trillions of planets, and all of these elements and minerals just floating around on these hundreds of trillions of planets, and the nearly 10 billion years these elements and minerals have had to float around on these hundreds of trillions of planets, does it really seem so far fetched that maybe, just maybe, on one of these planets, some of these elements could accidentally combine, and replicate? And that over billions of years, the ones that are slightly better at replicating would continue to replicate, and the ones that aren't wouldn't replicate. And that since only the compounds that were good at replicating survived, eventually they became more and more complicated, and grew better and better at replicating until they grew eyes, and legs, and, ears, which helped them to stick around longer and replicate more, and that these randomly occurring chemical compounds grew into microbes, and these microbes grew into plants and fish, and these plants and fish grew into nature today?.

The nature of the universe is self-evident, if only you ask questions, and refuse to be content with something boring as "God did it". The truth is so much more awe inspiring, so much more fascinating. I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs, but if you ever want to get goosebumps and learn something about the nature of your existence, there are plenty of great resources. The "Cosmos" remake on Fox is a pretty good start. :)


Believe and say what you want about the universe and stars and what not, but I still say there has to be some kind of rational thought behind it. If there isn't and what you're saying is true then we...as the human race...are EXTREMELY lucky to be here, but somehow I don't think any race of beings..human or otherwise...could get THAT lucky. However if you re-read my original post I'm talking about more than the existence of the human race...I'm talking about everything on the planet and how...in some way...it all works together.

[phuckphace]

Believe and say what you want about the universe and stars and what not, but I still say there has to be some kind of rational thought behind it. If there isn't and what you're saying is true then we...as the human race...are EXTREMELY lucky to be here, but somehow I don't think any race of beings..human or otherwise...could get THAT lucky. However if you re-read my original post I'm talking about more than the existence of the human race...I'm talking about everything on the planet and how...in some way...it all works together.

in regard to probability and "luck", keep in mind the massive time frame over which these chance events are said to have taken place. with enough time, even rare events become "frequent", not by the fleeting human perception of time of course, but certainly on the cosmological scale.

think of it this way: let's say there's a national lottery and you buy one ticket every week for the rest of your life. since the odds of winning are very very low, you could easily go your entire life without winning even once. but now let's say you are immortal and have unlimited time to continue playing. after you've played this eternal lottery for 13,400,000,000 years, the probability of winning turns from extremely low to guaranteed. and not just one win either, at that scale you'd win over and over again.

[EddietheZombie]

Already I see piss poor reasons not to believe......

I'm Christian, and I believe because, well, like ThatHelperGuy said. The fact that the writers of the Bible came up with all this and modern science is just now "proving" it is reason enough. To show how ignorant science is, they still don't know the proper way to make damascus. And all of this, everything and all the strange phenomenon that even science can't prove(or ignores) can't be explained. But yet the Bible, who some think is just a fairy tale, predicts and tells of all these things that science has taken so long to discover. The is a saying that is very true, "Communist till you get rich, Feminist till you get married, Atheist till the airplane starts going down."

[Miserabilia]

Already I see piss poor reasons not to believe......

I'm Christian, and I believe because, well, like ThatHelperGuy said. The fact that the writers of the Bible came up with all this and modern science is just now "proving" it is reason enough. To show how ignorant science is, they still don't know the proper way to make damascus. And all of this, everything and all the strange phenomenon that even science can't prove(or ignores) can't be explained. But yet the Bible, who some think is just a fairy tale, predicts and tells of all these things that science has taken so long to discover. The is a saying that is very true, "Communist till you get rich, Feminist till you get married, Atheist till the airplane starts going down."
came up with all this and modern science is just now "proving" it is reason enough.
The bible didn't "come up" with anything that is now proven, and if it did, it doesn't mean they had any superior knowledge.
Also, science is just the act of knowing and predicting; not some kind of beleif or group or filthy act, it's just a very general name for all sorts of things.

But yet the Bible, who some think is just a fairy tale, predicts and tells of all these things that science has taken so long to discover.
Pff. Like what?


Believe and say what you want about the universe and stars and what not, but I still say there has to be some kind of rational thought behind it. If there isn't and what you're saying is true then we...as the human race...are EXTREMELY lucky to be here, but somehow I don't think any race of beings..human or otherwise...could get THAT lucky. However if you re-read my original post I'm talking about more than the existence of the human race...I'm talking about everything on the planet and how...in some way...it all works together.

are EXTREMELY lucky to be here,

Gigantic universe, massive clusters of galaxies, hudnerds of bilions of stars with planets and masses and different elements everywhere; we seem lucky for our viepoint, but considering the odds in the entire universe, there HAS to be life like us. And there is, because we are.
Some have even calculated there being hunderds of civilized civilaztions of aliens in our galaxy alone, by the odds.
I'm talking about everything on the planet and how...in some way...it all works together.
Weelll however it is hard to explain, but I'll try;
things in our planet work in harmony, not by chance, but because if they don't, they will cease to exist;
a system that is unstable will not work and will stop to exist; that is why there are mostly stable systems.
Trees make oxygen because they breathe in Co2 which we breath out; not because they are planned to do it but because if they DON'T, they won't survive, and they wouldn't be here today.

[Gamma Male]

Believe and say what you want about the universe and stars and what not, but I still say there has to be some kind of rational thought behind it. If there isn't and what you're saying is true then we...as the human race...are EXTREMELY lucky to be here, but somehow I don't think any race of beings..human or otherwise...could get THAT lucky. However if you re-read my original post I'm talking about more than the existence of the human race...I'm talking about everything on the planet and how...in some way...it all works together.

We are lucky, but that doesn't make our existing naturally any less likely.If you pass out a million envelopes to a million people, but all of the envelopes are empty except for one with a check for a lot of money in it, then the person who gets that envelope is extremely lucky. But that doesn't mean it was unlikely someone was going to get it. Somebody had to get it. Likewise, there are hundreds of billions, possibly even trillions of planets across the universe capable of supporting life, and earth is one of them. Does this mean that our existence is unlikely or impossible because we got so lucky as to be here? No. It was inevitable. And the reason everything on earth works so well together is because it evolved to work together.

[Miserabilia]

We are lucky, but that doesn't make our existing naturally any less likely.If you pass out a million envelopes to a million people, but all of the envelopes are empty except for one with a check for a lot of money in it, then the person who gets that envelope is extremely lucky. But that doesn't mean it was unlikely someone was going to get it. Somebody had to get it. Likewise, there are hundreds of billions, possibly even trillions of planets across the universe capable of supporting life, and earth is one of them. Does this mean that our existence is unlikely or impossible because we got so lucky as to be here? No. It was inevitable. And the reason everything on earth works so well together is because it evolved to work together.

Couldn't have explained it better (*thumbs up*)

[thathelperguy]

Weelll however it is hard to explain, but I'll try;
things in our planet work in harmony, not by chance, but because if they don't, they will cease to exist;
a system that is unstable will not work and will stop to exist; that is why there are mostly stable systems.
Trees make oxygen because they breathe in Co2 which we breath out; not because they are planned to do it but because if they DON'T, they won't survive, and they wouldn't be here today.


Hmmmm......noooo....sorry not buying it because here's the thing. The things that are there to support our survival as human beings (i.e. plants, fresh water, animals to hunt for food and fur....by earlier generations of people to keep warm and provide shelter) those things can not just randomly be there for our benefit. It may or may not be God as we all think of from the Bible, but there has to be some kind of planning and thought behind it. So, here's my solution to it. No one that's alive today was there to see how it all started obviously so therefore not one of us can say with 100% certainty that what we think how it all started is the 100% truth. You believe what you wish to, which is your right, and I respect that. All I ask in return is you respect my beliefs in the same way.

[ninja789]

Im not really to sure whether something exists but I do still pray when I feel really helpless

[darthearth]

We are lucky, but that doesn't make our existing naturally any less likely.If you pass out a million envelopes to a million people, but all of the envelopes are empty except for one with a check for a lot of money in it, then the person who gets that envelope is extremely lucky. But that doesn't mean it was unlikely someone was going to get it. Somebody had to get it. Likewise, there are hundreds of billions, possibly even trillions of planets across the universe capable of supporting life, and earth is one of them. Does this mean that our existence is unlikely or impossible because we got so lucky as to be here? No. It was inevitable. And the reason everything on earth works so well together is because it evolved to work together.

If you observed this universe and there was no life at all in it, would you then say it was inevitable for life to arise? No. I don't think so. The only reason you think it is inevitable seems to be the fact that we are here. There seems to be no logical reasoning behind saying it is inevitable just because we are here. If you have one, of course, I'll be sure to take note, but I doubt a reasoning can be had. But to me, the big picture (including everything from transcendent cause to consciousness to the world's beauty and complexity to spiritual experiences of the resurrection, heaven and such) most definitely points to an intelligent Creator. Atheists, to me, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

That's my opinion anyway. Many times I have thought VT needs a non-debate discussion thread. Why there is not one I don't know but this OP seems to belong in it as it is just asking for different views, not necessarily to be debated.

[Gamma Male]

Hmmmm......noooo....sorry not buying it because here's the thing. The things that are there to support our survival as human beings (i.e. plants, fresh water, animals to hunt for food and fur....by earlier generations of people to keep warm and provide shelter) those things can not just randomly be there for our benefit. It may or may not be God as we all think of from the Bible, but there has to be some kind of planning and thought behind it. So, here's my solution to it. No one that's alive today was there to see how it all started obviously so therefore not one of us can say with 100% certainty that what we think how it all started is the 100% truth. You believe what you wish to, which is your right, and I respect that. All I ask in return is you respect my beliefs in the same way.

No, we can't prove with 100% certainty that evolution or the big bang are correct. But we also can't prove that Abraham Lincoln actually existed or that the sun is real. In fact, pretty much the only things we can prove with 100% certainty are basic math and our individual existences to ourselves. We can however assign probabilities to things.

So we can't, for example, prove that an Obama is human. And we can't disprove the theory that Obama is actually an autistic unicorn from outerspace here to gather information about KFC chicken. But we CAN say that logically speaking it is very likely that Obama is human, and very unlikely that he's a space unicorn. Just like we can say that evolution and the big bang are very very likely to have occured, and that 7-day creation and the new earth theory, as well as most major religious beliefs, are unlikely. Evolution is perfectly explainable by science without the need for intelligent design.

[Miserabilia]

Hmmmm......noooo....sorry not buying it because here's the thing. The things that are there to support our survival as human beings (i.e. plants, fresh water, animals to hunt for food and fur....by earlier generations of people to keep warm and provide shelter) those things can not just randomly be there for our benefit. It may or may not be God as we all think of from the Bible, but there has to be some kind of planning and thought behind it. So, here's my solution to it. No one that's alive today was there to see how it all started obviously so therefore not one of us can say with 100% certainty that what we think how it all started is the 100% truth. You believe what you wish to, which is your right, and I respect that. All I ask in return is you respect my beliefs in the same way.

those things can not just randomly be there for our benefit.
They aren't randomly there. They are this way because of natural selection, mutations are random though.

[KidKing]

I find it hard to believe there's no meaning to anything.

The fact humans are conscious and capable of reasoning that there's a creator means something, right?
The start of the universe/time also. I know there are arguments against it but I find the idea of causality - that everything starts somewhere - is a strong pointer towards the existence of something.

I don't know how close we are with our religions on earth, but I think there is a creator to the universe and therefore God, I guess.

[thathelperguy]

If you observed this universe and there was no life at all in it, would you then say it was inevitable for life to arise? No. I don't think so. The only reason you think it is inevitable seems to be the fact that we are here. There seems to be no logical reasoning behind saying it is inevitable just because we are here. If you have one, of course, I'll be sure to take note, but I doubt a reasoning can be had. But to me, the big picture (including everything from transcendent cause to consciousness to the world's beauty and complexity to spiritual experiences of the resurrection, heaven and such) most definitely points to an intelligent Creator. Atheists, to me, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

That's my opinion anyway. Many times I have thought VT needs a non-debate discussion thread. Why there is not one I don't know but this OP seems to belong in it as it is just asking for different views, not necessarily to be debated.


FINALLY!!! SOMEONE GETS IT!!! :yeah: And I couldn't have said it better myself. And yes VT def needs a non-debate forum where you say what you have to say and leave it at that and not have it picked apart. After all this thread was started by a simple question of "Why do you (or don't) believe in God?" not "Debate your beliefs until the end of time" But I did learn something from this thread which is religious debates are an ENDLESS argument because both sides think their beliefs are the ONLY ones that are correct and either can not or will not consider the argument of the others' opinions.

[DiamondsGirl]

I grew up religious. My family members are an assortment of Catholics, Christians, Confucianists and Buddhists. I was raised a Confucianist myself and got enrolled to a Catholic school since I was 6. I don't remember how I suddenly decided I don't believe in the existence of a god but I have a feeling I never believed in one anyways. So the moment I grew older and get to know myself better, I realize that I am only believing what my environment taught me to believe. I wanted to be myself, so I chose to believe what *I* believe instead. That, and because during my preteen years I was having a mental crisis.

I felt so betrayed by what I grew up believing in. If there's anything such as god, this world wouldn't be such a bitter place. My parents would be just like any other kids' parents and I wouldn't be harassed for my interests. If there really is such thing as god who protects and loves all men, I wouldn't need to fight my way through teenage years all by myself. I had no friends, no one to talk to, no one to turn to. Every time I cry, I told myself out loud "aw, Liv, it's alright! You're okay!". Every time I have trouble sleeping, I sing myself to sleep. There was only me myself and I.

Plus, I started to see a ton of absurdity in religious practices in my school. Including quotes from the holy bible and all. Almost everything religious folks say make me raise an eyebrow, and I decided I'm not going to be a part of this society.

[EddietheZombie]

The bible didn't "come up" with anything that is now proven, and if it did, it doesn't mean they had any superior knowledge.
Also, science is just the act of knowing and predicting; not some kind of beleif or group or filthy act, it's just a very general name for all sorts of things.


Pff. Like what?






Gigantic universe, massive clusters of galaxies, hudnerds of bilions of stars with planets and masses and different elements everywhere; we seem lucky for our viepoint, but considering the odds in the entire universe, there HAS to be life like us. And there is, because we are.
Some have even calculated there being hunderds of civilized civilaztions of aliens in our galaxy alone, by the odds.

Weelll however it is hard to explain, but I'll try;
things in our planet work in harmony, not by chance, but because if they don't, they will cease to exist;
a system that is unstable will not work and will stop to exist; that is why there are mostly stable systems.
Trees make oxygen because they breathe in Co2 which we breath out; not because they are planned to do it but because if they DON'T, they won't survive, and they wouldn't be here today.

Give it a read and you will see. There are far to many things for me to list, and I don't have enough time for this. I'm not going to do your research for you.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not going to do your research for you.
If you are making a claim then it's your responsibility to substantiate that claim. It's a debate: you're supposed to be presenting the findings of your own independent research, not making vague claims and expecting Cheesee to do the work in substantiating said claims.

Regardless, I don't believe because I'm yet to be presented with a good enough reason to believe.

[phuckphace]

But we also can't prove that Abraham Lincoln actually existed or that the sun is real.

er, we have unequivocal proof for the existence of both of those things. Lincoln's remains are interred in a marble tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery, there is his death mask cast from his face after he died, and original daguerreotypes/photographs of him also still exist. as for the sun, well that one's rather obvious.

[Gamma Male]

er, we have unequivocal proof for the existence of both of those things. Lincoln's remains are interred in a marble tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery, there is his death mask cast from his face after he died, and original daguerreotypes/photographs of him also still exist. as for the sun, well that one's rather obvious.

Did you read the rest of what I said? I was trying to point out that we don't really have absolute, 100% undeniable proof for anything because we rely purely on are senses to observe the universe, and our senses can be fooled. We might as well say that those two things have been proven, because for all intents and purposes they have. But very few things, if any, can be proven with absolute certainy. It is very, very, very likely that Lincoln existed and the sun is real, so likely that we might as well just assume it's been proven. But it hasn't. The point I was trying to make was that just because something hasn't been proven with 100% certainty, or disproven, that doesn't mean you can't assign probabilities and likelihoods to things. I can't prove with absolute certainty evolution, or disprove the new earth theory. But I can say, with absolute certainy, that evolution is very likely and the new earth theory is very unlikely. So much so that evolution might as well just be regarded as having been proven. But it hasn't. It hasn't even been proven that the universe is real. We could all be living in the matrix. This could be a giant hologram. Everyone on earth besides me could not be real. The only thing I know, with absolute certainty, is that I exist. My body might not necessarily exist, but my mind does. Most everything else is impossible to prove.

[Troy35216]

I believe in God and here's why. The idea that there is no God and our existence here on earth was completely by chance and random coincidence makes no sense to me. For example plants that carry their own seed to make more plants, or trees that "breathe in" what we breathe out and in return the same trees "breathe out" what we breathe in? Those are just two examples of life that surrounds us all that is too perfect to be total coincidence. There has to be SOME kind of intellectual thought behind it to make it all happen. I choose to call that intellectual being God.

there is nothing random about Natural Selection. it has nothing to do with chance. how does it make no sense that plants evolved to disperse their seeds but it makes perfect sense that some magical being said "poof!" and there were suddenly plants? and which god do you believe in? Jehovah? Zeus? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah?

I don't understand how some people say there is a god but then say that Zeus and Thor etc. are just myths.

[Miserabilia]

Give it a read and you will see. There are far to many things for me to list, and I don't have enough time for this. I'm not going to do your research for you.

^ this, is why I don't beleive in a god.
:)

FINALLY!!! SOMEONE GETS IT!!! :yeah: And I couldn't have said it better myself. And yes VT def needs a non-debate forum where you say what you have to say and leave it at that and not have it picked apart. After all this thread was started by a simple question of "Why do you (or don't) believe in God?" not "Debate your beliefs until the end of time" But I did learn something from this thread which is religious debates are an ENDLESS argument because both sides think their beliefs are the ONLY ones that are correct and either can not or will not consider the argument of the others' opinions.

If you don't want to debate, post in a DIFFERENT SUB-FORUM, ROTW is a DEBATE and DISCUSSON forum, it is not that difficult! :)

If you observed this universe and there was no life at all in it, would you then say it was inevitable for life to arise? No. I don't think so. The only reason you think it is inevitable seems to be the fact that we are here. There seems to be no logical reasoning behind saying it is inevitable just because we are here. If you have one, of course, I'll be sure to take note, but I doubt a reasoning can be had. But to me, the big picture (including everything from transcendent cause to consciousness to the world's beauty and complexity to spiritual experiences of the resurrection, heaven and such) most definitely points to an intelligent Creator. Atheists, to me, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

That's my opinion anyway. Many times I have thought VT needs a non-debate discussion thread. Why there is not one I don't know but this OP seems to belong in it as it is just asking for different views, not necessarily to be debated.
think it is inevitable seems to be the fact that we are here.
Well that just makes sense, doesn't it? We are here, so it makes sense to say that we are expected to be here, still makes more sense than a supernatural extraordinairy being?
world's beauty and complexity
Man made observations, we are nature and our brains are programmed to find beauty and complexity in things. Beauty and complexity are not suggestive of anything because they are 100% subjective.

spiritual experiences of the resurrection, heaven and such) most definitely points to an intelligent Creator.
And also to aliens, every god, every mythical being, and every fantasy and religion ever? Because that's what you get when you rely on spiritual testimonial.






I find it hard to believe there's no meaning to anything.

The fact humans are conscious and capable of reasoning that there's a creator means something, right?
The start of the universe/time also. I know there are arguments against it but I find the idea of causality - that everything starts somewhere - is a strong pointer towards the existence of something.

I don't know how close we are with our religions on earth, but I think there is a creator to the universe and therefore God, I guess.

that everything starts somewhere

Well that seems like a good point to many people, but the reality is that everything IN OUR UNIVERSE, starts with something else; so that doesn't have to apply to the unvierse itself, know what I mean?

[ksdnfkfr]

If you are making a claim then it's your responsibility to substantiate that claim. It's a debate: you're supposed to be presenting the findings of your own independent research, not making vague claims and expecting Cheesee to do the work in substantiating said claims.

Exactly. Telling someone you can't/won't back up your claims, is basically like saying you are full of hot air.

[conker0118]

i don't because i see nothing that suggests that a God/s exist

[phuckphace]

Did you read the rest of what I said? I was trying to point out that we don't really have absolute, 100% undeniable proof for anything because we rely purely on are senses to observe the universe, and our senses can be fooled. We might as well say that those two things have been proven, because for all intents and purposes they have. But very few things, if any, can be proven with absolute certainy. It is very, very, very likely that Lincoln existed and the sun is real, so likely that we might as well just assume it's been proven. But it hasn't. The point I was trying to make was that just because something hasn't been proven with 100% certainty, or disproven, that doesn't mean you can't assign probabilities and likelihoods to things. I can't prove with absolute certainty evolution, or disprove the new earth theory. But I can say, with absolute certainy, that evolution is very likely and the new earth theory is very unlikely. So much so that evolution might as well just be regarded as having been proven. But it hasn't. It hasn't even been proven that the universe is real. We could all be living in the matrix. This could be a giant hologram. Everyone on earth besides me could not be real. The only thing I know, with absolute certainty, is that I exist. My body might not necessarily exist, but my mind does. Most everything else is impossible to prove.

what I clearly meant was that it has been proven within our perception of reality, in which everything obeys a certain and observable set of physical laws. arguments for solipsism like this one are a waste of time and should be avoided per Occam's Razor, as solipsism makes just as many unprovable assumptions as the belief in the existence of a deity, if not more. how are you even certain your mind exists? what is consciousness? where did this consciousness come from? what is behind this consciousness? etc. etc. etc. on into absurdity.

[Gamma Male]

what I clearly meant was that it has been proven within our perception of reality, in which everything obeys a certain and observable set of physical laws. arguments for solipsism like this one are a waste of time and should be avoided per Occam's Razor, as solipsism makes just as many unprovable assumptions as the belief in the existence of a deity, if not more. how are you even certain your mind exists? what is consciousness? where did this consciousness come from? what is behind this consciousness? etc. etc. etc. on into absurdity.

I agree. Go back to my original post and you'll see that the only reason I pointed this out is because I was trying to make a point to the person that said evolution can't be 100% proven, and creationism can't be disproven so they should both be given equal respect, which is clearly untrue. I was just trying to say you don't have to prove or disprove things with absolute certainty in order judge their validity.

[thathelperguy]

there is nothing random about Natural Selection. it has nothing to do with chance. how does it make no sense that plants evolved to disperse their seeds but it makes perfect sense that some magical being said "poof!" and there were suddenly plants? and which god do you believe in? Jehovah? Zeus? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah?

I don't understand how some people say there is a god but then say that Zeus and Thor etc. are just myths.

Hmmm maybe you should re-read my original post...especially that last sentence...pretty sure you will find the answer to your questions there. Not that it matters to you obviously so why ask in the first place? Oh and one more thing about that last sentence in my original post....I never said what god I believed in only what I choose to call him, which last I checked, I have the right to do

[Lovelife090994]

there is nothing random about Natural Selection. it has nothing to do with chance. how does it make no sense that plants evolved to disperse their seeds but it makes perfect sense that some magical being said "poof!" and there were suddenly plants? and which god do you believe in? Jehovah? Zeus? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah?

I don't understand how some people say there is a god but then say that Zeus and Thor etc. are just myths.

Leave him alone. He said he believes in God, that is his right. Of course if he believes in The God then that does not mean Zeus since Zeus has a name and God's name is that of what he is, a God. Let him speak freely without falling into imbellic speech.

If you observed this universe and there was no life at all in it, would you then say it was inevitable for life to arise? No. I don't think so. The only reason you think it is inevitable seems to be the fact that we are here. There seems to be no logical reasoning behind saying it is inevitable just because we are here. If you have one, of course, I'll be sure to take note, but I doubt a reasoning can be had. But to me, the big picture (including everything from transcendent cause to consciousness to the world's beauty and complexity to spiritual experiences of the resurrection, heaven and such) most definitely points to an intelligent Creator. Atheists, to me, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

That's my opinion anyway. Many times I have thought VT needs a non-debate discussion thread. Why there is not one I don't know but this OP seems to belong in it as it is just asking for different views, not necessarily to be debated.

I agree on the idea of having a non-debate thread. We were asked of our beliefs, why should we have to justify them instead?

[KidKing]

Well that seems like a good point to many people, but the reality is that everything IN OUR UNIVERSE, starts with something else; so that doesn't have to apply to the universe itself, know what I mean?
Yeah you're totally right, and I suppose you could turn it round and say that if God exists without something to create him, why not the universe?

And I don't have an answer :lol:

[Troy35216]

Hmmm maybe you should re-read my original post...especially that last sentence...pretty sure you will find the answer to your questions there. Not that it matters to you obviously so why ask in the first place? Oh and one more thing about that last sentence in my original post....I never said what god I believed in only what I choose to call him, which last I checked, I have the right to do

last I checked you have the right to believe whatever you want. who said you didn't? just like i have the right to my opinion which i gave. so why are we arguing?

Leave him alone. He said he believes in God, that is his right. Of course if he believes in The God then that does not mean Zeus since Zeus has a name and God's name is that of what he is, a God. Let him speak freely without falling into imbellic speech.

dunno why i'm being attacked for asking questions (that were meant for eveyrone not just him). I don't care what he believes or doesn't believe. that's up to him and more power to him. but i do need to correct you, the god of the old and new testaments DOES have a name: yahweh, which in the past has been mistranslated as Jehovah. and it's find me with if people believe in whatever they want. that doesn't mean I'm not curious about how they choose which god to believe in. are you saying I don't have the write to ask questions? everyone else can have an opinion but not me? you believe in god. fine. i believe in natural selection. also fine. since this thread doesn't allow independent thought i'll stop following it. have fun with your "only one opinion allowed" discussion. I'll go fill out more surveys.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Lovelife090994]

dunno why i'm being attacked for asking questions (that were meant for eveyrone not just him). I don't care what he believes or doesn't believe. that's up to him and more power to him. but i do need to correct you, the god of the old and new testaments DOES have a name: yahweh, which in the past has been mistranslated as Jehovah. and it's find me with if people believe in whatever they want. that doesn't mean I'm not curious about how they choose which god to believe in. are you saying I don't have the write to ask questions? everyone else can have an opinion but not me? you believe in god. fine. i believe in natural selection. also fine. since this thread doesn't allow independent thought i'll stop following it. have fun with your "only one opinion allowed" discussion. I'll go fill out more surveys.

You can have an opinion. You cannot nor do you have the right to insult others' beliefs. By accusing him of denial to other gods you basically just undermined every monotheist. I believe in God, Yahweh is his Hebrew name which means God as well. Had I spoke Arabic his name would be Allah. Now, we questioned you since you attacked him, and clearly he felt attacked. Just apologize and all of this will go away.

[Troy35216]

there is nothing random about Natural Selection. it has nothing to do with chance. how does it make no sense that plants evolved to disperse their seeds but it makes perfect sense that some magical being said "poof!" and there were suddenly plants? and which god do you believe in? Jehovah? Zeus? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Allah?

I don't understand how some people say there is a god but then say that Zeus and Thor etc. are just myths.

You can have an opinion. You cannot nor do you have the right to insult others' beliefs. By accusing him of denial to other gods you basically just undermined every monotheist. I believe in God, Yahweh is his Hebrew name which means God as well. Had I spoke Arabic his name would be Allah. Now, we questioned you since you attacked him, and clearly he felt attacked. Just apologize and all of this will go away.

looking but don't see where i attacked him. looking but don't see where i accused HIM (or anyone) of denial. I asked which god he believed in and why that one instead of the others? then i said i don't understand how SOME PEOPLE (not him) say one god is right and the others are myths. I didn't accuse him of saying one god was right. I said I don't understand how SOME PEOPLE can do that. how about I don't apologize since I didn't do anything you accused me of and this all goes away anyway? jesus (yep, surprise surprise I AM A CHRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND JESUS!!) If i'm not allowed to ask questions or express an opinion without being attacked ( for attacking someone else which is hilarious) when i myself am a christian who still believes in natural selection then you just continue the conversation without me and i'll go where it's safe to post. have a good night.

If I wanted to attack someone then I'd say that anyone who says there is no proof that Lincoln ever existed is retarded.

[Lovelife090994]

looking but don't see where i attacked him. looking but don't see where i accused HIM (or anyone) of denial. I asked which god he believed in and why that one instead of the others? then i said i don't understand how SOME PEOPLE (not him) say one god is right and the others are myths. I didn't accuse him of saying one god was right. I said I don't understand how SOME PEOPLE can do that. how about I don't apologize since I didn't do anything you accused me of and this all goes away anyway? jesus (yep, surprise surprise I AM A CHRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND JESUS!!) If i'm not allowed to ask questions or express an opinion without being attacked ( for attacking someone else which is hilarious) when i myself am a christian who still believes in natural selection then you just continue the conversation without me and i'll go where it's safe to post. have a good night.

If I wanted to attack someone then I'd say that anyone who says there is no proof that Lincoln ever existed is retarded.

Great, you missed my entire point. This could have ended in a "fine I'm sorry, forgive me". Since you feel "hurt" sorry for that, although I don't dictate emotions.

[Gamma Male]

If I wanted to attack someone then I'd say that anyone who says there is no proof that Lincoln ever existed is retarded.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not , but if that's what you think I said then you need to reread my posts because clearly you don't understand the point I was making. And I don't appreciate being called retarded by people because they don't make an effort to understand my claims.

[thathelperguy]

dunno why i'm being attacked for asking questions (that were meant for eveyrone not just him). I don't care what he believes or doesn't believe. that's up to him and more power to him. but i do need to correct you, the god of the old and new testaments DOES have a name: yahweh, which in the past has been mistranslated as Jehovah. and it's find me with if people believe in whatever they want. that doesn't mean I'm not curious about how they choose which god to believe in. are you saying I don't have the write to ask questions? everyone else can have an opinion but not me? you believe in god. fine. i believe in natural selection. also fine. since this thread doesn't allow independent thought i'll stop following it. have fun with your "only one opinion allowed" discussion. I'll go fill out more surveys.

Then why did you quote my original original comment if your comment was "meant for everyone not just him" i.e. me? And by the way, you did ask which god I believe in when I pretty much made it crystal clear in my original post.


:)



If you don't want to debate, post in a DIFFERENT SUB-FORUM, ROTW is a DEBATE and DISCUSSON forum, it is not that difficult! :)





It is? I don't see the word debate anywhere in the title of this section....interesting that you say that it is when it's not clearly marked.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[CharlieHorse]

i don't believe in a god because i see no valid evidence supporting the idea. Plus, with so many different religions saying their god is the real god, it makes their claim even less probable.

[thathelperguy]

Three things that point to the fact that The Bible was/is correct.

One Noah's Ark being found. http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/Noah-s-Ark-Has-Been-Found-Why-Are-They-Keeping-Us-In-The-Dark-

Two the nails that were used to nail Christ to the Cross found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8445825/Nails-used-to-nail-Jesus-to-the-cross-discovered.html

And last but certainly not least Christ Himself predicting how the "world" a.k.a. non-believers would feel about Him and His followers http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-22.htm

Some of you asked for proof? There it is. Do with it what you wish, but it seems like pretty convincing evidence to me.

[lyhom]

It is? I don't see the word debate anywhere in the title of this section....interesting that you say that it is when it's not clearly marked.

A bit off-topic:

http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s649/nrubloc/91_zps41bdb07f.png (http://s1310.photobucket.com/user/nrubloc/media/91_zps41bdb07f.png.html)

I see it in there.

Like it or not, this is treated as the debate forum, so to not expect rebuttals of opinions on this forum, especially with the pretty touchy subjects that this forum usually tackles, is kind of ignorant.

[thathelperguy]

A bit off-topic:

image (http://s1310.photobucket.com/user/nrubloc/media/91_zps41bdb07f.png.html)

I see it in there.

Like it or not, this is treated as the debate forum, so to not expect rebuttals of opinions on this forum, especially with the pretty touchy subjects that this forum usually tackles, is kind of ignorant.

Hmmm interesting. Here is what I see at the top of my screen.

Virtual Teen Forums > General Discussions > Ramblings of the Wise

Mmmm nope....don't see anything about debate there, but either way like you said it's off topic so, I won't worry about it too much

[lyhom]

Hmmm interesting. Here is what I see at the top of my screen.

Virtual Teen Forums > General Discussions > Ramblings of the Wise

Mmmm nope....don't see anything about debate there, but either way like you said it's off topic so, I won't worry about it too much

My point was in the description, which says:

"A place to debate and discuss your ideas."

Seriously, the title can only say so much.

Anyways, I'll stop since I don't have anything more to say, as well as the fact that this is clogging up this topic. :P

[Emerald Dream]

It is? I don't see the word debate anywhere in the title of this section....interesting that you say that it is when it's not clearly marked.

A bit off-topic:

image (http://s1310.photobucket.com/user/nrubloc/media/91_zps41bdb07f.png.html)

I see it in there.

Like it or not, this is treated as the debate forum, so to not expect rebuttals of opinions on this forum, especially with the pretty touchy subjects that this forum usually tackles, is kind of ignorant.

Hmmm interesting. Here is what I see at the top of my screen.

Virtual Teen Forums > General Discussions > Ramblings of the Wise

Mmmm nope....don't see anything about debate there, but either way like you said it's off topic so, I won't worry about it too much

My point was in the description, which says:

"A place to debate and discuss your ideas."

Seriously, the title can only say so much.

Anyways, I'll stop since I don't have anything more to say, as well as the fact that this is clogging up this topic. :P

Ramblings of the Wise is the place for discussion and debate here on VT - particularly with topics such as religion, politics, and social issues.

Debate is encouraged here...as long as it is kept civil, free from personal attacks, and stays on-topic.

Speaking of which, lets stay on-topic please.

[Harry Smith]

Three things that point to the fact that The Bible was/is correct.

One Noah's Ark being found. http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/Noah-s-Ark-Has-Been-Found-Why-Are-They-Keeping-Us-In-The-Dark-

Two the nails that were used to nail Christ to the Cross found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8445825/Nails-used-to-nail-Jesus-to-the-cross-discovered.html

And last but certainly not least Christ Himself predicting how the "world" a.k.a. non-believers would feel about Him and His followers http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-22.htm

Some of you asked for proof? There it is. Do with it what you wish, but it seems like pretty convincing evidence to me.

That doesn't prove anything-I could dig up a nail from my own garden and say that it was used to kill Jesus couldn't I? Just because someone says something doesn't make it true you know. Even if a nail was found it doesn't prove that the entire Bible is correct-it just proves that a Jewish man was crucified. Unless you have DNA evidence to prove it was used on Jesus then there's no proof.

You also mention about Noah Arks, people have been claiming that they've found it for the last 100 years and they've always been wrong-just look. Also if Noah's ark was true then how come the animals didn't eat each other?


On 1 April 1933, the Kölnische Illustrierte Zeitung of Cologne published a story about an expedition sponsored by a Mrs. Putrid Lousey and including a "Prof. Mud" from "the Royal Yalevard University" in Massachusetts, the other "Prof. Stoneass." The story was accompanied by pictures, including what looked like a giant boat on a mountainside and also flintlock weapons, presumably for the explorers' protection in the wilderness. On 8 April, the paper admitted the article had been an April Fools Day hoax. Nevertheless, a refugee publication called Rubez adapted and published the story. In turn, a White Russian refugee publication called Mech Gedeona ("Sword of Gideon") ran a Russian-language version. The names became garbled in transliteration, but the same pictures were reprinted each time. In 1972, the Mech Gedeona article came into the hands of Charles Willis of Fresno, California, who provided it to two Ark-search enthusiasts, Eryl Cummings and his wife. John Bradley, another Ark searcher, quickly provided them with the original German text, but even after this, the Cummingses pursued for nearly four more months making sure that the joke names were mistranscriptions into German rather than a hoax.[34]
In 1955, French explorer Fernand Navarra reportedly found a 5-foot wooden beam on Mount Ararat some 40 feet under the Parrot Glacier on the northwest slope and well above the treeline. The Forestry Institute of Research and Experiments of the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain certified the wood to be about 5,000 years old – a claim that is disputed by radio carbon dating, as two labs have dated the 1969 samples, one at 650 C.E. ± 50 years, the other at 630 C.E. ± 95 years.[35] Navarra's guide later claimed the French explorer bought the beam from a nearby village and carried it up the mountain.[33]
In 1970 an Armenian, Georgie Hagopian, claimed to have visited the Ark twice around 1908/1910 (1902 in another version, and 1906 according to a segment in the TV series Unsolved Mysteries) with his uncle. Hagopian claimed that he had climbed up onto the Ark and walked along its roof and that some of his young friends had also seen it. The online archive of the old USENET newsgroup talk.origins[36] notes that "[t]he apparent ease of getting to the ark conflicts with the accounts of other explorers,"[37]

[Chrisscotland]

I do believe in god, but what worries me is for example, the bible, all the stories of God, Jesus etc the people that documented what happened did so from their own perspective, is that what really happened? would someone else have written it differently depending on how they looked at things? how would we really know if what we read is how it really was, how many interpretations of the same story could there be.
don't know if that makes sense.

[plebble]

I am an atheist, which means I do not believe in god.
Theist or Agnostics sometimes argue that there must have been an intelligent designer to this complex universe.
My responding argument is that the universe is massive. Gigantic. There are probably trillions of other alien life forms out there that humans know nothing about. Most of them could be just single-celled organisms or fish-like animals or plants (getting imaginative), some could be like nothing else we've even imagined about and need totally different necessities. We don't know what's out there. And if there is intelligent life out there, they will probably have their own beliefs of how the universe came to be. So who's to say that they're all wrong and the Christians/Hindus/Muslims are right? It just doesn't seem realistic to me that a human-like character or a being created the universe. It only seems complex to us because compared with the rest of the universe, humans might be too thick to actually understand everything. There might be billions of individual universes out there and all the complexities are just a simple part of nature. We make up an incredibly small percentage of the universe, and no such god has been proven.

Thanks for your time if you actually read that :) They're just my views, if you have different views I am not judgemental and I respect everyone's opinion. My last intention is to offend people.

[Professor Moopicorn]

I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. You should actually do something to solve your problems, as praying about them is useless. I was bullied all through middle school. My grandma kept on telling me she would pray for me, but it didn't help. Things got better when I did something about it. I transferred school districts, and it was a great decision. A god didn't make things better; I did. I just don't see a reason to believe there is a god.

I am a Christian and I think you have missed something here. Your grandma said she would pray for you, but you said it didn't work. It did. You said you changed schools right? I know it sounds stupid but I believe it was God who guided you to a new school as a result of your grandmothers prayer. God doesn't usually work in the ways you would expect.

I do believe in god, but what worries me is for example, the bible, all the stories of God, Jesus etc the people that documented what happened did so from their own perspective, is that what really happened? would someone else have written it differently depending on how they looked at things? how would we really know if what we read is how it really was, how many interpretations of the same story could there be.
don't know if that makes sense.

What is in the bible is true because God told the writers what to say, and most of the time the writer is telling a story of his/her own experiences, so they would know exactly what is going on.

That doesn't prove anything-I could dig up a nail from my own garden and say that it was used to kill Jesus couldn't I? Just because someone says something doesn't make it true you know. Even if a nail was found it doesn't prove that the entire Bible is correct-it just proves that a Jewish man was crucified. Unless you have DNA evidence to prove it was used on Jesus then there's no proof.

You also mention about Noah Arks, people have been claiming that they've found it for the last 100 years and they've always been wrong-just look. Also if Noah's ark was true then how come the animals didn't eat each other?

Actually, historians have proved that Jesus did live and was crucified. Of course that doesn't prove the entire bible to be true but it's something. As for Noah's ark, there are many geological factors that would have needed a world-wide flood to achieve, such as the large amounts of coal. For coal to form, needs to be dead animals that end up under water, then mud falls on top until the pressure is so great that it creates coal. Now don't judge me if that's not completely right. In order to have coal all over the world, there would have had to be a flood like the one mentioned in the bible. As for why the animals didn't eat each other, God protected them. They also brought along a bunch of food animals to feed them with so they would not get hungry and eat each other.

Merged triple post. Next time use the "multi quote" function. -Cygnus David

[Harry Smith]

As for why the animals didn't eat each other, God protected them. They also brought along a bunch of food animals to feed them with so they would not get hungry and eat each other.

Oh wow-do you have any evidence for that? I don't understand how God somehow has the power to protect animals, why didn't he help the 6 million jews then? If someone told you on the street that a being had the power to protect you and your family whilst everyone else in the world dies in a flood would you believe them?

The rest of the stuff you said didn't actually prove God's existence-it was just putting 2 and 2 together. It's like me saying '' God must be real because the sky is blue''. Yes the Sky is blue but that doesn't prove the first part of my argument does it?

What is in the bible is true because God told the writers what to say, and most of the time the writer is telling a story of his/her own experiences, so they would know exactly what is going on.

Then why don't we practice Slavery?

[thathelperguy]

That doesn't prove anything-I could dig up a nail from my own garden and say that it was used to kill Jesus couldn't I? Just because someone says something doesn't make it true you know. Even if a nail was found it doesn't prove that the entire Bible is correct-it just proves that a Jewish man was crucified. Unless you have DNA evidence to prove it was used on Jesus then there's no proof.

You also mention about Noah Arks, people have been claiming that they've found it for the last 100 years and they've always been wrong-just look. Also if Noah's ark was true then how come the animals didn't eat each other?

I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the articles I provided links for. This is from the article where they are talking about where they found the nails:

"Two of the boxes were inscribed with the word Caiaphas, which was the name of the Jewish high priest who presided over Christ's crucifixion, according to the New Testament.

He believes the high priest may have wanted them buried alongside his body for their talismanic powers and as divine protection in the afterlife.

"What we are bringing to the world is the best archaeological argument ever made that two of the nails from the crucifixion of Jesus have been found," he said."

As far as DNA evidence is concerned, well that's asking for the impossible now isn't it? Because while there could be DNA on the nails, there isn't anyone to get samples from to compare them with.

And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, the evidence of what they've found pretty much spells it out when they measure what they have buried in the mountain and compare it to scripture.

The Visual Evidence

The first part of the survey was to examine the object and take its measurements. The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

noahs ark found
Photo: http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the "ribs" of the hull [see below]. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded.

noahs ark found

[Miserabilia]

Then why did you quote my original original comment if your comment was "meant for everyone not just him" i.e. me? And by the way, you did ask which god I believe in when I pretty much made it crystal clear in my original post.



It is? I don't see the word debate anywhere in the title of this section....interesting that you say that it is when it's not clearly marked.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

It is? I don't see the word debate anywhere in the title of this section....interesting that you say that it is when it's not clearly marked.

" Ramblings of the Wise (10 Viewing)
A place to debate and discuss your ideas."

Threads in ROTW are for debate and discussion, if you don't want it, leave.

*edit: Sorry I see lots of people already pointed this out to you.

I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the articles I provided links for. This is from the article where they are talking about where they found the nails:

"Two of the boxes were inscribed with the word Caiaphas, which was the name of the Jewish high priest who presided over Christ's crucifixion, according to the New Testament.

He believes the high priest may have wanted them buried alongside his body for their talismanic powers and as divine protection in the afterlife.

"What we are bringing to the world is the best archaeological argument ever made that two of the nails from the crucifixion of Jesus have been found," he said."

As far as DNA evidence is concerned, well that's asking for the impossible now isn't it? Because while there could be DNA on the nails, there isn't anyone to get samples from to compare them with.

And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, the evidence of what they've found pretty much spells it out when they measure what they have buried in the mountain and compare it to scripture.

The Visual Evidence

The first part of the survey was to examine the object and take its measurements. The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

noahs ark found
Photo: http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the "ribs" of the hull [see below]. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded.

noahs ark found


Well what they found is a big boat, and I certainly beleive it's plausible for the biblical tale to be based on it; I just hope you don't actualy beleive that on that boat pairs of two of each animal were put... While all other animals died...

[Professor Moopicorn]

Oh wow-do you have any evidence for that? I don't understand how God somehow has the power to protect animals, why didn't he help the 6 million jews then? If someone told you on the street that a being had the power to protect you and your family whilst everyone else in the world dies in a flood would you believe them?

The rest of the stuff you said didn't actually prove God's existence-it was just putting 2 and 2 together. It's like me saying '' God must be real because the sky is blue''. Yes the Sky is blue but that doesn't prove the first part of my argument does it?



Then why don't we practice Slavery?

I think that maybe God thought the best way to protect his people may have been to bring them home to him. In paradise. God does work in mysterious ways.

As for why we don't practice slavery: the bible isn't a rule book that you have to follow to the exact word! If people had slaves in the bible does NOT mean we have to. People in the bible made mistakes like all of us and that may be another reason they were in the bible. Maybe they were showing us what not to do. And anyway, like I said before, Christianity isn't just following a set of rules. It is trying to do what God would want. Pretty much. But none of us are perfect.

[Lovelife090994]

I think that maybe God thought the best way to protect his people may have been to bring them home to him. In paradise. God does work in mysterious ways.

As for why we don't practice slavery: the bible isn't a rule book that you have to follow to the exact word! If people had slaves in the bible does NOT mean we have to. People in the bible made mistakes like all of us and that may be another reason they were in the bible. Maybe they were showing us what not to do. And anyway, like I said before, Christianity isn't just following a set of rules. It is trying to do what God would want. Pretty much. But none of us are perfect.

Agreed. Many fail to see this.

[Melodic]

I believe in God, I however don't believe in Church.

I don't believe in a lot of the rules and regulations Christianity has pulled on people. A lot of people (not all) has gone out of their way to push bible quotes to insult, hurt, and judge others. It's like Christianity nowadays is used as a weapon and not a religion. Does anyone realize Jesus actually helped people and was friendly to people besides their beliefs and different lifestyles? He was kind to everyone.

I went to a Church, it's speeches said the same stuff I posted above. I thought of them to be the coolest. I had good friends I hung out with there and everything. But guess what? My parents got divorced. They privately messaged my dad and asked him to help with the church (He's an Atheist by the way). They pretty much told my mom not to come again since she broke up with him. Which is sad, because he was abusive. I decided to live with my mom. I went to a Retreat right after that. Everyone was so mean to me there. The teens were bullying me, so was the pastor and everyone else. I felt uncomfortable. Then when I didn't go again, one by one, they all started deleting me on Facebook. They even made it where I never got invites to the activities anymore.

So that is why, I do believe in God but I don't believe in Church. It'll take a lot of will to ever go to one again.

[Lovelife090994]

I believe in God, I however don't believe in Church.

I don't believe in a lot of the rules and regulations Christianity has pulled on people. A lot of people (not all) has gone out of their way to push bible quotes to insult, hurt, and judge others. It's like Christianity nowadays is used as a weapon and not a religion. Does anyone realize Jesus actually helped people and was friendly to people besides their beliefs and different lifestyles? He was kind to everyone.

I went to a Church, it's speeches said the same stuff I posted above. I thought of them to be the coolest. I had good friends I hung out with there and everything. But guess what? My parents got divorced. They privately messaged my dad and asked him to help with the church (He's an Atheist by the way). They pretty much told my mom not to come again since she broke up with him. Which is sad, because he was abusive. I decided to live with my mom. I went to a Retreat right after that. Everyone was so mean to me there. The teens were bullying me, so was the pastor and everyone else. I felt uncomfortable. Then when I didn't go again, one by one, they all started deleting me on Facebook. They even made it where I never got invites to the activities anymore.

So that is why, I do believe in God but I don't believe in Church. It'll take a lot of will to ever go to one again.

Sadly most churches push people away and lack that Christian Love. I too as a Christian do not like church at all. Even the Bible said this would happen.

[Mushin]

Man, I wish I had gotten in on this thread earlier. So many things I would like to say - but is it really my place? Or anyone's place? I doubt it. Every individual views reality from a perception manifested within their own mind, that's why we are individuals after all. That being said, if we're all manifesting our reality through our perception then isn't there some form of connectedness within that alone? Billions of people - on Earth alone - each experiencing a different version of reality. It's a matrix. An existing universe is the foundation, consciousness as the fabric, and billions upon trillions of other life forms each experiencing this existence is what creates an immaculate diversity and yet such a connection among all of us.

I don't think anyone has the right, let alone a basis, to dismantle another person's belief system (strictly speaking that the belief system is independent to humanitarian ethics that affect society as a whole). We all perceive differently as was stated above, therefore metaphysical beliefs cannot be applied to anyone other than yourself. Religious doctrines are flawed primarily in this way because they never emphasize the importance of the singular self and the connected consciousness. It's always that "This teaching applies to everyone following this set of rules." That has never made sense to me and I don't think it ever will.

God as a singular omnipotent entity with an imposing will upon all of the universe has never felt solidified to me for the same reasoning as in the above paragraph. If we are all creating our reality through individualistic thought perceptions then how can an entity impose a singular will that applies to an infinite amount of realities? I think we are all creators. We are the guiding force of ourselves, our own creation influenced by the universe both within us and outside of us.

My personal beliefs would fall best under a mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and scientific Pantheism. I follow the Eigthfold Path to the best of my ability and I embrace the connectedness of the universe within the consciousness of each person. I see us all as creators.

[Miserabilia]

Man, I wish I had gotten in on this thread earlier. So many things I would like to say - but is it really my place? Or anyone's place? I doubt it. Every individual views reality from a perception manifested within their own mind, that's why we are individuals after all. That being said, if we're all manifesting our reality through our perception then isn't there some form of connectedness within that alone? Billions of people - on Earth alone - each experiencing a different version of reality. It's a matrix. An existing universe is the foundation, consciousness as the fabric, and billions upon trillions of other life forms each experiencing this existence is what creates an immaculate diversity and yet such a connection among all of us.

I don't think anyone has the right, let alone a basis, to dismantle another person's belief system (strictly speaking that the belief system is independent to humanitarian ethics that affect society as a whole). We all perceive differently as was stated above, therefore metaphysical beliefs cannot be applied to anyone other than yourself. Religious doctrines are flawed primarily in this way because they never emphasize the importance of the singular self and the connected consciousness. It's always that "This teaching applies to everyone following this set of rules." That has never made sense to me and I don't think it ever will.

God as a singular omnipotent entity with an imposing will upon all of the universe has never felt solidified to me for the same reasoning as in the above paragraph. If we are all creating our reality through individualistic thought perceptions then how can an entity impose a singular will that applies to an infinite amount of realities? I think we are all creators. We are the guiding force of ourselves, our own creation influenced by the universe both within us and outside of us.

My personal beliefs would fall best under a mixture of Mahayana Buddhism and scientific Pantheism. I follow the Eigthfold Path to the best of my ability and I embrace the connectedness of the universe within the consciousness of each person. I see us all as creators.

I aggree.
On the other hand, however, the god debate goes far beyond metafysical.
People who claim god exists claim he has an existing observable impact on our(real) world.

[thathelperguy]

People who claim god exists claim he has an existing observable impact on our(real) world.

Are you saying He doesn't? And if so how do you know for sure that is correct? God isn't going to come perform a miracle in your life with a giant flashing neon sign that says "HERE'S YOUR MIRACLE....HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!" He is much more subtle than that. And it's those subtle things that we have to look for before we can say that He is or isn't making an impact on our lives. Yes some miracles are more obvious than others, but in most cases I believe that it's the more subtle things that He has a hand in. The friend that's there RIGHT when you need him/her to be there. Or, that project that you thought you would never get done for school turned out to be easier then you thought it would be. Yeah, you could say that it's just coincidence that your friend was there or you doing the work is what made the project easier, but how do you know 100% without question for sure? Sorry, but I don't think there is a way that you can. Much in the same way that I can't disprove that there is life on other planets. I've never seen any proof, besides what they put on TV, but that doesn't mean that I can disprove it.

[Harry Smith]

I think that maybe God thought the best way to protect his people may have been to bring them home to him. In paradise. God does work in mysterious ways.

As for why we don't practice slavery: the bible isn't a rule book that you have to follow to the exact word! If people had slaves in the bible does NOT mean we have to. People in the bible made mistakes like all of us and that may be another reason they were in the bible. Maybe they were showing us what not to do. And anyway, like I said before, Christianity isn't just following a set of rules. It is trying to do what God would want. Pretty much. But none of us are perfect.

Not but you said before that we should follow the Bible

What is in the bible is true because God told the writers what to say

So according to you since it's in the Bible it's God's word-look that's what you said above. Surely then if it's God's work then as a good christian you should follow the Bible... this is just what annoys me. Christians just pick and choose on popular positions, it's just a massive PR job. They've been changing there minds for the last 1000 years depending on how public opinion is.

And no God doesn't work in mysterious ways-he simply doesn't work at all. Do you have any evidence that he managed to protect these animals? I mean the whole idea of Noah's Ark is stupid.It's just a childrens tale-if there really were two of each animal they wouldn't be able to repopulate the entire earth because it would requite God's protection for the next 6 generations

[Miserabilia]

Are you saying He doesn't? And if so how do you know for sure that is correct? God isn't going to come perform a miracle in your life with a giant flashing neon sign that says "HERE'S YOUR MIRACLE....HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!" He is much more subtle than that. And it's those subtle things that we have to look for before we can say that He is or isn't making an impact on our lives. Yes some miracles are more obvious than others, but in most cases I believe that it's the more subtle things that He has a hand in. The friend that's there RIGHT when you need him/her to be there. Or, that project that you thought you would never get done for school turned out to be easier then you thought it would be. Yeah, you could say that it's just coincidence that your friend was there or you doing the work is what made the project easier, but how do you know 100% without question for sure? Sorry, but I don't think there is a way that you can. Much in the same way that I can't disprove that there is life on other planets. I've never seen any proof, besides what they put on TV, but that doesn't mean that I can disprove it.

Which is the more obvious answer;

- Our universe is self supportive
- There is a god but he has so little influence that you have to specificly look for it and you can only see it when you beleive it

[Mushin]

I aggree.
On the other hand, however, the god debate goes far beyond metafysical.
People who claim god exists claim he has an existing observable impact on our(real) world.

Well, yeah. In most variations of god there is claimed to be both a metaphysical and a tangeable influence on the universe. The basis however usually stems from metaphysical concepts that influence the physical world around us.

Are you saying He doesn't? And if so how do you know for sure that is correct? God isn't going to come perform a miracle in your life with a giant flashing neon sign that says "HERE'S YOUR MIRACLE....HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!" He is much more subtle than that. And it's those subtle things that we have to look for before we can say that He is or isn't making an impact on our lives. Yes some miracles are more obvious than others, but in most cases I believe that it's the more subtle things that He has a hand in. The friend that's there RIGHT when you need him/her to be there. Or, that project that you thought you would never get done for school turned out to be easier then you thought it would be. Yeah, you could say that it's just coincidence that your friend was there or you doing the work is what made the project easier, but how do you know 100% without question for sure? Sorry, but I don't think there is a way that you can. Much in the same way that I can't disprove that there is life on other planets. I've never seen any proof, besides what they put on TV, but that doesn't mean that I can disprove it.

In the same sense what makes you think god is influencing a personal will on the universe, or more specifically, your existence? If there is an omnipotent singular entity that holds dominion over the universe, then why would it have a personal will? If anything, the force of subconscious attraction would have a stronger determination on the probability of you experiencing certain situations in the physical universe.

Which is the more obvious answer;

- Our universe is self supportive
- There is a god but he has so little influence that you have to specificly look for it and you can only see it when you beleive it

Existence is chaotically balanced, not solidified. It's impossible to have an obvious definition.

[darkangel91]

I don't believe in God because there's no scientific experiment which could disprove the existence of such a thing. Until there is, it is a meaningless question - the world would be exactly the same with a God as without one.

[Miserabilia]

I don't believe in God because there's no scientific experiment which could disprove the existence of such a thing. Until there is, it is a meaningless question - the world would be exactly the same with a God as without one.

That fitted perfectly with your signature! :D

[thathelperguy]

Which is the more obvious answer;

- Our universe is self supportive
- There is a god but he has so little influence that you have to specificly look for it and you can only see it when you beleive it

Are you saying that you need the flashing neon sign that I mentioned for you to believe that there is a God? Just because you think that "There is a god but has so little influence that you have to specifically look for it" doesn't mean He doesn't exist. As I said before the same can be said about life on other worlds, which you and several others have brought up. Just because I have never personally seen evidence of life from other worlds DOES NOT MEAN I can say that it doesn't exist, nor can I say if they do exist that they DO NOT have any influence on me. Trying to prove or disprove something or someone we have never seen makes us sound rather arrogant, especially if we have no evidence to back up our claim.

[Miserabilia]

Are you saying that you need the flashing neon sign that I mentioned for you to believe that there is a God? Just because you think that "There is a god but has so little influence that you have to specifically look for it" doesn't mean He doesn't exist. As I said before the same can be said about life on other worlds, which you and several others have brought up. Just because I have never personally seen evidence of life from other worlds DOES NOT MEAN I can say that it doesn't exist, nor can I say if they do exist that they DO NOT have any influence on me. Trying to prove or disprove something or someone we have never seen makes us sound rather arrogant, especially if we have no evidence to back up our claim.

Are you saying that you need the flashing neon sign that I mentioned for you to believe that there is a God? Just because you think that "There is a god but has so little influence that you have to specifically look for it" doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Our universe can function exactly as it does now. I don't need flashing neon signs, I don't even see a whisper of a sign of "his" existence.

As I said before the same can be said about life on other worlds, which you and several others have brought up.
Except that life on other planets is physicaly completely possible and expected to be there by what we know of the universe...

Trying to prove or disprove something or someone we have never seen makes us sound rather arrogant, especially if we have no evidence to back up our claim.
Ergo all theists are arrogant? :what:

[AliveSiruS]

I would actually want to answer the title's question.

Why "DON'T" I believe in God?

In a simple sentence:
God is only an image that people can look up to and to have faith.

Faith, which is overly used in religion which I think it clouds the mind of people who are in a fanatic-state-OMG-GOD-IS-REAL title from "REALITY".

If there is a God that they consider as a savior of mankind, to protect those who needed protection. Where was he when those people needed him? Does God only give out "miracles" which for me is just a big coincidence. Why would God take a life of a very good human being? Is it because in God's will that good people will go to heaven early if they're too good and kind in life and let the bad ones live as long as they get old? I don't get the perception of this and it's completely crap and shallow.

I'm not an atheist of anti-god/christ or whatever you call it, I'm basing facts and reality in this world that there is no God and we all live our lives as exactly as we want it to be. No misguided figure can stray us from how we live our lives. Believe in yourself more than just a figure.

Still it's disappointing how people close their minds about "reality" and "faith".

'Nuff said.

[tovaris]

there is no god dude, deal with it
i can prove it, in the scripture it is said that if his name should be insulted thau who did so shal be smighted, i dont feel smighted at all

[Professor Moopicorn]

Not but you said before that we should follow the Bible



So according to you since it's in the Bible it's God's word-look that's what you said above. Surely then if it's God's work then as a good christian you should follow the Bible... this is just what annoys me. Christians just pick and choose on popular positions, it's just a massive PR job. They've been changing there minds for the last 1000 years depending on how public opinion is.

And no God doesn't work in mysterious ways-he simply doesn't work at all. Do you have any evidence that he managed to protect these animals? I mean the whole idea of Noah's Ark is stupid.It's just a childrens tale-if there really were two of each animal they wouldn't be able to repopulate the entire earth because it would requite God's protection for the next 6 generations

How would you know anything about being truly Christian if you aren't one? You can't seriously think that what you said is right, can you? When someone says to follow the bible, it does NOT mean follow every single thing word-for-word. And it doesn't mean we are just picking things in the bible that suit us best. Peoples lives can change so much by following the bible and it is hardly ever easy, so how can that be choosing what suits you? And as for Noah's ark, your proof is the existence of every living thing today! God performs miracles and that is how he protected the animals.
You know, I found the way you are talking about my beliefs very offensive. You call it stupid and a children's story. You are trying to "prove" why it's such a big hoax and you clearly have no idea what it is like to be Christian, so everything you say is either wrong or stupid! You should do some research before you try to prove something wrong.
And don't you dare call miracles a lie or stupid. God has saved people in my family in ways that aren't physically possible. How many times has your car BENDED around a kid on a scooter when you are just about to hit him? Or your car is going straight into a tree on the side of a gully with no way of stpopping and it suddenly stops, turns around and is put back on the road facing the other way. This happened when I was only 1 and mum was driving me into town to go to the doctors. She said she thought she was going to die for sure but she felt something lift the back of the car and turn it around onto the road. I was asleep and I didn't even wake up while this happened. So there's your proof of miracles.

[Harry Smith]

How would you know anything about being truly Christian if you aren't one? You can't seriously think that what you said is right, can you? When someone says to follow the bible, it does NOT mean follow every single thing word-for-word. And it doesn't mean we are just picking things in the bible that suit us best. Peoples lives can change so much by following the bible and it is hardly ever easy, so how can that be choosing what suits you? And as for Noah's ark, your proof is the existence of every living thing today! God performs miracles and that is how he protected the animals.
You know, I found the way you are talking about my beliefs very offensive. You call it stupid and a children's story. You are trying to "prove" why it's such a big hoax and you clearly have no idea what it is like to be Christian, so everything you say is either wrong or stupid! You should do some research before you try to prove something wrong.
And don't you dare call miracles a lie or stupid. God has saved people in my family in ways that aren't physically possible. How many times has your car BENDED around a kid on a scooter when you are just about to hit him? Or your car is going straight into a tree on the side of a gully with no way of stpopping and it suddenly stops, turns around and is put back on the road facing the other way. This happened when I was only 1 and mum was driving me into town to go to the doctors. She said she thought she was going to die for sure but she felt something lift the back of the car and turn it around onto the road. I was asleep and I didn't even wake up while this happened. So there's your proof of miracles.

Just because you claim something has happened doesn't make it true- I mean I could say that God this morning floated down from heaven, and gave me an apple. Did that happen? Because by your logic it most certainly did.

In any academic paper/thesis you need to provide something called evidence-this evidence also needs to be backed up, and factually correct. I'm not going to suddenly convert to God because you claim that God has helped save your family.

Also you do know that cars can skid on the road right, like it it's icy you can drive straight hit a piece of black ice and the car can turn around despite you not moving the wheel. It's most likely that it was actually just a piece of ice rather than God. Or it could of been a pothole.

I also still think that the Bible is a childrens story-on several different levels. The man getting eaten by the Whale, the boat transporting all the animals (whilst God kills everyone), the evil talking snake telling the women to eat an apple, the earth being made in 7 days.

I mean why would God put a hip on a whale?

http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/whale-vestigial-structure.jpg

I'm also sorry if my analysis of Christianity has offended you-however I don't need to be a christian to under Christianity. To invoke Godwins law I don't need to be a Nazis to understand germany in WW2

[Professor Moopicorn]

Just because you claim something has happened doesn't make it true- I mean I could say that God this morning floated down from heaven, and gave me an apple. Did that happen? Because by your logic it most certainly did.

In any academic paper/thesis you need to provide something called evidence-this evidence also needs to be backed up, and factually correct. I'm not going to suddenly convert to God because you claim that God has helped save your family.

Also you do know that cars can skid on the road right, like it it's icy you can drive straight hit a piece of black ice and the car can turn around despite you not moving the wheel. It's most likely that it was actually just a piece of ice rather than God. Or it could of been a pothole.

I also still think that the Bible is a childrens story-on several different levels. The man getting eaten by the Whale, the boat transporting all the animals (whilst God kills everyone), the evil talking snake telling the women to eat an apple, the earth being made in 7 days.

I mean why would God put a hip on a whale?

image (http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/whale-vestigial-structure.jpg)

I'm also sorry if my analysis of Christianity has offended you-however I don't need to be a christian to under Christianity. To invoke Godwins law I don't need to be a Nazis to understand germany in WW2

Look, I live in Australia where ice doesn't exist and it couldn't have been a pothole because the car was LIFTED OFF THE ROAD and spun around. Plus the car wasn't even on the road before it was spun around. And just because I say something that I experienced doesn't guarantee it to be true, I know. But I'm just giving some of the many examples in my life that God has helped me. I probably wasn't right to call it "proof".

Also, you do need to at least know what Christianity is really about to know what Christianity is about. You can't tell me how to be a Christian if you don't even know what it is really about.
And I'm not trying to convert you to be a Christian. I'm just trying to show why I think God is real and wish you could stop and consider my way of seeing things for a bit.

[Miserabilia]

Look, I live in Australia where ice doesn't exist and it couldn't have been a pothole because the car was LIFTED OFF THE ROAD and spun around. Plus the car wasn't even on the road before it was spun around. And just because I say something that I experienced doesn't guarantee it to be true, I know. But I'm just giving some of the many examples in my life that God has helped me. I probably wasn't right to call it "proof".

Also, you do need to at least know what Christianity is really about to know what Christianity is about. You can't tell me how to be a Christian if you don't even know what it is really about.
And I'm not trying to convert you to be a Christian. I'm just trying to show why I think God is real and wish you could stop and consider my way of seeing things for a bit.

God is real and wish you could stop and consider my way of seeing things for a bit.

*GNNN*
God is real
*You beleive god is real.
Is god real? We don't know, nobody does, but it's pretty safe to assume there is no god, because

-lack of evidence (Or sign in general)
-generaly no need for a god

[Typhlosion]

I do not feel any need to justify my disbelief in theism, after all, it is a lack of belief.

I can, however, justify why I do not have a theistic viewpoint. Simply, the idea of a deity is unnecessary for me. To need to accept that a deity has created existence of matter and space requires the belief that such deity precedes existence of matter and space itself and was not previously created. But if we may place a deity as a justification for the universe without justification for such deity, why can we not accept the universe itself without such justification? A deity is not a necessity, but still may be welcome.

Any accounts by human experiences are unreliable, unfortunately. To take any account from a materialistic object can not be proof of a spiritualistic object. I would, personally, need to experience a spiritualistic object, but to do so I would necessarily need to be, myself, spiritualistic; for the materialistic may not observe such that goes beyond its own dimension - witness of a materialized deity (as I can only perceive through materialistic senses) would be of no significance to me without the spiritualistic part.

I say this, however, as a hard determinist. I do not believe in free will and every action taken, by myself, is only a consequence of a previous state of mine. And such applies to each object and each object interacting with each other. I can not believe in a supernatural idea of consciousness and so I must believe in any materialistic action, as absurd as it is, as the consequence of another materialistic action. Who says that a being (say extraterrestrial) could not manipulate actions we currently believe impossible and claim itself as a deity?

I will say that part of my atheism is to blame to my parents, who did not nurture any theistic view upon me until I was 16 and nagging for their view, which was either agnosticism or atheism. I had limited contact with religion, having only attended 3 masses and no friends from ages 7 to 9, limited language/knowledge from 9 to 11 (in Brazil w/o proper portuguese). I developed after making friendship with a to-be priest in middle-school with several debates on both theism and christianity.

[Professor Moopicorn]

*GNNN*

*You beleive god is real.
Is god real? We don't know, nobody does, but it's pretty safe to assume there is no god, because

-lack of evidence (Or sign in general)
-generaly no need for a god

Trust me mate, we need God a lot more than you think.

[Miserabilia]

Trust me mate, we need God a lot more than you think.

Yes, I can totally tell by the amount of evidence that god changes so many things here and that if he wouldn't be there the world would totally fall apart.

[Professor Moopicorn]

Yes, I can totally tell by the amount of evidence that god changes so many things here and that if he wouldn't be there the world would totally fall apart.

Look, I know that I can't get my point across to anyone here but I know God is real. If I told you that I had experienced miracles in my life, you would probably just say "It's just a coincidence! There's no such thing! You have no proof! It's just blah blah blah." If it was just a coincidence every time then I must be the luckiest guy on earth! Every time I needed Gods help and asked, everything has turned out well. Maybe it wasn't the way I expected or when I thought, but it did happen. So if I didn't have God, I probably wouldn't be here.

[Miserabilia]

Look, I know that I can't get my point across to anyone here but I know God is real. If I told you that I had experienced miracles in my life, you would probably just say "It's just a coincidence! There's no such thing! You have no proof! It's just blah blah blah." If it was just a coincidence every time then I must be the luckiest guy on earth! Every time I needed Gods help and asked, everything has turned out well. Maybe it wasn't the way I expected or when I thought, but it did happen. So if I didn't have God, I probably wouldn't be here.

Well actualy, you haven't even told me of any "miracle'.
What miracles are you refering to?

[Professor Moopicorn]

Well actualy, you haven't even told me of any "miracle'.
What miracles are you refering to?

Well I kind of think its a miracle that I didn't die horribly in a car accident when I was one.

[Miserabilia]

Well I kind of think its a miracle that I didn't die horribly in a car accident when I was one.

Okay. I don't want to go in deep on personal issues and beleifs of you as in the fact that you survived (Which is amazing!).
But all I have to say is; there's always a chance.

[Professor Moopicorn]

Okay. I don't want to go in deep on personal issues and beleifs of you as in the fact that you survived (Which is amazing!).
But all I have to say is; there's always a chance.

True. But sometimes it's a very small chance. That's why I believe this was a miracle.

[Stronk Serb]

True. But sometimes it's a very small chance. That's why I believe this was a miracle.


Or you had luck when you rolled the dices. My aunt survived a horrible car accident with a few bruises because she didn't put the seatbelt on, so she flew out of the car when thebprotective cage squashed the driver's seat.

[green white]

I'm moslem. But i like study about many religion. i feel every religion give serenity. I my mind God is wonderfull, he look me every time, hmm... okay it's very funnya but i feel it. Sometimes my faith is down or up.
Sometimes i'm shy, because some moslem person is very fanatic, and be terorist.

[Harry Smith]

Trust me mate, we need God a lot more than you think.

Try telling that to the Jews in WW2

[Stronk Serb]

Try telling that to the Jews in WW2

Or the Muslim women and children during the crusades.

[Lovelife090994]

Try telling that to the Jews in WW2

Or the Muslim women and children during the crusades.

He's right. We all need a little more God sometimes. All the Jews had was their faith, what happened to them must never happen again. The wrongs done to them were done out of hatred. Muslims and Christians both suffered in the Crusades. Funny you left out how the Muslims then and now took lands that were Jewish and Christian lands for centuries. After years of raids and turmoil Europe said enough was enough and organized the Crusades. Want proof of conquered Christian lands? Look at Istanbul. The city was the last Christian city before entering Asia and one of the last great Christian cities in history. Over the years and after a siege the city was taken. The Haggia Sophia was remodeled into a mosque until restoration later. The words Haggia Sophia are not even Arabic but Greek. Greek was a common language of Christians then as is now.

When you bring up the Crusades, please look into all the causes and reasons. Some were religious, some were not. Bottom line may have greed, but I doubt any moderate people today or either faith would like what happened.

[Stronk Serb]

He's right. We all need a little more God sometimes. All the Jews had was their faith, what happened to them must never happen again. The wrongs done to them were done out of hatred. Muslims and Christians both suffered in the Crusades. Funny you left out how the Muslims then and now took lands that were Jewish and Christian lands for centuries. After years of raids and turmoil Europe said enough was enough and organized the Crusades. Want proof of conquered Christian lands? Look at Istanbul. The city was the last Christian city before entering Asia and one of the last great Christian cities in history. Over the years and after a siege the city was taken. The Haggia Sophia was remodeled into a mosque until restoration later. The words Haggia Sophia are not even Arabic but Greek. Greek was a common language of Christians then as is now.

When you bring up the Crusades, please look into all the causes and reasons. Some were religious, some were not. Bottom line may have greed, but I doubt any moderate people today or either faith would like what happened.

Constantinople, Byzantium, the Emperors's City or Carigrad in some Slavic languages, was conquered in 1453 by the Ottomans which had nothing to do with the Crusades, not to mention it got ransacked by Chatolics who treated it far worse during the Fourth Crusade a few centuries earlier. The Muslims treated the Christians well, until the Seljuks took over. They enforced higher taxes, but still. When the Crusaders came, they literally killed every Muslim in Jerusalem, raped every woman and child, and burned half the city. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he let every Christian leave in an orderly manner.

[Vlerchan]

But sometimes it's a very small chance. That's why I believe this was a miracle.
If there was a chance of it being able to occur naturally or without the aid of a divine force then it's not (by definition) a miracle - or at least you've certainly no reason to believe it was a miracle.

Miracle (n): n extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/miracle

"It's just a coincidence! There's no such thing! You have no proof! It's just blah blah blah."

[Harry Smith]

Funny you left out how the Muslims then and now took lands that were Jewish and Christian lands for centuries.

Yeah they took the land about 400 years before-if that justifies invasion then Mexico should start marching on Texas and British troops should land in New York. Just because you use to own something 400 years ago doesn't give you a right to enter, pillage and butcher a people's land

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah they took the land about 400 years before-if that justifies invasion then Mexico should start marching on Texas and British troops should land in New York. Just because you use to own something 400 years ago doesn't give you a right to enter, pillage and butcher a people's land


It wasn't even owned by Catholics, it was owned by the Byzantines who took no interest in the Crusade. Also, Serbia should conquer the majority of the Balkans, and Russia should retake Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Finland and other countries it historically owned, the UK should own a quarter of all landmass again, and Spain should own almost all of South America.

[Emerald Dream]

Yeah they took the land about 400 years before-if that justifies invasion then Mexico should start marching on Texas and British troops should land in New York. Just because you use to own something 400 years ago doesn't give you a right to enter, pillage and butcher a people's land

It wasn't even owned by Catholics, it was owned by the Byzantines who took no interest in the Crusade. Also, Serbia should conquer the majority of the Balkans, and Russia should retake Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Finland and other countries it historically owned, the UK should own a quarter of all landmass again, and Spain should own almost all of South America.

Let's stay on topic, please. This has nothing to do with why you believe in God (or not).

[Vlerchan]

Missed the above post. Delete this.

It wasn't even owned by Catholics, it was owned by the Byzantines who took no interest in the Crusade. Also, Serbia should conquer the majority of the Balkans[1], and Russia should retake Ukraine[2], Poland[3], Belarus[4], Finland[5] and other countries it historically owned, the UK should own a quarter of all landmass again, and Spain should own almost all of South America[6].

[1]: No it wouldn't. The Turks would.

His below comment about Serbia having its own little empire whilst true is quite deceitful. A Serbian Empire did exist about 1200 very briefly and it owned nothing near the full extent of the Balkans. It arose after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was quickly swallowed up by the Ottomans. The Ottomans are the surviving ethnic group who have held the longest continuous claim to the Balkans and so historically speaking (by his logic) the Ottomons should have claim over it. c:

[2]: True.

[3]: Untrue. Unless historically stops at the onset of the 1800s.

[4]: True.

[5]: Untrue. Unless historically stops at the onset of the 1700s.

[6]: What about the natives?

[Zachary G]

I believe in a much higher power because there are just way too many things in this world that are way beyond mans comprehension, no matter how much science is put to it, there are just some things we were not meant to understand.

[Stronk Serb]

Missed the above post. Delete this.



[1]: No it wouldn't. The Turks would.

[2]: True.

[3]: Untrue. Unless historically stops at the onset of the 1800s.

[4]: True.

[5]: Untrue. Unless historically stops at the onset of the 1700s.

[6]: What about the natives?

Serbia controlled a large part of the Balkans before the Turks. We had our little empire. I just wanted to point out how flawed the logic was.

To get back on-topic...
I agree with you, even if there is a small chance, it's not a miracle. A miracle would be if for example, a baby was born after a week of pregnancy, completely healthy, or an aborted fetus completely developing and becoming alive, or a man surviving orbital re-entry and landing safely to Earth without a space suit. People just roll the dices, and score lucky, or unlucky. Nothing divine in that.

[laurakitty]

I don't know if I believe in God or not

[Srom]

Is there a specific reason you believe in a deity? Do you agree with all his(her?) teachings? Do you fear him/her? Or do you just not believe in one and why?

I believe in Jesus Christ because He died on the cross for everyone sins and rose from the grave proving He is God. No other person has ever done that only Jesus. There is tons of evidence that the Bible is true and that Jesus existed. Now instead of us living in sin we can be free from sin because we are free in Christ and no longer a slave to sin. If we accept Jesus into our lives and follow what He says we will be granted eternal life with Jesus in Heaven.

[Bolwing]

I'm an atheist. Never really believed in the existence of a God, and I see no reason to start believing. The fact that both my parents are atheists and that my sole existence is an affront to God, at least according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (fags R evil, amirite), probably didn't help.

[Fanta_Lover44]

I'm like I believe in god, the idea of heaven and hell, but I don't follow any religion or anything else, I respect other peoples opinions if they believe or not. I started believeing because i felt depressed and started praying, since I've felt better so i just go with the flow.

[Miserabilia]

I believe in Jesus Christ because He died on the cross for everyone sins and rose from the grave proving He is God. No other person has ever done that only Jesus. There is tons of evidence that the Bible is true and that Jesus existed. Now instead of us living in sin we can be free from sin because we are free in Christ and no longer a slave to sin. If we accept Jesus into our lives and follow what He says we will be granted eternal life with Jesus in Heaven.

Yea I'm pretty sure jesus existed, just not that heaven hell or any god or after life does. Btw not so sure about his rise from the grave either
I believe in a much higher power because there are just way too many things in this world that are way beyond mans comprehension, no matter how much science is put to it, there are just some things we were not meant to understand.

How is

- Things not meant to understand
---->
- Higher power

???

[Professor Moopicorn]

If there was a chance of it being able to occur naturally or without the aid of a divine force then it's not (by definition) a miracle - or at least you've certainly no reason to believe it was a miracle.

Miracle (n): n extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/miracle

"It's just a coincidence! There's no such thing! You have no proof! It's just blah blah blah."

I don't think there's any way a car going head-first into a tree with its wheels of the ground and no way of stopping would suddenly be lifted up, spun around and put back on the road some 8 metres away! And my mum said she prayed for God's protection because she knew she was about to die. As soon as she asked the car was spun around and put back on the road. I don't see any way that could have happened without God's help.

[Vlerchan]

I don't see any way that could have happened without God's help.
Then why did you say in your response to Cheesee that you believed that there was "a very small chance" that it could have occurred without god's intervention? I'm responding to the idea that if something is capable of happening without divine intervention then it most likely didn't happen by divine intervention - and if it could possibly happen without divine intervention then it is (by definition) not a miracle.

[Zachary G]

Yea I'm pretty sure jesus existed, just not that heaven hell or any god or after life does. Btw not so sure about his rise from the grave either


How is

- Things not meant to understand
---->
- Higher power

???

which part dont you understand?

[Vlerchan]

which part dont you understand?

His problem (I assume) is in finding that the conclusion doesn't rationally follow from the premise.

[Professor Moopicorn]

Then why did you say in your response to Cheesee that you believed that there was "a very small chance" that it could have occurred without god's intervention? I'm responding to the idea that if something is capable of happening without divine intervention then it most likely didn't happen by divine intervention - and if it could possibly happen without divine intervention then it is (by definition) not a miracle.

I meant that if there was any chance, it would be very small. Meaning I still don't think there was any chance of it happening without God.

[Babiole]

I believe in God because I want to. Our universe is so big that we can't possibly explain everything that happens in it. You don't have to believe in God if you don't want to.

[BuryYourFlame]

I'm going to try and respond to everyone here and I'll try not to go off course anywhere.

For example plants that carry their own seed to make more plants, or trees that "breathe in" what we breathe out and in return the same trees "breathe out" what we breathe in? Those are just two examples of life that surrounds us all that is too perfect to be total coincidence. There has to be SOME kind of intellectual thought behind it to make it all happen.
Natural selection made plants carry their own seeds as it gave greater benefits in survival. Again, we have evolved alongside a certain atmosphere and so have trees. Cells in our body need oxygen (because of the process of natural selection given out atmosphere) and trees need to photosynthesize (because this was the most efficient mechanism through natural selection).
Smallpox, degenerative disorders, genetic disorders/abnormalities, the fact that photo-receptors in our eyes face backwards and our nerve fibers create a blind spot as well as a plethora of other things that can go wrong/are imperfect. Is this still considered a part of this "too perfect" environment?

but I still say there has to be some kind of rational thought behind it. If there isn't and what you're saying is true then we...as the human race...are EXTREMELY lucky to be here, but somehow I don't think any race of beings..human or otherwise...could get THAT lucky.
To make this a bit clearer how you are using probability and chance wrong I'll give you this example. On December 15th 2012 there were 1606 users online at the same time.
Each of these people has a birthday. What is the chance that all of these people have the birthdays that they do?
The equation is (1/365)^1606 which = 9.0710943241760979805320042230717e-4116
We can pretty much say this is ~ 0, and yet it happened.
In this example and in what you are saying you are looking at the probability the wrong way. As natural selection is a defined process and given the conditions on Earth, the life that currently exists was in someone else's words 'inevitable'.

The fact that the writers of the Bible came up with all this and modern science is just now "proving" it is reason enough. To show how ignorant science is, they still don't know the proper way to make damascus. And all of this, everything and all the strange phenomenon that even science can't prove(or ignores) can't be explained. But yet the Bible, who some think is just a fairy tale, predicts and tells of all these things that science has taken so long to discover. The is a saying that is very true, "Communist till you get rich, Feminist till you get married, Atheist till the airplane starts going down."
Please explain what you are referring to when you say things that the bible has shown but science is only just discovering. From my knowledge all these 'predictions' are incredibly vague and don't take in to account the vast amount of errors in the bible as well, for instance saying there were two lights in the sky when the moon only reflects the light of the sun.
As for the things that can't be explained (science doesn't ignore things, it has absolutely no reason to, it strives off being proven wrong). An apparent lack of a logical explanation does not indicate an illogical one.
I am not rich, and not a communist; I assure you, I'll be a feminist even after I get married; and the airplane bit is a weak attempt at Pascal's Wager which is incredibly logically unsound.

The things that are there to support our survival as human beings (i.e. plants, fresh water, animals to hunt for food and fur....by earlier generations of people to keep warm and provide shelter) those things can not just randomly be there for our benefit. It may or may not be God as we all think of from the Bible, but there has to be some kind of planning and thought behind it. So, here's my solution to it. No one that's alive today was there to see how it all started obviously so therefore not one of us can say with 100% certainty that what we think how it all started is the 100% truth. You believe what you wish to, which is your right, and I respect that. All I ask in return is you respect my beliefs in the same way.
As I said in my earlier response, it's far from random.
No one is stating natural selection as 100% proof and with 100% certainty (see the discussion about solipsism etc., we could have just popped in to existence 5 minutes ago with pre-set memories). The difference in this case is that one is going against scientific knowledge which people implement in to classrooms and the general population. This changes voting and the attitudes towards science which is a problem because we need science.

I find it hard to believe there's no meaning to anything.
The fact humans are conscious and capable of reasoning that there's a creator means something, right?
The start of the universe/time also. I know there are arguments against it but I find the idea of causality - that everything starts somewhere - is a strong pointer towards the existence of something.
I don't really find it hard, personally.
Yes that is interesting, however, I see it as a byproduct of natural selection. As intelligence increases we become self-aware. This isn't just humans either, dolphins and elephants in particular are incredibly smart (elephants can paint a picture of themselves, they know what they look like).
Reasoning after a certain stage would be essential to the continued survival of our species, it doesn't necessarily point towards a creator.
We do not know what happened before the massive expansion of the singularity, and we will never know since we cannot measure before our own time began. I still don't find this a convincing enough argument for a higher power though.

But I did learn something from this thread which is religious debates are an ENDLESS argument because both sides think their beliefs are the ONLY ones that are correct and either can not or will not consider the argument of the others' opinions.
As has been pointed out, this is a debate forum. Also, while religion still impacts on legislation and lack of scientific understanding I am going to try and educate people at any chance.

Give it a read and you will see. There are far to many things for me to list, and I don't have enough time for this. I'm not going to do your research for you.
I have read the bible, I still have no idea what you're talking about. If you're asserting a claim, you're the one that has to prove it.

You can have an opinion. You cannot nor do you have the right to insult others' beliefs. By accusing him of denial to other gods you basically just undermined every monotheist. I believe in God, Yahweh is his Hebrew name which means God as well. Had I spoke Arabic his name would be Allah. Now, we questioned you since you attacked him, and clearly he felt attacked. Just apologize and all of this will go away.
People do have the right to insult other person's beliefs, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. I'm not attacking any person, I'm attacking the general improper use of science and the institution that has caused far too much suffering both the past and present.
"By accusing him of denial to other gods you basically just undermined every monotheist."
So christians don't only believe in one god and deny the existence of others? I'm really not sure what's so offensive about this?
They did not at all attack anyone, and have nothing to apologise for. As they pointed out, they were asking questions.

Three things that point to the fact that The Bible was/is correct.

One Noah's Ark being found. http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/Noah-s-Ark-Has-Been-Found-Why-Are-They-Keeping-Us-In-The-Dark-

Two the nails that were used to nail Christ to the Cross found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8445825/Nails-used-to-nail-Jesus-to-the-cross-discovered.html

And last but certainly not least Christ Himself predicting how the "world" a.k.a. non-believers would feel about Him and His followers http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-22.htm
Noah's ark, ahhhhh, I love this conversation.
If Noah's ark did happen, and the whole world was covered in water, don't you think there would be signs of that too? Not just...some old wooden boat-like object? Where did all the water go?
Do you have any idea how much water would be needed to cover the Earth that to that depth?
A bunch of calculations of various claims about the ark are here (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Caring_for_the_animals_in_Noah's_ark).
Do you know how many people have claimed to have found these same things? It's all a hoax bought by desperate believers.
I try and leave anything personal at all out of debates but it's going to be damn hard. What you are suggesting goes beyond ludicrous. Guess what I wrote down? I'm god, yup, I'm god. I also happened to write down that you wouldn't believe that I'm god, therefore it's true. Do you see how fundamentally fucked up that logic is? (No, I'm not swearing at you/attacking you, I'm attacking your logic, there is a difference)
Provide actual proof from peer-reviewed journals etc. not just random websites and then maybe people will listen to you.

I am a Christian and I think you have missed something here. Your grandma said she would pray for you, but you said it didn't work. It did. You said you changed schools right? I know it sounds stupid but I believe it was God who guided you to a new school as a result of your grandmothers prayer. God doesn't usually work in the ways you would expect.

What is in the bible is true because God told the writers what to say, and most of the time the writer is telling a story of his/her own experiences, so they would know exactly what is going on.

Actually, historians have proved that Jesus did live and was crucified. Of course that doesn't prove the entire bible to be true but it's something. As for Noah's ark, there are many geological factors that would have needed a world-wide flood to achieve, such as the large amounts of coal. For coal to form, needs to be dead animals that end up under water, then mud falls on top until the pressure is so great that it creates coal. Now don't judge me if that's not completely right. In order to have coal all over the world, there would have had to be a flood like the one mentioned in the bible. As for why the animals didn't eat each other, God protected them. They also brought along a bunch of food animals to feed them with so they would not get hungry and eat each other.
"God doesn't usually work in the ways you would expect" is akin to, god doesn't work at all. This is just looking for places and trying to pin god to it, not anything justifiable or provable which is what is needed for logic.
The production of coal can be from trees and anything really, it's just immensely compressed carbon. It's being has nothing to do with a worldwide flood.
This is talked about in the link I gave when talking about the ark before, but do you have any idea how much food would be needed to feed the 16,000 or so animals for that long? It is completely illogical to even consider that this actually occurred.

I think that maybe God thought the best way to protect his people may have been to bring them home to him. In paradise. God does work in mysterious ways.

As for why we don't practice slavery: the bible isn't a rule book that you have to follow to the exact word! If people had slaves in the bible does NOT mean we have to. People in the bible made mistakes like all of us and that may be another reason they were in the bible. Maybe they were showing us what not to do. And anyway, like I said before, Christianity isn't just following a set of rules. It is trying to do what God would want. Pretty much. But none of us are perfect.
I've already talked about the 'god works in mysterious ways' stuff and how it's not at all valid.
Slavery wasn't a mistake in the bible, it was condoned by god himself (as well as rape, genocide and other such things), that kind of defeats your whole argument.

Are you saying He doesn't? And if so how do you know for sure that is correct? God isn't going to come perform a miracle in your life with a giant flashing neon sign that says "HERE'S YOUR MIRACLE....HOPE YOU LIKE IT!!!!" He is much more subtle than that. And it's those subtle things that we have to look for before we can say that He is or isn't making an impact on our lives. Yes some miracles are more obvious than others, but in most cases I believe that it's the more subtle things that He has a hand in. The friend that's there RIGHT when you need him/her to be there. Or, that project that you thought you would never get done for school turned out to be easier then you thought it would be. Yeah, you could say that it's just coincidence that your friend was there or you doing the work is what made the project easier, but how do you know 100% without question for sure? Sorry, but I don't think there is a way that you can. Much in the same way that I can't disprove that there is life on other planets. I've never seen any proof, besides what they put on TV, but that doesn't mean that I can disprove it.
Why not? If he wants us to believe in his existence, why not? Why risk people not believing and having to spend forever in hell?
The amount of 'subtlety' and 'mystery' going on, as I said before, is very very much like a god that doesn't exist.
You can't say that anything is 100% really, but we have to go with the most logical explanation or the one that has the least amount of assumptions (Occam's Razor).

Are you saying that you need the flashing neon sign that I mentioned for you to believe that there is a God? Just because you think that "There is a god but has so little influence that you have to specifically look for it" doesn't mean He doesn't exist. As I said before the same can be said about life on other worlds, which you and several others have brought up. Just because I have never personally seen evidence of life from other worlds DOES NOT MEAN I can say that it doesn't exist, nor can I say if they do exist that they DO NOT have any influence on me. Trying to prove or disprove something or someone we have never seen makes us sound rather arrogant, especially if we have no evidence to back up our claim.
If he acts like he doesn't exist, why would I act like he exists?
As another user pointed out, isn't that the whole premise of theism?

How would you know anything about being truly Christian if you aren't one? You can't seriously think that what you said is right, can you? When someone says to follow the bible, it does NOT mean follow every single thing word-for-word. And it doesn't mean we are just picking things in the bible that suit us best. Peoples lives can change so much by following the bible and it is hardly ever easy, so how can that be choosing what suits you? And as for Noah's ark, your proof is the existence of every living thing today! God performs miracles and that is how he protected the animals.
You know, I found the way you are talking about my beliefs very offensive. You call it stupid and a children's story. You are trying to "prove" why it's such a big hoax and you clearly have no idea what it is like to be Christian, so everything you say is either wrong or stupid! You should do some research before you try to prove something wrong.
And don't you dare call miracles a lie or stupid. God has saved people in my family in ways that aren't physically possible. How many times has your car BENDED around a kid on a scooter when you are just about to hit him? Or your car is going straight into a tree on the side of a gully with no way of stpopping and it suddenly stops, turns around and is put back on the road facing the other way. This happened when I was only 1 and mum was driving me into town to go to the doctors. She said she thought she was going to die for sure but she felt something lift the back of the car and turn it around onto the road. I was asleep and I didn't even wake up while this happened. So there's your proof of miracles.
I was a christian for quite some time. I was a complete christian by every definition, I was baptised, I have read the bible (most parts multiple times) and everything else. If you say I couldn't have been a true christian because I turned away from it you're only invoking the 'no true scotsman fallacy', I was a christian by definition of what I believed and the relationship I thought I had with god.
How do you decide then which parts to follow and which parts to ignore? How is this not just up to personal appeal?
"Every living thing today" could have happened without a global flood, and there is no evidence of one...I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I said before, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. I hold to that. I do know what it is like to be a christian, even when I was a christian I didn't believe the flood actually happened (believing in it is not a requirement of being a christian). I have done my research, years of it, and this is the conclusion that I came to.
The apparent lack of a logical explanation does not imply an illogical one. That is all I'm going to say on miracles. People's personal recollections cannot be trusted, especially in highly stressful or emotional situations like the one you are talking about.

Every time I needed Gods help and asked, everything has turned out well. Maybe it wasn't the way I expected or when I thought, but it did happen. So if I didn't have God, I probably wouldn't be here.
I'm sure the fact that every time you have asked, god helped, will be great comfort to people dying in other countries and in hospitals.

Now for me.

I don't believe in a god because there is not enough evidence (theologically or physically) to say that there is. There are a bunch of things wrong with the major religions and (in my point of view), if you don't believe in them, why believe/follow at all? Paganism and non-theistic satanism (which I considered for a while) for instance have a particular set of beliefs, but no real theological basis for why you should follow those beliefs.

[Gamma Male]

I absolutely love this post. Like having a bucket of logic thrown all over face.
I'm going to try and respond to everyone here and I'll try not to go off course anywhere.


Natural selection made plants carry their own seeds as it gave greater benefits in survival. Again, we have evolved alongside a certain atmosphere and so have trees. Cells in our body need oxygen (because of the process of natural selection given out atmosphere) and trees need to photosynthesize (because this was the most efficient mechanism through natural selection).
Smallpox, degenerative disorders, genetic disorders/abnormalities, the fact that photo-receptors in our eyes face backwards and our nerve fibers create a blind spot as well as a plethora of other things that can go wrong/are imperfect. Is this still considered a part of this "too perfect" environment?


To make this a bit clearer how you are using probability and chance wrong I'll give you this example. On December 15th 2012 there were 1606 users online at the same time.
Each of these people has a birthday. What is the chance that all of these people have the birthdays that they do?
The equation is (1/365)^1606 which = 9.0710943241760979805320042230717e-4116
We can pretty much say this is ~ 0, and yet it happened.
In this example and in what you are saying you are looking at the probability the wrong way. As natural selection is a defined process and given the conditions on Earth, the life that currently exists was in someone else's words 'inevitable'.


Please explain what you are referring to when you say things that the bible has shown but science is only just discovering. From my knowledge all these 'predictions' are incredibly vague and don't take in to account the vast amount of errors in the bible as well, for instance saying there were two lights in the sky when the moon only reflects the light of the sun.
As for the things that can't be explained (science doesn't ignore things, it has absolutely no reason to, it strives off being proven wrong). An apparent lack of a logical explanation does not indicate an illogical one.
I am not rich, and not a communist; I assure you, I'll be a feminist even after I get married; and the airplane bit is a weak attempt at Pascal's Wager which is incredibly logically unsound.


As I said in my earlier response, it's far from random.
No one is stating natural selection as 100% proof and with 100% certainty (see the discussion about solipsism etc., we could have just popped in to existence 5 minutes ago with pre-set memories). The difference in this case is that one is going against scientific knowledge which people implement in to classrooms and the general population. This changes voting and the attitudes towards science which is a problem because we need science.


I don't really find it hard, personally.
Yes that is interesting, however, I see it as a byproduct of natural selection. As intelligence increases we become self-aware. This isn't just humans either, dolphins and elephants in particular are incredibly smart (elephants can paint a picture of themselves, they know what they look like).
Reasoning after a certain stage would be essential to the continued survival of our species, it doesn't necessarily point towards a creator.
We do not know what happened before the massive expansion of the singularity, and we will never know since we cannot measure before our own time began. I still don't find this a convincing enough argument for a higher power though.


As has been pointed out, this is a debate forum. Also, while religion still impacts on legislation and lack of scientific understanding I am going to try and educate people at any chance.


I have read the bible, I still have no idea what you're talking about. If you're asserting a claim, you're the one that has to prove it.


People do have the right to insult other person's beliefs, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. I'm not attacking any person, I'm attacking the general improper use of science and the institution that has caused far too much suffering both the past and present.
"By accusing him of denial to other gods you basically just undermined every monotheist."
So christians don't only believe in one god and deny the existence of others? I'm really not sure what's so offensive about this?
They did not at all attack anyone, and have nothing to apologise for. As they pointed out, they were asking questions.


Noah's ark, ahhhhh, I love this conversation.
If Noah's ark did happen, and the whole world was covered in water, don't you think there would be signs of that too? Not just...some old wooden boat-like object? Where did all the water go?
Do you have any idea how much water would be needed to cover the Earth that to that depth?
A bunch of calculations of various claims about the ark are here (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Caring_for_the_animals_in_Noah's_ark).
Do you know how many people have claimed to have found these same things? It's all a hoax bought by desperate believers.
I try and leave anything personal at all out of debates but it's going to be damn hard. What you are suggesting goes beyond ludicrous. Guess what I wrote down? I'm god, yup, I'm god. I also happened to write down that you wouldn't believe that I'm god, therefore it's true. Do you see how fundamentally fucked up that logic is? (No, I'm not swearing at you/attacking you, I'm attacking your logic, there is a difference)
Provide actual proof from peer-reviewed journals etc. not just random websites and then maybe people will listen to you.


"God doesn't usually work in the ways you would expect" is akin to, god doesn't work at all. This is just looking for places and trying to pin god to it, not anything justifiable or provable which is what is needed for logic.
The production of coal can be from trees and anything really, it's just immensely compressed carbon. It's being has nothing to do with a worldwide flood.
This is talked about in the link I gave when talking about the ark before, but do you have any idea how much food would be needed to feed the 16,000 or so animals for that long? It is completely illogical to even consider that this actually occurred.


I've already talked about the 'god works in mysterious ways' stuff and how it's not at all valid.
Slavery wasn't a mistake in the bible, it was condoned by god himself (as well as rape, genocide and other such things), that kind of defeats your whole argument.


Why not? If he wants us to believe in his existence, why not? Why risk people not believing and having to spend forever in hell?
The amount of 'subtlety' and 'mystery' going on, as I said before, is very very much like a god that doesn't exist.
You can't say that anything is 100% really, but we have to go with the most logical explanation or the one that has the least amount of assumptions (Occam's Razor).


If he acts like he doesn't exist, why would I act like he exists?
As another user pointed out, isn't that the whole premise of theism?


I was a christian for quite some time. I was a complete christian by every definition, I was baptised, I have read the bible (most parts multiple times) and everything else. If you say I couldn't have been a true christian because I turned away from it you're only invoking the 'no true scotsman fallacy', I was a christian by definition of what I believed and the relationship I thought I had with god.
How do you decide then which parts to follow and which parts to ignore? How is this not just up to personal appeal?
"Every living thing today" could have happened without a global flood, and there is no evidence of one...I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I said before, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. I hold to that. I do know what it is like to be a christian, even when I was a christian I didn't believe the flood actually happened (believing in it is not a requirement of being a christian). I have done my research, years of it, and this is the conclusion that I came to.
The apparent lack of a logical explanation does not imply an illogical one. That is all I'm going to say on miracles. People's personal recollections cannot be trusted, especially in highly stressful or emotional situations like the one you are talking about.


I'm sure the fact that every time you have asked, god helped, will be great comfort to people dying in other countries and in hospitals.

Now for me.

I don't believe in a god because there is not enough evidence (theologically or physically) to say that there is. There are a bunch of things wrong with the major religions and (in my point of view), if you don't believe in them, why believe/follow at all? Paganism and non-theistic satanism (which I considered for a while) for instance have a particular set of beliefs, but no real theological basis for why you should follow those beliefs.

[Horatio Nelson]

I believe in God.

And honestly, there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

[Gamma Male]

I believe in God.

And honestly, there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

What if I were to offer you half of my Klondite Bar?

[Horatio Nelson]

What if I were to offer you half of my Klondite Bar?

Whoo.....that's a tough one, but I must respectfully decline.

[Lovelife090994]

I love it when people think they undermine my intellegence and insult Christians without any mention to why. My beliefs still stand. I will not be swayed.

[Capto]

I believe in Allah because I want to.

What if I were to offer you half of my Klondite Bar?

It's a trap. That's no Klondike Bar.

[The Trendy Wolf]

There is no existing logical argument that could support the existence of a deity. However, the unknown keeps the truth sealed, and we can never know everything.

On the other hand, the only argument that supports the non-existence of a deity would be that there's no reason to believe in one in the first place, knowing that we were not born with the idea of a deity.

The only real truth is that we will never know the whole truth.

[Miserabilia]

There is no existing logical argument that could support the existence of a deity. However, the unknown keeps the truth sealed, and we can never know everything.

On the other hand, the only argument that supports the non-existence of a deity would be that there's no reason to believe in one in the first place, knowing that we were not born with the idea of a deity.

The only real truth is that we will never know the whole truth.

An argument for non-existence isn't needed in the first place :lol:

[The Trendy Wolf]

Whoo.....that's a tough one, but I must respectfully decline.

Might I ask why you believe in God in the first place, other than a reason relating to you being raised that way? Basically, what I'm asking is that you logically explain your beliefs.

[Gamma Male]

Basically, what I'm asking is that you logically explain your beliefs.

Foahtz9xnw8

[Miserabilia]

Foahtz9xnw8

lol made me giggle then I laughed histericly too xD

[Gamma Male]

lol made me giggle then I laughed histericly too xD

Yeah, I think it got the point across pretty well. I mean I COULD'VE quoted some boring old philosopher or something
"Arguing with those who've denounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
But I thought this was funnier.




























HAHA, GET IT? FUNNIER? : D : D : D BECAUSE HE WAS LAUGHING?

[darthearth]

Might I ask why you believe in God in the first place, other than a reason relating to you being raised that way? Basically, what I'm asking is that you logically explain your beliefs.

If one can see something someone else can't see, is there a logical argument that the one who sees can give to the one who can't for what is seen? Like if I know and can perceive God, while someone else can't, is there any logical argument that can be made to the person who can't? I don't think so. So why ask? It is not in the realm of reasoning, but personal experience and knowledge that cannot be conveyed directly to another. I see the complexity of the human body and am convinced it cannot happen without intelligent guidance, I see the non-material aspect of consciousness and know the material can't account for it. I see the need for a transcendent cause, I see people having direct personal experiences of God and hear their testimonies (including my own personal experiences)....but none of these are sufficient for you are they? Atheists fool themselves in my opinion, they attempt to look at each instance and find some way to rationalize it away, but can't see the totality of it all, the BIG PICTURE. Why do atheists keep asking the same question over and over, hear the same responses, then ask the question over again?

[Miserabilia]

If one can see something someone else can't see, is there a logical argument that the one who sees can give to the one who can't for what is seen? Like if I know and can perceive God, while someone else can't, is there any logical argument that can be made to the person who can't? I don't think so. So why ask? It is not in the realm of reasoning, but personal experience and knowledge that cannot be conveyed directly to another. I see the complexity of the human body and am convinced it cannot happen without intelligent guidance, I see the non-material aspect of consciousness and know the material can't account for it. I see the need for a transcendent cause, I see people having direct personal experiences of God and hear their testimonies (including my own personal experiences)....but none of these are sufficient for you are they? Atheists fool themselves in my opinion, they attempt to look at each instance and find some way to rationalize it away, but can't see the totality of it all, the BIG PICTURE. Why do atheists keep asking the same question over and over, hear the same responses, then ask the question over again?

I see the complexity of the human body and am convinced it cannot happen without intelligent guidance,
That's weird.

I see the non-material aspect of consciousness and know the material can't account for it.
That's fine but how does that have anything to do with god?

but none of these are sufficient for you are they? \
No, I do not beleive in testemonials of natural law breaking and supernatural and paranormal events.

[Capto]

Oh right, I should have input a reason. Fine.

I believe in Allah because He is my placeholder for that which can not be explained in a logical, rational manner.

[Mob Boss]

For one, purely opinion-based, I could never swallow the pill that we don't have free will. That is a huge fucking pill, like a fluggin suppository, to have to swallow. It is a suffocating way to live life, as though every road you are on and where you are right now has been plucked out for you prior to this very moment. And every choice you despised yourself for making and those you loved yourself for making, wasn't yours at all? But a faceless entity that we are under the reign of? I'd honestly rather believe in a Poptart. At least there is proff they scrumptiously exist.

Secondly, if this sandal-wearin' wizard existed, I'd have to say he might be a pretty heartless bastard (no offense to heartless bastards out there or god lovers) as there is no aid or deterrent when the world experiences the atrocities that we do. The Holocaust, for one, conceived at the "hands" of one of his very own, was mass murdering of hundreds of thousand. Brutal murdering, torturing, lethal medical EXPERIMENTING on thousands. Even if he was standing in front of me now, I wouldn't choose to believe in him.

Thirdly, there is not the slightest bit of empirical evidence that god or god(s) even exist. One of the greatest "arguments"or attempts at rationalizing his existence is because the universe exist thus too shall god. Well, let's review this, shall we
Genesis 9:12-13:

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth..."

Dude, that a rainbow. A very thing that can be deduced by SCIENCE to be the prismatic effect of raindrops. Not his bow being set in the clouds. -_- Please.


And this,
John 14:14:
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Countless people have prayed countless times in his name only to be let down. WHy would anyone submit themselves to that kind of blatant lying or blind allegiance. All because of what, a book? A book that has been translated through various languages by various people. Or maybe the miracles that some experience. Many of which could logically be explained away.

I believe in the human race. I believe science and palpable proof. I believe in myself choosing where I ultimately end up, whether good or bad. I believe too many credit a higher power to human success AND failure. I think too many people, both religious and nonreligious, spend this life worrying what will happen in another. And that most religion seems like a cushion to land on when people fear oblivion after death.

[Lovelife090994]

For one, purely opinion-based, I could never swallow the pill that we don't have free will. That is a huge fucking pill, like a fluggin suppository, to have to swallow. It is a suffocating way to live life, as though every road you are on and where you are right now has been plucked out for you prior to this very moment. And every choice you despised yourself for making and those you loved yourself for making, wasn't yours at all? But a faceless entity that we are under the reign of? I'd honestly rather believe in a Poptart. At least there is proff they scrumptiously exist.

Secondly, if this sandal-wearin' wizard existed, I'd have to say he might be a pretty heartless bastard (no offense to heartless bastards out there or god lovers) as there is no aid or deterrent when the world experiences the atrocities that we do. The Holocaust, for one, conceived at the "hands" of one of his very own, was mass murdering of hundreds of thousand. Brutal murdering, torturing, lethal medical EXPERIMENTING on thousands. Even if he was standing in front of me now, I wouldn't choose to believe in him.

Thirdly, there is not the slightest bit of empirical evidence that god or god(s) even exist. One of the greatest "arguments"or attempts at rationalizing his existence is because the universe exist thus too shall god. Well, let's review this, shall we
Genesis 9:12-13:

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth..."

Dude, that a rainbow. A very thing that can be deduced by SCIENCE to be the prismatic effect of raindrops. Not his bow being set in the clouds. -_- Please.


And this,
John 14:14:
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Countless people have prayed countless times in his name only to be let down. WHy would anyone submit themselves to that kind of blatant lying or blind allegiance. All because of what, a book? A book that has been translated through various languages by various people. Or maybe the miracles that some experience. Many of which could logically be explained away.

I believe in the human race. I believe science and palpable proof. I believe in myself choosing where I ultimately end up, whether good or bad. I believe too many credit a higher power to human success AND failure. I think too many people, both religious and nonreligious, spend this life worrying what will happen in another. And that most religion seems like a cushion to land on when people fear oblivion after death.

Sadly, a lot of what you said is very blanketing which encompasses those of both sides with nothing to do with the negative. Religious or not we all have free will. We all think. Also to the Holocaust or any evil no matter the ringleader's faith the actions of him or her never speak for the faith as a whole because the faith is an idea not an entity.

[DisneyPrincess27]

When I was younger I gave religion a chance, I was agnostic. Then I gained common sense now I'm an Atheist. As George Carlin explained it pretty well, "Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."

Even though I believe in 100% God. I found what George Carlin said pretty funny. I actual LOL-ed.

[Gamma Male]

Sadly, a lot of what you said is very blanketing which encompasses those of both sides with nothing to do with the negative. Religious or not we all have free will. We all think. Also to the Holocaust or any evil no matter the ringleader's faith the actions of him or her never speak for the faith as a whole because the faith is an idea not an entity.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in free will. We live in a deterministic universe, and all of our perceived choices were simply determined by a prior state of the universe.

[Miserabilia]

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in free will. We live in a deterministic universe, and all of our perceived choices were simply determined by a prior state of the universe.

Exactly.

For one, purely opinion-based, I could never swallow the pill that we don't have free will. That is a huge fucking pill, like a fluggin suppository, to have to swallow. It is a suffocating way to live life, as though every road you are on and where you are right now has been plucked out for you prior to this very moment. And every choice you despised yourself for making and those you loved yourself for making, wasn't yours at all? But a faceless entity that we are under the reign of? I'd honestly rather believe in a Poptart. At least there is proff they scrumptiously exist.


Free will is just as extraordinairy of a beleif as a beleif in a god and the supernatural, and as there's no evidence for free will I think it's good that you admit that you beleive in it simply as personal choise.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in free will. We live in a deterministic universe, and all of our perceived choices were simply determined by a prior state of the universe.

Free will is why you can be atheist in the first place. When God made man he gave us a choice. Live our lives following him or to not. You can still think, we can all live. That is free will. We are not slaves. Even Nature is free.

[Gamma Male]

Free will is why you can be atheist in the first place. When God made man he gave us a choice. Live our lives following him or to not. You can still think, we can all live. That is free will. We are not slaves. Even Nature is free.

Free will is an illusion. Our brains, like all matter, are bound by the laws of physics.

[Lovelife090994]

Free will is an illusion. Our brains, like all matter, are bound by the laws of physics.

Free will means free to think and act. Are you implying that humans cannot?

[Miserabilia]

Free will is why you can be atheist in the first place. When God made man he gave us a choice. Live our lives following him or to not. You can still think, we can all live. That is free will. We are not slaves. Even Nature is free.

Free will is why you can be atheist in the first place.
I'm an atheist simply because that's the process in my brain that lead me to being one.

When God made man he gave us a choice.
An argument involving god isn't going to convince me of free will, since I'm an atheist and so is gamma male.

[SawyerSauce]

I'm an atheist because adults who still believe in fairy tales scare me.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm an atheist simply because that's the process in my brain that lead me to being one.


An argument involving god isn't going to convince me of free will, since I'm an atheist and so is gamma male.

I don't care if you are atheist. Actually both or you are more so antitheist. I know many atheists who are all over the spectrum of faith to non and yet most of them couldn't care less of beliefs and respect them. When I said you are an atheist because of free will I meant that. God doesn't force us to go to him and so he let's humans live freely. Living freely includes thinking freely be your eyes on Him, another, or no deity. His opinion of you will not be any less. Gamma Male is not talking to me in this specific reply, you are. Correct?

[Gamma Male]

Free will means free to think and act. Are you implying that humans cannot?

No, free will means having a choice. We can do whatever we will, but we can't will what we will. Everything in the universe, including our brains, operates within the laws of physics.
The starting state of the universe + the laws by which everything within the universe operates = one possible outcome = no such thing as choice= no free will.

[Miserabilia]

I don't care if you are atheist. Actually both or you are more so antitheist. I know many atheists who are all over the spectrum of faith to non and yet most of them couldn't care less of beliefs and respect them. When I said you are an atheist because of free will I meant that. God doesn't force us to go to him and so he let's humans live freely. Living freely includes thinking freely be your eyes on Him, another, or no deity. His opinion of you will not be any less. Gamma Male is not talking to me in this specific reply, you are. Correct?

God doesn't force us to go to him and so he let's humans live freely.

Seriously, any argument involving god doesn't work with me.

Free will is an old idea and it does not fit with our current image of how our universe works. Determinism is more rational, untill you or anyone else can present a single piece of evidence for free will.

[Mob Boss]

Sadly, a lot of what you said is very blanketing which encompasses those of both sides with nothing to do with the negative. Religious or not we all have free will. We all think. Also to the Holocaust or any evil no matter the ringleader's faith the actions of him or her never speak for the faith as a whole because the faith is an idea not an entity.

Evidently you didn't understand what i was saying about the Holocaust. It was about suffering in the world, i merely used the Holocaust as an example. I would never be a part of something that believes in a higher power because if one were to exist, they'd be pretty shitty to begin with.

[Lovelife090994]

Evidently you didn't understand what i was saying about the Holocaust. It was about suffering in the world, i merely used the Holocaust as an example. I would never be a part of something that believes in a higher power because if one were to exist, they'd be pretty shitty to begin with.

Perhaps. But how are you so sure?

[Gamma Male]

Seriously, any argument involving god doesn't work with me.

Free will is an old idea and it does not fit with our current image of how our universe works. Determinism is more rational, untill you or anyone else can present a single piece of evidence for free will.

Right. And just to add to the point, even if randomness does exist, and it somehow affects the human brain, well, if it's random how is it up to us? It still wouldn't be a choice.

[Miserabilia]

Right. And just to add to the point, even if randomness does exist, and it somehow affects the human brain, well, if it's random how is it up to us? It still wouldn't be a choice.

Exactly!
Even if there are many quantum worlds, we don't get to choose which one we enter!

[Gamma Male]

Exactly!
Even if there are many quantum worlds, we don't get to choose which one we enter!

Logic High Five! :D

[Miserabilia]

Logic High Five! :D

http://www.elliesverhalen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/High-five.png

[Capto]

Y'all should stop bringing arbitrarily irrelevant information into this discussion. I know I'm doing the same, but still. I don't particularly care in this case.

Right. And just to add to the point, even if randomness does exist, and it somehow affects the human brain, well, if it's random how is it up to us? It still wouldn't be a choice.

One of the core tenets of modern physics and economics doesn't exist? And a purely material and energetic system is uninfluenced by stochastic processes? Wow, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could prove that probabilistic events and their derivative results are all false. Randomness is essential. Randomness is a key aspect of how literally everything functions.

Exactly!
Even if there are many quantum worlds, we don't get to choose which one we enter!

It's not entering a quantum world, as that would entail the departure from one's current state and the travel to a new one. Rather, it's more of a transformation of one's current state and trend regarding the new state of the world as a computed and calculated macrocosm regarding the current states and trends of all objects and particles. Oh, for a simpler version, let's just look at calculating the position and derivative of a point on a position function, then doing the same after one infinitesimally small Δx, then et cetera et cetera, one would be able to view the uninterrupted path and trend of the particle along the allotted time. Thus, it is the consistent and constant evolution of a world that creates what determinists would be inclined to say the single-trajectory path that our world is on. And here is where determinism bites itself in the ass, particularly regarding the quantum mechanics that you yourself are so well-versed in. Given that the entirety of all nonintentional systems operate on at least a single-particle level, and thus in various quantum states, individual particles can thus be reduced, at any point in time on a given time interval and at which the position is known, [as well as the trend one Δx time-equivalent prior], the particle is thus subject to the dictation of a wave function with a superposition of multiple eigenstates. Upon the passing of another time-unit, the particle and its trend are instantly reduced to a single eigenstate, after naturally being observed, which in this case is equivalent to simple interacting with a neighbouring particle or the absence of a neighbouring particle, which, according to Newtonian mechanics, must act in regards to its environment, thus taking into account, or observing, the particle in question. As such, the wavefunction collapse is localized to a single particle and triggered by its surroundings. However, the single eigenstate that results from the collapse is truly and solely random, with no possibility, due to the time passed, for interference by a foreign factor. Thus, the transfer between one state to the next [next here referring to the following state after the passing of an infinitesimally small Δx portion of time] is, while dependent on the prior, is inherently and by default random. There's literally, regarding any form of logic, no other interpretation.

[Camazotz]

Perhaps. But how are you so sure?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

— Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE)

This is the gist of what he meant. If there is a God, why would he let the atrocities of the Holocaust take place?

[Gamma Male]

Y'all should stop bringing arbitrarily irrelevant information into this discussion. I know I'm doing the same, but still. I don't particularly care in this case.



One of the core tenets of modern physics and economics doesn't exist? And a purely material and energetic system is uninfluenced by stochastic processes? Wow, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could prove that probabilistic events and their derivative results are all false. Randomness is essential. Randomness is a key aspect of how literally everything functions.
My point was, it doesn't matter whether or not randomness exists because free will isn't possible anyway.

[Capto]

My point was, it doesn't matter whether or not randomness exists because free will isn't possible anyway.

So the existence of physics is irrelevant to will and the workings of a physical system.

Yeah, no.

[Gamma Male]

So the existence of physics is irrelevant to will and the workings of a physical system.

Yeah, no.

Physics isn't irrelevant, the question of determinism vs randomness is irrelevant. Either, free will is impossible.

[Capto]

Physics isn't irrelevant, the question of determinism vs randomness is irrelevant. Either, free will is impossible.

Randomness is a basic core tenet of physics. Determinism is an unrelated ideology.

[Bleid]

but it's pretty safe to assume there is no god, because
-lack of evidence (Or sign in general)
-generaly no need for a god

The reasoning there is circular. It's an example of Begging the Question (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion).

-lack of evidence

This assumes that there isn't evidence in the first place, which, if a God were to exist that created all things, then everything of its creation would be evidence for the existence of the God. And so, you must first assume there isn't a God in order to state that there is a lack of evidence of its existence.

Similarly for the second part.

-generally no need for a god

This also assumes there isn't a God, because, let's imagine for example that there was a God that was the creator of all things - this means we wouldn't be here without its creation of us, and consequently, there would be all the need for a God.

It could also be the case that the God is the justification for why all physical laws are the way they are in this universe, meaning that there is again, a need for a God.

So, as seen, this idea that there is "no need for a God" would only work if it is assumed the case already that there is no God.
Thus, it's circular reasoning to say that there is a lack of evidence or no need for a God and thus we ought assume there isn't a God.

Overall, what's going on there is of this logic form:

1. Assume there isn't a God and we exist as we do.
2. | This implies that a God isn't needed and there isn't any evidence for a God.
____________________
3. Therefore, we can assume there isn't a God.

See how it chases its own tail?

Now you might say, "Why have line #1?" Well, because it's necessary or we can't even get to line #2 in the first place. I'll show you what I mean:

let's say for a moment that atheism is incorrect, and that there is a God:

1. Assume there is a God and so all things exist due to it.
2. | This implies that there is a need for a God and all things are evidence for it.
____________________
3. Therefore, certainly we would be irrational to assume there isn't a God.

See how the points you presented only work to support you if you assume you're already correct to begin with?


*Note: I am not claiming there is a God, I am only claiming that those two points you presented are certainly not a good reason to assume there isn't a God, because of the fact that they are not appropriately reasoned.

[Miserabilia]

Y'all should stop bringing arbitrarily irrelevant information into this discussion. I know I'm doing the same, but still. I don't particularly care in this case.



One of the core tenets of modern physics and economics doesn't exist? And a purely material and energetic system is uninfluenced by stochastic processes? Wow, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could prove that probabilistic events and their derivative results are all false. Randomness is essential. Randomness is a key aspect of how literally everything functions.



It's not entering a quantum world, as that would entail the departure from one's current state and the travel to a new one. Rather, it's more of a transformation of one's current state and trend regarding the new state of the world as a computed and calculated macrocosm regarding the current states and trends of all objects and particles. Oh, for a simpler version, let's just look at calculating the position and derivative of a point on a position function, then doing the same after one infinitesimally small Δx, then et cetera et cetera, one would be able to view the uninterrupted path and trend of the particle along the allotted time. Thus, it is the consistent and constant evolution of a world that creates what determinists would be inclined to say the single-trajectory path that our world is on. And here is where determinism bites itself in the ass, particularly regarding the quantum mechanics that you yourself are so well-versed in. Given that the entirety of all nonintentional systems operate on at least a single-particle level, and thus in various quantum states, individual particles can thus be reduced, at any point in time on a given time interval and at which the position is known, [as well as the trend one Δx time-equivalent prior], the particle is thus subject to the dictation of a wave function with a superposition of multiple eigenstates. Upon the passing of another time-unit, the particle and its trend are instantly reduced to a single eigenstate, after naturally being observed, which in this case is equivalent to simple interacting with a neighbouring particle or the absence of a neighbouring particle, which, according to Newtonian mechanics, must act in regards to its environment, thus taking into account, or observing, the particle in question. As such, the wavefunction collapse is localized to a single particle and triggered by its surroundings. However, the single eigenstate that results from the collapse is truly and solely random, with no possibility, due to the time passed, for interference by a foreign factor. Thus, the transfer between one state to the next [next here referring to the following state after the passing of an infinitesimally small Δx portion of time] is, while dependent on the prior, is inherently and by default random. There's literally, regarding any form of logic, no other interpretation.

Randomness is essential. Randomness is a key aspect of how literally everything functions.


>implying randomnes exists

Has there every been a single experiment to show that a truly random outcome (at large scale) exist?
Don't try to get me to show it doesn't, I'm not going to bother proving a negative.

However, the single eigenstate that results from the collapse is truly and solely random,
There's literally, regarding any form of logic, no other interpretation.

Is it? Even if it is, couldn't it be that it collapses both ways in a different world, as according to many worlds theory?
I see what you mean, but it doesn't proove randomness, just as it doesn't proove many worlds.
If you meant differently please elaborate.

The reasoning there is circular. It's an example of Begging the Question (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion).



This assumes that there isn't evidence in the first place, which, if a God were to exist that created all things, then everything of its creation would be evidence for the existence of the God. And so, you must first assume there isn't a God in order to state that there is a lack of evidence of its existence.

Similarly for the second part.



This also assumes there isn't a God, because, let's imagine for example that there was a God that was the creator of all things - this means we wouldn't be here without its creation of us, and consequently, there would be all the need for a God.

It could also be the case that the God is the justification for why all physical laws are the way they are in this universe, meaning that there is again, a need for a God.

So, as seen, this idea that there is "no need for a God" would only work if it is assumed the case already that there is no God.
Thus, it's circular reasoning to say that there is a lack of evidence or no need for a God and thus we ought assume there isn't a God.

Overall, what's going on there is of this logic form:



See how it chases its own tail?

Now you might say, "Why have line #1?" Well, because it's necessary or we can't even get to line #2 in the first place. I'll show you what I mean:

let's say for a moment that atheism is incorrect, and that there is a God:



See how the points you presented only work to support you if you assume you're already correct to begin with?


*Note: I am not claiming there is a God, I am only claiming that those two points you presented are certainly not a good reason to assume there isn't a God, because of the fact that they are not appropriately reasoned.

The reasoning there is circular. It's an example of Begging the Question (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion).

the example of beggin the question your page gave me was
"“Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association president. “But women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.”"
How is what I said a beggin the qeuestion?

This assumes that there isn't evidence in the first place, which, if a God were to exist that created all things, then everything of its creation would be evidence for the existence of the God. And so, you must first assume there isn't a God in order to state that there is a lack of evidence of its existence.
This also assumes there isn't a God, because, let's imagine for example that there was a God that was the creator of all things - this means we wouldn't be here without its creation of us, and consequently, there would be all the need for a God.
It could also be the case that the God is the justification for why all physical laws are the way they are in this universe, meaning that there is again, a need for a God.
It could also be the case that the God is the justification for why all physical laws are the way they are in this universe, meaning that there is again, a need for a God.




If a unicorn would poop rainbows, every rainbow would be evidence of it's existence, but THAT IS ASUMING IT EXIST, which seems like actual circular reasoning to me?
You can give all the ifs and coulds, but rhetorics proove NOTHING,
plus none of these things would be a proof of god, even if there is one, it would just show us that there is something causing these things, and it wouldn't be direct proof for god.

[Bleid]

the example of beggin the question your page gave me was
"“Women have rights,” said the Bullfighters Association president. “But women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.”"
How is what I said a beggin the qeuestion?

Begging the question is when the conclusion (point to be proven) is assumed in the reasoning for proving the conclusion.

You saying:

that we can assume there isn't a God because there's a lack of evidence for one and God is not needed is circular because you already have to assume that there isn't a God in order for that to be true.

Let me try to show you what I mean in a different way:

We have these two premises you presented as reasons why we can assume there isn't a God:

1. There is a lack of evidence for a God.
2. There is no need for a God.

So as said, these are reasons why we can assume there isn't a God, as you said above.

However, for these reasons to actually be valid reasons we need to already have assumed that there isn't a God.

Do you see why?

Because, let's say we do not assume there isn't a God and instead assume that there is a God.

In that situation? We'd be wrong if we state:

1. There is a lack of evidence for a God.
2. There is no need for a God.

Because #1 is wrong due to all of God's creations being evidence (if God existed)

and #2 is wrong due to God existing and having created all things.
You see?


Essentially, the circularity is:

1. We're assuming there isn't a God.
2. Since there isn't a God, there's no evidence for one.
3. Since there isn't a God, God is not needed for our universe.
____
4. Thus, we can assume there isn't a God.

If you do not have #1 in there, you can't claim #2 and #3 to be truth, and so, it is circular by necessity.

Consider without #1 in there:

2. There's no evidence for a God.
3. God is not needed for our universe.
____
4. Thus, we can assume there isn't a God.

There's no justification for #2 and #3 to be true at all UNLESS we assume there isn't a God, making it so it cannot be needed nor can there be evidence for one.

To break it down simply:

Either there is a God or there is not.
That's a necessary truth.

If it does exist, then we can't justifiably say that there isn't any evidence for it and we also can't say that it isn't needed.

If it does not exist, then we can say both of those things (unneeded/no evidence).

However, we do not know whether or not there is a God, and so we cannot make claims as if we know that there isn't a God.

If a unicorn would poop rainbows, every rainbow would be evidence of it's existence, but THAT IS ASUMING IT EXIST, which seems like actual circular reasoning to me?
You can give all the ifs and coulds, but rhetorics proove NOTHING,
plus none of these things would be a proof of god, even if there is one, it would just show us that there is something causing these things, and it wouldn't be direct proof for god.

No one is trying to prove God exists here. I'm saying that your reasons for believing you can assume that there isn't a God are circular.

[Luminous]

I don't believe in God.
Until I was 12 years old my parents forced Judaism on me. My clothing (long skirts and long sleeve shirts), my food (Kosher only), my actions (Friday night - Saturday night no electricity, driving, drawing, carrying things around outdoors, crafting, or anything besides resting, reading, or praying was not allowed), my whole life was restricted. I hated it and grew to hate this 'god' figure who was making my life hell. My dream of being an actor was not happening because I couldn't do anything on Saturdays and no costumes fit what I was allowed to wear. I became extremely depressed and as I got older, 10-11, when I had no real friends (I still don't, but I don't care as much) I became suicidal. My parents were totally oblivious.
When I was 12 I guess my mom hit her head or something because she realized how horrible our lives were and slowly started to allow us to do other things. First drawing or cooking on Saturdays, then driving places on Saturdays very very occasionally, switching from skirts to baggy jeans, etc etc, and my life slowly started to get better, because we were leaving behind the idea of god. I realize now how sheltered I was as well. I had a lot of trouble figuring out I was gay because I didn't know what that meant until I was 11 years old. I didn't fully understand I was allowed to form my own opinions until I joined VT.
My life has gotten a hundred thousand times better since we (my whole family except for my dad who is still extremely religious) left our religion. Why would I want to go back to that and believe in god?

[Lovelife090994]

I don't believe in God.
Until I was 12 years old my parents forced Judaism on me. My clothing (long skirts and long sleeve shirts), my food (Kosher only), my actions (Friday night - Saturday night no electricity, driving, drawing, carrying things around outdoors, crafting, or anything besides resting, reading, or praying was not allowed), my whole life was restricted. I hated it and grew to hate this 'god' figure who was making my life hell. My dream of being an actor was not happening because I couldn't do anything on Saturdays and no costumes fit what I was allowed to wear. I became extremely depressed and as I got older, 10-11, when I had no real friends (I still don't, but I don't care as much) I became suicidal. My parents were totally oblivious.
When I was 12 I guess my mom hit her head or something because she realized how horrible our lives were and slowly started to allow us to do other things. First drawing or cooking on Saturdays, then driving places on Saturdays very very occasionally, switching from skirts to baggy jeans, etc etc, and my life slowly started to get better, because we were leaving behind the idea of god. I realize now how sheltered I was as well. I had a lot of trouble figuring out I was gay because I didn't know what that meant until I was 11 years old. I didn't fully understand I was allowed to form my own opinions until I joined VT.
My life has gotten a hundred thousand times better since we (my whole family except for my dad who is still extremely religious) left our religion. Why would I want to go back to that and believe in god?

Now I'm depressed, that must have been hard. My family thinks similarly but we are not Jewish. But I chose to stand by God rather than my family's view of him. My advice, never let someone use God against you. First off God is for all and those who impose are really blind. Despite my shortcomings and sexuality I still believe in God but because I want to and lovd him. No one can make me do those things. Try confronting your family. With enough is enough. Skirts and make-up don't make the girl nor does it make her pious. Religiosity vs spirituality is often misunderstood. So many are religious when religion can blind you from your own faith.

[Luminous]

Now I'm depressed, that must have been hard. My family thinks similarly but we are not Jewish. But I chose to stand by God rather than my family's view of him. My advice, never let someone use God against you. First off God is for all and those who impose are really blind. Despite my shortcomings and sexuality I still believe in God but because I want to and lovd him. No one can make me do those things. Try confronting your family. With enough is enough. Skirts and make-up don't make the girl nor does it make her pious. Religiosity vs spirituality is often misunderstood. So many are religious when religion can blind you from your own faith.

I don't need to confront my family. We're not like that anymore. Dwelling on the past won't fix or change my memories.

[Bleid]

I don't believe in God.
Until I was 12 years old my parents forced Judaism on me. My clothing (long skirts and long sleeve shirts), my food (Kosher only), my actions (Friday night - Saturday night no electricity, driving, drawing, carrying things around outdoors, crafting, or anything besides resting, reading, or praying was not allowed), my whole life was restricted. I hated it and grew to hate this 'god' figure who was making my life hell. My dream of being an actor was not happening because I couldn't do anything on Saturdays and no costumes fit what I was allowed to wear. I became extremely depressed and as I got older, 10-11, when I had no real friends (I still don't, but I don't care as much) I became suicidal. My parents were totally oblivious.
When I was 12 I guess my mom hit her head or something because she realized how horrible our lives were and slowly started to allow us to do other things. First drawing or cooking on Saturdays, then driving places on Saturdays very very occasionally, switching from skirts to baggy jeans, etc etc, and my life slowly started to get better, because we were leaving behind the idea of god. I realize now how sheltered I was as well. I had a lot of trouble figuring out I was gay because I didn't know what that meant until I was 11 years old. I didn't fully understand I was allowed to form my own opinions until I joined VT.
My life has gotten a hundred thousand times better since we (my whole family except for my dad who is still extremely religious) left our religion. Why would I want to go back to that and believe in god?

I won't say I understand how difficult that must have been for you, nor will I say that you haven't had a difficult life because of that religion.

However, we should realize that believing in there being a God doesn't actually have something to do with all of the issues you stated there, you know?

What I'm saying is - yes, I wouldn't suggest to practice Judaism, because Judaism ruined your life. But this does not have any bearing on whether or not there is a God. It means that Judaism is a problem for you, not there being or not being a deity.

Consider for just a moment that there was a religion that was regarding the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun (Hopefully we agree that this is a fact)

But this religion required you to go to their own church 5 out of 7 days a week for 3 hours each of these days, you could eat nothing but Top Ramen noodles and you needed to wear winter clothes each day, even in the summer.

Now, if you were a part of that religion, you may very well say it is ruining your life - but does this mean that the subject of the religion (The Earth going around the Sun) should be something you no longer believe just because of how the religion surrounding that belief has treated you?
Wouldn't it be sensible to simply drop the religion, instead of dropping the religion & refusing the belief that the Earth revolves about the Sun?

[Living For Love]

I do believe in God, I always have and I always will. I don't know, it's not something you can explain rationally. Descartes and Kierkegaard tried it, but they weren't much successful. I know, though, that when I pray to God, I feel there's actually "someone up there" listening to me, I feel his power and his blessings around me and my family. This might seem stupid, but it's just what I believe in.

[Harry Smith]

I think one problem is that people don't understand that there is a clear difference between God and Religion

[Stronk Serb]

I think one problem is that people don't understand that there is a clear difference between God and Religion

As in, there are non-theistic and theistic religions? Yeah, many don't get that.

[The Trendy Wolf]

If one can see something someone else can't see, is there a logical argument that the one who sees can give to the one who can't for what is seen? Like if I know and can perceive God, while someone else can't, is there any logical argument that can be made to the person who can't? I don't think so. So why ask? It is not in the realm of reasoning, but personal experience and knowledge that cannot be conveyed directly to another. I see the complexity of the human body and am convinced it cannot happen without intelligent guidance, I see the non-material aspect of consciousness and know the material can't account for it. I see the need for a transcendent cause, I see people having direct personal experiences of God and hear their testimonies (including my own personal experiences)....but none of these are sufficient for you are they? Atheists fool themselves in my opinion, they attempt to look at each instance and find some way to rationalize it away, but can't see the totality of it all, the BIG PICTURE. Why do atheists keep asking the same question over and over, hear the same responses, then ask the question over again?
I understand what you are saying, but this is a problem that all life must face. We cannot communicate perfectly, but we can do so to the best of our ability by explaining our experiences in a way that others may understand. I know that trying to describe colors to the blind is practically impossible, but that is a literal boundary (as far as we know). Besides, I am no atheist, for I cannot prove the non-existence of anything, as we cannot know everything. I'm simply in between, agnostic, if you will.

I grew up in a Protestant family, I went to church, and I saw no problem with it. But one day, I wondered, how could there be something or someone 'up there', why does there have to be, why do we think this?

I respect your argument, truly, as I perfectly agree with everything you have to say. However, when has logic ever been incorrect? When has it not helped to gather the truth, and better ourselves because of it? People of logic do sometimes fail to see the fact that we cannot explain everything, for there are limits to our knowledge, just like there is a limit to our lifespan and existence, and I understand that and I'm sure that you do as well.

Sure it is possible that there is a god in this universe, but that is only due to the unknown.

[Capto]

>implying randomnes exists

Has there every been a single experiment to show that a truly random outcome (at large scale) exist?
Don't try to get me to show it doesn't, I'm not going to bother proving a negative.


Those who deny randomness deny the very essence of science. Burn the heretics. Yes, you may think that you're quite the quantum physicist, but in the end, if you continue to blindly deny stochastic method in regards to the physical world, you're really only seeing half the picture.

That is, Schrödinger's picture.


Is it? Even if it is, couldn't it be that it collapses both ways in a different world, as according to many worlds theory?
I see what you mean, but it doesn't proove randomness, just as it doesn't proove many worlds.
If you meant differently please elaborate.


By its very definition, it's random. The many worlds theory is utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand. And what do you mean both? There is no given single divergent pair of paths out of a nigh infinite number of resultant eigenstates.

[Harry Smith]

As in, there are non-theistic and theistic religions? Yeah, many don't get that.

yeah, I don't understand how a deity that has ultimate powers= having to go to church every sunday and say a couple of words about your love for him

[Stronk Serb]

yeah, I don't understand how a deity that has ultimate powers= having to go to church every sunday and say a couple of words about your love for him

Yeah. And how does he love his creations which were made in his own image by obliterating entire cities, just because the male population was homosexual.

[Luminous]

I won't say I understand how difficult that must have been for you, nor will I say that you haven't had a difficult life because of that religion.

However, we should realize that believing in there being a God doesn't actually have something to do with all of the issues you stated there, you know?

What I'm saying is - yes, I wouldn't suggest to practice Judaism, because Judaism ruined your life. But this does not have any bearing on whether or not there is a God. It means that Judaism is a problem for you, not there being or not being a deity.

Consider for just a moment that there was a religion that was regarding the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun (Hopefully we agree that this is a fact)

But this religion required you to go to their own church 5 out of 7 days a week for 3 hours each of these days, you could eat nothing but Top Ramen noodles and you needed to wear winter clothes each day, even in the summer.

Now, if you were a part of that religion, you may very well say it is ruining your life - but does this mean that the subject of the religion (The Earth going around the Sun) should be something you no longer believe just because of how the religion surrounding that belief has treated you?
Wouldn't it be sensible to simply drop the religion, instead of dropping the religion & refusing the belief that the Earth revolves about the Sun?

That is true. Judaism ruined my life directly. But god ruined it indirectly. But it was my parent's belief in God that caused them to become so religious (their families were Jewish, but reform, so if Orthodox is the top of the ladder, reform is the bottom). They had faith in his existence and all of that so they chose to become extremely religious. Anyways, just in general I don't believe in god. I mean, god could exist but it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me, it doesn't seem real.

[Bleid]

That is true. Judaism ruined my life directly. But god ruined it indirectly. But it was my parent's belief in God that caused them to become so religious (their families were Jewish, but reform, so if Orthodox is the top of the ladder, reform is the bottom). They had faith in his existence and all of that so they chose to become extremely religious. Anyways, just in general I don't believe in god. I mean, god could exist but it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me, it doesn't seem real.


Fair enough.

[CassnovA]

this is a conversation nobody can ever win. personally i think the idea of a god is crazy, but more than a physical belief i know the idea of a god gives a lot of people hope and purpose so i wont ever try to convert believers.

[Lisa R]

I do believe in god and his existence in my heart,mind,and soul..
And that's what matters to me. I don't go to church on sundays cause my heart is my temple. What I'm saying is I don't have to go to church to believe. I believe in my heart mind and soul. I have no reason to go to church to believe in god. Does that make me a bad person.? I don't know
All i know is that i believe and pray in my heart mind and soul.. That is what gives me my peace of mind. does this make sense to anyone?

[Miserabilia]

What about in your feet?
lol
Begging the question is when the conclusion (point to be proven) is assumed in the reasoning for proving the conclusion.

You saying:

that we can assume there isn't a God because there's a lack of evidence for one and God is not needed is circular because you already have to assume that there isn't a God in order for that to be true.

Let me try to show you what I mean in a different way:

We have these two premises you presented as reasons why we can assume there isn't a God:



So as said, these are reasons why we can assume there isn't a God, as you said above.

However, for these reasons to actually be valid reasons we need to already have assumed that there isn't a God.

Do you see why?

Because, let's say we do not assume there isn't a God and instead assume that there is a God.

In that situation? We'd be wrong if we state:



Because #1 is wrong due to all of God's creations being evidence (if God existed)

and #2 is wrong due to God existing and having created all things.
You see?


Essentially, the circularity is:



If you do not have #1 in there, you can't claim #2 and #3 to be truth, and so, it is circular by necessity.

Consider without #1 in there:



There's no justification for #2 and #3 to be true at all UNLESS we assume there isn't a God, making it so it cannot be needed nor can there be evidence for one.

To break it down simply:

Either there is a God or there is not.
That's a necessary truth.

If it does exist, then we can't justifiably say that there isn't any evidence for it and we also can't say that it isn't needed.

If it does not exist, then we can say both of those things (unneeded/no evidence).

However, we do not know whether or not there is a God, and so we cannot make claims as if we know that there isn't a God.



No one is trying to prove God exists here. I'm saying that your reasons for believing you can assume that there isn't a God are circular.

Well then in order to conclude anything from it you must either assume god is real or not before hand, but that is not nescecary;

- The natural/first/whatever, original state is atheism
- The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't, can't proove a negative

The burden if to proof god exists, as there is no evidence for his existence and generaly nothing that I know of that requires his existence to be here, and not just something (for example the start of the universe, requires something but not nescecairly a god).
So for me it's safe to assume god doesn't exist,
as the claim "god is real/god exists" is not justified with any evidence,
is where I'm getting at.

[Bleid]

Well then in order to conclude anything from it you must either assume god is real or not before hand, but that is not nescecary;

Not necessary. You do not need to engage in circular reasoning, nor assume that God exists/doesn't exist in order to conclude anything. Conclusions can be drawn without either of those assumptions.

- The natural/first/whatever, original state is atheism
- The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't, can't proove a negative

Well, that's not true. You can prove a negative. I don't know where you became convinced that you couldn't, since, proving a negative is inherent in any and all axioms and of reasoning, in addition to being required for some forms of argument and proofs.

I'll provide you as many examples as you'd like, in addition to showing you the exact forms of reasoning that involve proving a negative. Just let me know if you're interested.

The burden if to proof god exists, as there is no evidence for his existence and generaly nothing that I know of that requires his existence to be here, and not just something (for example the start of the universe, requires something but not nescecairly a god).
So for me it's safe to assume god doesn't exist,
as the claim "god is real/god exists" is not justified with any evidence,
is where I'm getting at.

Again, this is still circular reasoning. That's the same rationale you provided before.

We cannot be justified in saying:

1. There is no evidence for his existence.
2. generally nothing that I know of that requires his existence.

Without first presupposing there isn't a God. (Being an irrational assumption)

The reason being? We do not know if there is or is not, and so, if there was a God and you weren't correct, then both of your reasons for believing you were correct in your assumption would be ludicrous.

You do not know if there's no need for a God, because you do not know whether or not it exists.
You also do not know if there is any evidence for a God, because you do not know whether or not it exists.

And so, if this is what you think is the "natural/first/whatever, original state", then that's fine, but be aware that it certainly isn't the rational default position, because it's making baseless assumptions.

[Miserabilia]

Not necessary. You do not need to engage in circular reasoning, nor assume that God exists/doesn't exist in order to conclude anything. Conclusions can be drawn without either of those assumptions.



Well, that's not true. You can prove a negative. I don't know where you became convinced that you couldn't, since, proving a negative is inherent in any and all axioms and of reasoning, in addition to being required for some forms of argument and proofs.

I'll provide you as many examples as you'd like, in addition to showing you the exact forms of reasoning that involve proving a negative. Just let me know if you're interested.



Again, this is still circular reasoning. That's the same rationale you provided before.

We cannot be justified in saying:

1. There is no evidence for his existence.
2. generally nothing that I know of that requires his existence.

Without first presupposing there isn't a God. (Being an irrational assumption)

The reason being? We do not know if there is or is not, and so, if there was a God and you weren't correct, then both of your reasons for believing you were correct in your assumption would be ludicrous.

You do not know if there's no need for a God, because you do not know whether or not it exists.
You also do not know if there is any evidence for a God, because you do not know whether or not it exists.

And so, if this is what you think is the "natural/first/whatever, original state", then that's fine, but be aware that it certainly isn't the rational default position, because it's making baseless assumptions.

Well, duh.
I AM presuming there is no god, as that is the original state.
The burden is for a theist to show there is a god to me in order for me to beleive in one.
I am presuming there is no god, as am I presuming there is no fairys and unicorns untill someone shows me definite proof of otherwise.

[Vlerchan]

I'll provide you as many examples as you'd like, in addition to showing you the exact forms of reasoning that involve proving a negative. Just let me know if you're interested.
I've always held the reasoning that if you couldn't find an immaterial object (eg: god) you were left with two distinct conclusions:

It doesn't exist.
We don't have the tools currently to determine its existence.
Though it is possible to prove a negative in relation to material objects that can be empirically measured.

[CosmicNoodle]

I don't want to offend anyone but I likely will. Delete the post if you will. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

I don't believe in any sort of God because I have basic logic. If you read the bible, or any holy book for that matter, 90% of the time they are full of massive contradiction, and hypocracy. For instance, if I'm an atheist. I have basic morality, I don't discriminate, so on so forth, imnnot saying all atheists are nice, they are not, many are capable of being just as or worse yo other humans. But if I followed religion, obviously not all are the same, but generally they have the same basic views are there very core, I would be a bigoted homophone who treats women as a position and insists on imposing my views,

Obviously I'm not close minded enough to think all religion is like that, there are some, and it is only some, that are actually beneficial to society as a hole.
Also, I would rather live in the real world than persist in a delusion, no matter how satisfying it may be.

Those are my views, you have the right to be offended for a reason.

[Bleid]

Well, duh.
I AM presuming there is no god, as that is the original state.

Again, this is a baseless assumption.

It could very well be that the only manner by which the physical states of affairs of the world could exist is through that of a God - it is unknown as to whether or not this is the case.

You have to assume there isn't a God in your justification of "that being the original state" - since it is equally possible in our knowledge of the world for the "original state" to be that there is a deity, rather than there not being one.

The burden is for a theist to show there is a god to me in order for me to beleive in one.

Yes. No one is disagreeing with you there. However, this is irrelevant to what I'm saying about your presuming.

I am presuming there is no god, as am I presuming there is no fairys and unicorns untill someone shows me definite proof of otherwise.

Presuming there 'is not' is to engage with what's called Argument From Ignorance. Argument from ignorance is when you presume something true because of lack of evidence to the contrary, or presume it false because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

This is fallacious reasoning because you cannot get to something being false or true simply because there hasn't been evidence presented for the opposite case. If we actually were to apply this sort of reasoning, we would be led to a state of affairs that's impossible to satisfy:

1. Assume God is non-existent until theists show that God does exist.
_______
2. God does not exist, detailed by the assumption on line #1, and so it is impossible for any theist to show us that it does.

See the issue here?

What you can get to, instead of presuming that God doesn't exist is that you are not certain as to whether or not it does exist (or does not).

The difference there, between (assuming God doesn't exist until proven to exist) and (simply suspending your judgement on the existence of a deity until evidence is provided) is the difference between (irrational reasoning) and (rational reasoning).

Consider an alternative to the "Problematic Reasoning" quote above:

1. It is not known to me as to whether or not God exists.
______
2. Theists must demonstrate evidence of God before I believe in the existence of it.

Why include in this flawless, rational argument the need for this "God does not exist" presumption? It's already fine. It provides to us the conclusion any non-believer would like - the burden on the theists.

But if we add in that assumption that God does not exist? It's all ruined. The rationality is now lost and we even put a separate, but equal burden on ourselves for the assumption about God's non-existence that we've created.

I've always held the reasoning that if you couldn't find an immaterial object (eg: god) you were left with two distinct conclusions:

It doesn't exist.
We don't have the tools currently to determine its existence.
Though it is possible to prove a negative in relation to material objects that can be empirically measured.

For what's provided above, I'd disagree with the first in that list, and agree with the second.

But in addition to material objects that can be empirically measured, it's also possible to prove a negative in terms of relations and immaterial, conceptual items, such as in the fields/disciplines of mathematics, logic, theoretical physics, metaphysics, metalogic, set theory and so forth.

[Vlerchan]

For what's provided above[1], I'd disagree with the first in that list[2], and agree with the second.
[1]: Would you provide any anything beyond it?

[2]: How so? If we can find no evidence pertaining towards the existence of a certain immaterial object (eg: god, again) then isn't the lack of existence of this same immaterial object a valid conclusion to draw from it - as long as we accept that there may be other conclusions (see: second option).

But in addition to material objects that can be empirically measured, it's also possible to prove a negative in terms of relations and immaterial, conceptual items, such as in the fields/disciplines of mathematics, logic, theoretical physics, metaphysics, meta-logic, set theory and so forth.
You are going to need to expand on this.

I don't think I'm quite catching the point you are trying to make here.

[Bleid]

[1]: Would you provide any anything beyond it?

What do you mean by this? Such as, would I provide anything beyond why I disagree with #1 and not #2, or do you mean something else?

[2]: How so? If we can find no evidence pertaining towards the existence of a certain immaterial object (eg: god, again) then isn't the lack of existence of this same immaterial object a valid conclusion to draw from it - as long as we accept that there may be other conclusions (see: second option).

It wouldn't be a valid conclusion, due to the fact that lack of evidence for a deity not bringing us quite to the conclusion that "There is not a deity."

Just like if I live in the United States and I've never actually seen a tiger or heard of one before, this is not evidence for lack of existence of tigers (and especially not if the tiger was a metaphysical phenomena, like a deity would be).

You are going to need to expand on this.

Sure - I'll expand by providing an example of this in elementary logic:

Let A and B be arbitrary propositions representing the truth of arbitrary states of affairs.
"~" will be used as the standard 'negation' notation, denoting the negative of a proposition. (Such as: ~B = "It is not the case that B")

1. Assume A for reductio:
2. | ...
3. | ...
...
n. | B & ~B
(n+1). Therefore, ~A

This is what's called 'reductio ad absurdum' (proof by contradiction) in its general, formal sense.

Given that A is the case, we led A through to its implications and found a contradiction (B & ~B), which demonstrates ~A (It is not the case that A) being, the negative of A.

I don't think I'm quite catching he point you are trying to make here.

Let me know.

[james132]

faith. if any atheist has something about the bilbe that they don't like and wants an answer to please ask me I like teaching

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean by this? Such as, would I provide anything beyond why I disagree with #1 and not #2, or do you mean something else?
It seemed to be implied in your last post that you mind add beyond #1 and #2.

Perhaps I was misinterpreting though.

It wouldn't be a valid conclusion, due to the fact that lack of evidence for a deity not bringing us quite to the conclusion that "There is not a deity."
Okay. I think I might just be using the wrong word here.

Would you call it a valid possibility? I was using the word 'conclusion' more in that sense.

Let me know.
Okay. I get the point your making here now (I think.) Thanks :).

[Bleid]

It seemed to be implied in your last post that you mind add beyond #1 and #2.

Perhaps I was misinterpreting though.

Oh, I'd gladly do so if anyone happens to ask me to on anything in particular.

Okay. I think I might just be using the wrong word here.

Would you call it a valid possibility? I was using the word 'conclusion' more in that sense.

Of course. God(s) not existing is certainly a possibility.

Okay. I get the point your making here now (I think.) Thanks :).

Glad. Let me know if there's anything more I could have explained better in what I said.

[Miserabilia]

Again, this is a baseless assumption.

It could very well be that the only manner by which the physical states of affairs of the world could exist is through that of a God - it is unknown as to whether or not this is the case.

You have to assume there isn't a God in your justification of "that being the original state" - since it is equally possible in our knowledge of the world for the "original state" to be that there is a deity, rather than there not being one.



Yes. No one is disagreeing with you there. However, this is irrelevant to what I'm saying about your presuming.



Presuming there 'is not' is to engage with what's called Argument From Ignorance. Argument from ignorance is when you presume something true because of lack of evidence to the contrary, or presume it false because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

This is fallacious reasoning because you cannot get to something being false or true simply because there hasn't been evidence presented for the opposite case. If we actually were to apply this sort of reasoning, we would be led to a state of affairs that's impossible to satisfy:



See the issue here?

What you can get to, instead of presuming that God doesn't exist is that you are not certain as to whether or not it does exist (or does not).

The difference there, between (assuming God doesn't exist until proven to exist) and (simply suspending your judgement on the existence of a deity until evidence is provided) is the difference between (irrational reasoning) and (rational reasoning).

Consider an alternative to the "Problematic Reasoning" quote above:



Why include in this flawless, rational argument the need for this "God does not exist" presumption? It's already fine. It provides to us the conclusion any non-believer would like - the burden on the theists.

But if we add in that assumption that God does not exist? It's all ruined. The rationality is now lost and we even put a separate, but equal burden on ourselves for the assumption about God's non-existence that we've created.



For what's provided above, I'd disagree with the first in that list, and agree with the second.

But in addition to material objects that can be empirically measured, it's also possible to prove a negative in terms of relations and immaterial, conceptual items, such as in the fields/disciplines of mathematics, logic, theoretical physics, metaphysics, metalogic, set theory and so forth.

Ah I think you mistunderstood me.
When I said "original state" I wasn't being very clear, so let me be now:
We are born atheist, atheist is a negative; a lack of beleif, just as we are born abudhist or apastafarian or aunicornist or whatever.
Atheism is the original state, as it's NOT a beleif.
That's what I meant.

And I'm not saying we should all assume and aggree that god doesn't exist;
the word "assume" was misleading of me, hehe.
I meant, for my personal beleifs, I assume there is no god for said reasons; I do not exclude it, there may be a god, but when I try to figure something out I am not going to use a god to do so;
that's what I meant with assume.

:yes:

[Bleid]

Ah I think you mistunderstood me.
When I said "original state" I wasn't being very clear, so let me be now:
We are born atheist, atheist is a negative; a lack of beleif, just as we are born abudhist or apastafarian or aunicornist or whatever.
Atheism is the original state, as it's NOT a beleif.
That's what I meant.

I see what you mean. And you're talking specifically about implicit atheism when you say this, correct? Not the strict sense of atheism?

Since, 'atheism' without any specification, strictly in and of itself is negated theism, being for those whom would believe that "God exists" is false rather than true. (indicated by the "ism" suffix, which denotes an ideology)

Implicit atheism being for those whom merely lack belief by default (without consideration or explicitly asserting their reasons for lacking belief), but do not claim that "God exists" is false.

And I'm not saying we should all assume and aggree that god doesn't exist;
the word "assume" was misleading of me, hehe.
I meant, for my personal beleifs, I assume there is no god for said reasons; I do not exclude it, there may be a god, but when I try to figure something out I am not going to use a god to do so;
that's what I meant with assume.

:yes:

Fair enough.

[Srom]

Is there a specific reason you believe in a deity? Do you agree with all his(her?) teachings? Do you fear him/her? Or do you just not believe in one and why?


Yes I believe in a God and the reason why I believe in a God is because He died on the cross for all the wrong things that I've done in my life and now I'm forgiven and saved by His grace. He also died for not only myself but for others like me who are lost and need to be found in Christ. Yes, I agree with Jesus's teachings that He has taught. Yes, I do fear Him but it's a loving kind of way. I don't fear Him to the point that I'm scared. It's the fear that I know that He will judge my sin even though I have been forgiven and set free. So I respect Him.

[Miserabilia]

I see what you mean. And you're talking specifically about implicit atheism when you say this, correct? Not the strict sense of atheism?

Since, 'atheism' without any specification, strictly in and of itself is negated theism, being for those whom would believe that "God exists" is false rather than true. (indicated by the "ism" suffix, which denotes an ideology)

Implicit atheism being for those whom merely lack belief by default (without consideration or explicitly asserting their reasons for lacking belief), but do not claim that "God exists" is false.



Fair enough.

Yes I was also a little confusing; I am not a hard atheist/gnostic atheist, I'm agnostic atheist and I was talking about soft atheism.

[Lovelife090994]

Yes I believe in a God and the reason why I believe in a God is because He died on the cross for all the wrong things that I've done in my life and now I'm forgiven and saved by His grace. He also died for not only myself but for others like me who are lost and need to be found in Christ. Yes, I agree with Jesus's teachings that He has taught. Yes, I do fear Him but it's a loving kind of way. I don't fear Him to the point that I'm scared. It's the fear that I know that He will judge my sin even though I have been forgiven and set free. So I respect Him.

My views are the same. I believe in God because I love him and he loves me. I love him for when Jesus died on the cross so that we all may be with him. I love and respect him which what God fearing means. I was lost too and sometimes I still loose my way, but God knows I'm trying and he knows my heart as he does for each of us. We all have a ways to go but we can all get their. Only God can truly judge sin. I feel His Truth sets us free. Okay, thanks for that. God bless you, go in peace.

[Bleid]

Yes I was also a little confusing; I am not a hard atheist/gnostic atheist, I'm agnostic atheist and I was talking about soft atheism.

Fair enough. Glad we could clarify.

[darthearth]

........

The difference there, between (assuming God doesn't exist until proven to exist) and (simply suspending your judgement on the existence of a deity until evidence is provided) is the difference between (irrational reasoning) and (rational reasoning).

.......



And this is the crux of the entire situation. Different people have different ideas about what reasonable evidence is, and they make a judgement based on how they perceive these evidences. The whole atheist/theist back and forth is a waste of time due to the differences in what is considered acceptable evidence to believe in God. The problem I see with atheists though is they have a tendency to say "no evidence" when they should say "no evidence acceptable to me". Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is perfectly acceptable and reasonable evidence to me, which is one of the bases for my belief. I have many bases for belief, anyone who says it is "baseless" doesn't even understand what the term means. And the term "evidence" is simply something put forth in support of something else, the term itself should not imply any particular type of evidence, but atheists redefine the term to mostly mean "scientific evidence". And so on and so forth.

[Matthias.smilemore]

I believe in God for a simple reason: I've been personally changed by him. I grew up in church as a kid. I knew all the Bible stuff and had heard all the religious stuff. But I was still rotten on the inside. I still cared about pleasing myself and no one else. Being religious did nothing for me. But it was one hiking trip when he found me. He gave me this weird understanding (because nothing actually changed besides something on the inside), and I became a person who began to care less about me and more about other people. If I had never been changed, I would rely on science and common sense for an explanation about God. And I would end up doubting his existence like many of you, because our rational science will never give us the answer to this question, as many of you have written. But because I was changed on the spot like I was, I knew that everything I had heard about God was true. Because it added up. Not that God's requirement is for people to be good. But that God requires people to be perfect. And because every one of us messed up, none of us could stand before God and say we earned a relationship with him. And because God is just and fair, that meant separation from him. Because he was infinitely perfect, our imperfection deserved an eternal punishment. So we all, no matter how "good" we are, or how many rules we follow, are in a very dire situation. It seemed like we had no hope. But our Creator pulled out a crazy plan, a final hope. If someone could be perfect, meeting the standard of God Himself, and then give up his perfection to us, we could be saved and restored to him. But who would sacrifice that position? Everything I live for focuses around the fact that Jesus was that perfect one, actually God's son in person, and when he was killed he traded his perfection to us while taking our imperfection and punishment of separation from God. He took our punishment and offers us his perfection. I still ask myself why he would do that. And that is why we say God loves. Because he sacrificed his perfect position for our punishment, a trade we never deserved. A trade we didn't even know we needed until he taught us. A trade we reject until he meets us on that hiking trip. You ask me why I believe in God? It's because I know him. All that story I just told I only realized after I got to know him. It's a story that makes much more sense to me than life and things coming from nothingness. You may say, "How can you 'know him' if he doesn't exist physically." And that is where I can't explain to you much more. Because when I pray to him and he answers me, and when I feel comforted by him, and when my heart is changed by him, these things are not easily explained to people who have never met him. It isn't about rules or special phrases or being a good person or knowing how to explain it perfectly or how much you pray or how miserable your life is in quest for him. I guess there comes a point when you have to either believe I am a maniac and so were the hundreds of men who saw Christ alive after he had been killed (they all went to death telling everyone they possibly could about this Jesus guy) or you believe that something awesome actually did happen to me and the countless others who have given their lives to become like Jesus while accepting that trade offer of death and shame for perfection and God-acceptance. It is a personal thing that's happened to me, why I believe in God and all. Not something I learned or read about all my life. I don't imagine that 1 percent of people will think me to be rational. But I honestly speak from what I truly have experienced on my own. And I don't expect to make anyone else feel a different way, but to give a small testimony. Don't call me bigoted. I don't think lowly of you all who say there is no God. I thought that way once, trying to explain him to myself through logic. The only problem is that I've found out that God is far beyond logic that our brains can muster up. So keep searching. Many of you have run into the wall of "we can't prove there is no God but we can't prove there is one either." Perhaps just by reading my story, you think me as an idiot. But I honestly couldn't care less. When you come to know a God as big as the one who calls me "son," you tend to think very little of anything besides living to please him.