Do you believe in God?

[shmogt]

Lol stupid iPhone app makes it so difficult to tell whether I need a new paragraph or not since it looks small and clean on my phone screen. Any spelling mistakes is autocorrect which just changes it without me knowing so sorry for that.

I'm super aggressive and in your face no matter what, not much I can do about that one lol.

Topics like this are just too broad and so much information can be mentioned its tough to simplify it down. I would like to gives references for eveything I say, but the post would go on for days providing all the facts and references just to prove my point. Especially when my point is that there are many views on a topic and you can't say your right over someone else unless you have the absolute final answer. This topic being how everything was made to prove that god is completely impossible to be true. Personally I feel it doesn't matter what you beileve in as long as it works for you.

 

[homeforsummer]

We are all born into a world of sin after the fall of man. We have to ask for Jesus to forgive us for all the wrong things we have done and we are then born again.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html

We caused this suffering through our selfishness, not God.

Above are two statements I understand from a religious perspective, but completely disagree with and are two more reasons why I have absolutely no desire to believe in a God.

The concept of Original Sin is one of the most cretinous things in the whole Christian religion.

I'm sorry to drag Godwin's Law into this but it's like believing that a German baby born today is basically a holocaust-causing Nazi just because of his great, great grandparent's involvement conscription in the war. Has the baby done anything wrong? Of course not. Nor has their parents, or their parents, or likely even their parents.

And yet, in Christianity, because of the actions of Adam and Eve - two characters from the Old Testament who by definition of the inaccuracies of Genesis and what we know about evolution can't have existed in the form described - everyone who is born is immediately branded a sinner and then has to spend the rest of their life proving they aren't - only to be encouraged to go to confession each week since you're still sinning.

Likewise, "our selfishness" causing the suffering of kids in slums around the world - sorry, but that's crap too. I refuse to be held accountable for the suffering of people with whom I have absolutely zero connection. That's not to say I'm not saddened by their plight, but it's certainly not my fault through "selfishness".

And this is coming from a self-confessed greenie who thinks we should all be doing our bit to help improve our future by reducing pollution and so-on, so I'm not completely cold-hearted and narrow-minded and the actions of many can make a difference - but the inactions of many doesn't automatically mean we're responsible for kids dying in Africa from malnutrition.

 

[Joey D]

Atheism doesn't say that though. It may imply that religions are illogical, but it does not say that an atheist is the best kind of person. You could very easily be a complete atheist and not look down on the religious.

I know it's not a foundation of atheism, but it sure seems like the norm. Looking through the past weeks on this thread there is quite of bit of anger and hostility towards the religious/deist. Many of the statements are also condescending and implying that the religious/deists are somehow inferior because they don't accept science's answer for every little thing.

Asking someone why do they believe is legitimate, belittling them for their belief isn't.

So I'll ask my questions again to anyone that wants to answer: Why, as atheists, do you feel the need to try to convert the deist to the idea of no God? Isn't that exactly what atheist can't stand? Trying to be converted? Also why is it that many atheist feel superior to deist?

 

[theotherspongey]

I know it's not a foundation of atheism, but it sure seems like the norm. Looking through the past weeks on this thread there is quite of bit of anger and hostility towards the religious/deist. Many of the statements are also condescending and implying that the religious/deists are somehow inferior because they don't accept science's answer for every little thing.

Asking someone why do they believe is legitimate, belittling them for their belief isn't.

So I'll ask my questions again to anyone that wants to answer: Why, as atheists, do you feel the need to try to convert the deist to the idea of no God? Isn't that exactly what atheist can't stand? Trying to be converted? Also why is it that many atheist feel superior to deist?

May I remind you this particular argument was started because of a religious person trying to convert us atheists:

As long as you have breath, there is still a chance for you.

The saving grace of Jesus Christ through faith alone and subsequent sealing of the Holy Spirit is the only way a life can truly be changed and a sinner redeemed.

As you can see, it's not the atheists trying to convert.

 

[HP]

Can any of the threads christians share their thoughts on why some christian holy days are nothing more than a perversion of pagan festivals?

We all know it was to help convert the European northerners but since that shizzle went down a while back can't they revert back to their original holy days? Do you guys even have any holy days that predate the theft of Christmas & Easter?

Even Easter is named after a pagan goddess, do you guys realise that when Easter comes around? The Christmas tree is another pagan symbol along with numerous others including gift giving ( I understand this was done to prevent starvation during winter when folks traded food & supplies); can anyone shed light on why the need remains to borrow these holy pagan periods when paganism is no longer a threat?

 

[Joey D]

May I remind you this particular argument was started because of a religious person trying to convert us atheists:

As you can see, it's not the atheists trying to convert.

You really can't see where atheists are trying to convert people? Really?

 

[TankAss95]

You really can't see where atheists are trying to convert people? Really?

+1

They think that their scientific 'facts' are enough to disprove Christianity.

 

[TheCracker]

+1

They think that their scientific 'facts' are enough to disprove Christianity.

The Christian 'God' doesn't need to be disproved. Since there's no evidence for it's existence it needs to be proved first.

 

[TankAss95]

The Christian 'God' doesn't need to be disproved. Since there's no evidence for it's existence it needs to be proved first.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

[Sam48]

The Christian 'God' doesn't need to be disproved.

That would be the only possible way you could prove his existence, by disproving everything else. Of course, this being science, even when you believe you've disproven every possible outcome, you haven't.

Since there's no evidence for it's existence it needs to be proved first.

How can you suggest to prove something that there is no evidence for?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Can any of the threads christians share their thoughts on why some christian holy days are nothing more than a perversion of pagan festivals?

We all know it was to help convert the European northerners but since that shizzle went down a while back can't they revert back to their original holy days? Do you guys even have any holy days that predate the theft of Christmas & Easter?

Even Easter is named after a pagan goddess, do you guys realise that when Easter comes around? The Christmas tree is another pagan symbol along with numerous others including gift giving ( I understand this was done to prevent starvation during winter when folks traded food & supplies); can anyone shed light on why the need remains to borrow these holy pagan periods when paganism is no longer a threat?

[JOKING]

It's God's will

PS - Sorry I mentioned God's will. I'm not trying to convert you!
[/JOKING]


[SERIOUSLY]
Humans make the holidays to celebrate whatever they want. That's an entirely human decision, I'm sure God (sorry) in all His omniscience (sorry), omnipresence (sorry) and omnipotence (again ... sorry) doesn't care much about holidays. In fact, being a christian is a full-time job, we are supposed to act as christians even in work days.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convert you.

[/SERIOUSLY]

 

[TheCracker]

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

No, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[TankAss95]

No, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

Have you actually read it? Do you really think that everything we have ever known came from two hydrogen atoms that magically appeared out into space?
If you don't believe in God then I suppose you will argue that life has no meaning or purpose but to pass on our genes.

 

[TheCracker]

Have you actually read it? Do you really think that everything we have ever known came from two hydrogen atoms that magically appeared out into space?

Sounds more logical than the magical sky-man answer.

If you don't believe in God then I suppose you will argue that life has no meaning or purpose but to pass on our genes.

Pretty much so. It works for me.

 

[TJC_69]

Does God Exist
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

The Earth
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The luminosity of the Sun will grow by 10% over the next 1.1*Gyr (1.1*billion years) and by 40% over the next 3.5*Gyr.Climate models indicate that the rise in radiation reaching the Earth is likely to have dire consequences, including the loss of the planet's oceans.

The Earth is expected to be effectively habitable for about another 500 millionyears from that point although this may be extended up to 2.3 billion years if the nitrogen is removed from the atmosphere.Even if the Sun were eternal and stable, the continued internal cooling of the Earth would result in a loss of much of its CO2due to reduced volcanism,and 35% of the water in the oceans would descend to the mantle due to reduced steam venting from mid-ocean ridges.

What are Gods evacuation plans for when this happens ?

 

[HP]

[JOKING]

It's God's will

PS - Sorry I mentioned God's will. I'm not trying to convert you!
[/JOKING]

[SERIOUSLY]
Humans make the holidays to celebrate whatever they want. That's an entirely human decision, I'm sure God (sorry) in all His omniscience (sorry), omnipresence (sorry) and omnipotence (again ... sorry) doesn't care much about holidays. In fact, being a christian is a full-time job, we are supposed to act as christians even in work days.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convert you.

[/SERIOUSLY]

Hahaha I Lol'd!!

There's no converting me mate, I even went ahead, with great glee and total commitment, & committed 'blasphemy of the holy spirit just to be certain that, should I ever get approached by devil dodgers, I had a conversation smasher...

Or so I thought.

So much for unforgivable sin, I've had pastors, priests and other learned theologians tell me that (in no uncertain terms) am I condemned to an eternity of daily impaling and that I CAN be saved again! Not once have I been told "nah mate sorry but you're more screwed than those dudes at Sodom & Gomorrah"!

Wait, WHAT?? so there's only one way to guarantee eternal damnation (boiling in lava & spit roasted daily by building sized demons) but whenever I have brought it up I get told that it's not necessarily true!!??

It's like they know it's all a sham so it's easier to just make up their own rules! Last I checked "god" had absolutely positively no time for such non believing utterances & didn't send a memo saying that blasphemy of the holy spirit was now kosher so don't be telling me it's ok if ya don't clear it with "him" first!!!

 

[nitrorocks]

This thread is going nowhere

 

[Famine]

No, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

Something that isn't riddled with logical fallacies would be nice. The first clause is a brilliant example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - the fallacy of assuming that an outcome occurs after a supposed event - in this case the assumption that the Earth was made for us because it's perfect (we live on this perfect place [ignoring the uninhabitable 75% of it], so it must have been made for us), rather than the repeatedly established data that shows we evolved on this place because it was perfect for us to do so.

Of course since the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God of Abraham has defined qualities that are non-falsifiable (like Russell's Teapot), it cannot be disproven - it cannot even be tested. Not "it cannot be tested yet", but at all. If it cannot be tested at all then it can neither be proven nor disproven - which makes arguing about whether it exists without proof either way somewhat banal.

This takes us right the way back to this post, this post and, particularly this one:

There is no glaring piece of evidence that tips the scales one way or another, so it comes down to how you see the world around you.

Yes and no. All the evidence we have acquired scientifically contradicts almost every statement of explanation in almost every holy text in the world. What we can say is that religion is wrong when it comes to defining the world and universe around us.

But we don't have any - and can't have any - evidence either for or against the gods described within the religions. What we can assume is that the books that claim to be the words of gods but don't describe the universe properly are not the words of gods and that questions the veracity of their claims about the properties of those gods. The particular characteristics of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God of Abraham are logically contradictory for a being - though are, oddly, descriptors of the universe (which contains all power, all knowledge and all places) - so we can say that God (or Allah) as described does not exist. But that doesn't specifically preclude the possibility of beings which have sufficient advancement for us to be unable to distinguish them from gods or supreme beings and there shouldn't be an atheist anywhere who says that this cannot possibly occur.

Your Bible is not a proof of the existence of God. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of God within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

Your Torah is not a proof of the existence of Jehovah. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of Jehovah within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

Your Qu'ran is not a proof of the existence of Allah. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of Allah within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

None of this is a rejection of the possibility of a higher being or power - or even a god - that we are not yet able to detect. Just of organised religion's untestable claims of ability to do so.

 

[TheCracker]

How can you suggest to prove something that there is no evidence for?

💡 Yeah... That's my whole point.

 

[homeforsummer]

Have you actually read it? Do you really think that everything we have ever known came from two hydrogen atoms that magically appeared out into space?

Please quit with this line of thought. You clearly don't understand the science so you're unable to apply it correctly to the discussion.

The universe did not start with two hydrogen atoms that magically appeared. Best current scientific theory suggests it started with all matter everywhere condensed into an infinitely small space.

And yes, that's hard to fathom, but that's not a good enough reason to assume therefore that a magical being was therefore responsible. And certainly not enough to keep raising the same point in conversation.

If you don't believe in God then I suppose you will argue that life has no meaning or purpose but to pass on our genes.

And again: Life doesn't have to have a meaning.

Christians like to believe that everything has a "meaning" (even, unfathomably, really bad stuff like a kid dying of cancer "it was simply their time") because it keeps them happy to think that it's all just the will of a superior being, but the reality is that we're here simply because we are. We're here for no other reason than because our planet supports the conditions for life. There's no meaning to it all, much as I'm sure it's a comforting thought and much easier to believe than trying to understand the science.

 

[Dennisch]

Christians like to believe that everything has a "meaning" (even, unfathomably, really bad stuff like a kid dying of cancer "it was simply their time") because it keeps them happy to think that it's all just the will of a superior being, but the reality is that we're here simply because we are. We're here for no other reason than because our planet supports the conditions for life. There's no meaning to it all, much as I'm sure it's a comforting thought and much easier to believe than trying to understand the science.

This. Other people should quote this too.

 

[shmogt]

Something that isn't riddled with logical fallacies would be nice. The first clause is a brilliant example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - the fallacy of assuming that an outcome occurs after a supposed event - in this case the assumption that the Earth was made for us because it's perfect (we live on this perfect place [ignoring the uninhabitable 75% of it], so it must have been made for us), rather than the repeatedly established data that shows we evolved on this place because it was perfect for us to do so.

Of course since the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God of Abraham has defined qualities that are non-falsifiable (like Russell's Teapot), it cannot be disproven - it cannot even be tested. Not "it cannot be tested yet", but at all. If it cannot be tested at all then it can neither be proven nor disproven - which makes arguing about whether it exists without proof either way somewhat banal.

This takes us right the way back to this post, this post and, particularly this one:

Your Bible is not a proof of the existence of God. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of God within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

Your Torah is not a proof of the existence of Jehovah. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of Jehovah within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

Your Qu'ran is not a proof of the existence of Allah. It is a largely allegorical storybook with many interesting moral lessons in it, but the description of Allah within it is untestable and can neither be proven nor disproven. It was written by some people trying to understand the universe with what they knew at the time.

None of this is a rejection of the possibility of a higher being or power - or even a god - that we are not yet able to detect. Just of organised religion's untestable claims of ability to do so.

Thank you this is what I was trying to say in more detail. All these books that were made do not prove that god exist, but do provide insight into how the world thought years ago. They technically could all tell true stories however unlikely and defying the laws of physics they may be lol, but they also give a lot of evidence to make god a possible theory. A lot of people all wrote a lot of extremely detailed books about all powerful being teaching them lessons. Seems kinda strange to just say everyone is stupid and they wasted their time. Maybe they did, but you can't prove otherwise giving god a plausibility.

 

[Brend]

To be honest my belief is unconditional. I believe there is a God and that's all that matters to me, however, for some reason atheists seem to hate this train of thought. Look,I'm a Catholic and always will be, I have my reasons and those reasons will mean nothing to non-believers. To me, there is a God and I look forward to meeting him someday. And there's nothing you can do or say to take that away from me.

 

[TheCracker]

To be honest my belief is unconditional. I believe there is a God and that's all that matters to me, however, for some reason atheists seem to hate this train of thought. Look,I'm a Catholic and always will be, I have my reasons and those reasons will mean nothing to non-believers. To me, there is a God and I look forward to meeting him someday. And there's nothing you can do or say to take that away from me.

I think 'seem to hate' is a bit of a strong term. 'Can't logically comprehend' would be more accurate.

 

[Strittan]

And again: Life doesn't have to have a meaning.

Christians like to believe that everything has a "meaning" (even, unfathomably, really bad stuff like a kid dying of cancer "it was simply their time") because it keeps them happy to think that it's all just the will of a superior being, but the reality is that we're here simply because we are. We're here for no other reason than because our planet supports the conditions for life. There's no meaning to it all, much as I'm sure it's a comforting thought and much easier to believe than trying to understand the science.

Exactly. Why is there such a need for meaning? And as you said, what about the really bad stuff?

In christian's point of view, 3 year old Sarah being raped by his grandfather (Things like this do happen unfortunately) has a meaning. It's God's will, right? Doesn't this make the invisible man we call God quite a sick person, thing, or whatever he is?

Don't blame it on God you say. Why not!? I thought he was powerful, but I guess he isn't then?

IF God exists, he seem to be nothing but evil to me.

 

[shmogt]

I think 'seem to hate' is a bit of a strong term. 'Can't logically comprehend' would be more accurate.

They can't comprehend it than tell all the Christians that they are wrong and it's impossible. You choose not follow don't follow and don't worry what other choose to do.

 

[Brend]

I think 'seem to hate' is a bit of a strong term. 'Can't logically comprehend' would be more accurate.

Well, if you can't...don't.

A couple of internet atheists aren't going to change any religious person's mind.

Be happy with your choice.

 

[Famine]

They can't comprehend it than tell all the Christians that they are wrong and it's impossible.

That's not really the problem (nor is it Christian-centric) - you go right ahead and believe what you want, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. The problem is when people-of-faith don't comprehend demonstrable fact, then refuse to because "it's only a theory" or "that's your opinion" and claim that whatever their holy book says that the fact contradicts is true because it's nicer or easier to believe - when belief is immaterial to whether the fact is true or not...

 

[shmogt]

That's not really the problem (nor is it Christian-centric) - you go right ahead and believe what you want, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. The problem is when people-of-faith don't comprehend demonstrable fact, then refuse to because "it's only a theory" or "that's your opinion" and claim that whatever their holy book says that the fact contradicts is true because it's nicer or easier to believe - when belief is immaterial to whether the fact is true or not...

And that is the reason for the huge debate in this whole thread. Neither side will admit that there could be a small chance that they are wrong and the other person could be right. There are facts and evidence that could point either way. No one was around back than to prove or disprove any of that stuff happening nor does anyone have the true answers threw science to this day. What you believe is on you, but you have to admit that you could be wrong.

 

[Strittan]

And that is the reason for the huge debate in this whole thread. Neither side will admit that there could be a small chance that they are wrong and the other person could be right. There are facts and evidence that could point either way. No one was around back than to prove or disprove any of that stuff happening nor does anyone have the true answers threw science to this day. What you believe is on you, but you have to admit that you could be wrong.

Really? What facts and evidence are there for anything in any of the religions?