Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,092 comments
  • 1,010,708 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 617 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.2%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,035 51.3%

  • Total voters
    2,019
I don't agree. Saying "Santa wears a red suit and loves milk and cookies" isn't the same as saying "I believe in Father Christmas". To me it's implied in @Exorcet's statement that he is discussing people's belief in the Almighty rather than affirming His existence.
I believe that I understand. Different people have different frames of reference which results in difference views on things that are written non-definitively.
In this particular case, an implication. In your example, I read it as "I have seen Santa", or "I know Santa". It doesn't make sense TO ME that you can comment about the behavior or habits of someone or something that you believe is purely hypotheticaI or speculative without qualifying it as such. Your experience and/or views are obviously different.
Thanks.
 
So is the nuclear bomb, one of the worst things ever to grace this earth, all in the name of science.
Nuclear bombs have prevented more conflicts than they've caused.

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with this - science is the process by which we (mortal humans) understand the world around us, and use it to benefit ourselves. But humans (or "science") didn't create Uranium, or the fact that matter can release ALOT of energy that might put a crimp in one's evening if exposed to it incorrectly. Every star in the sky releases an almost unimaginable (on a human scale) amount of energy every second - that's due to nuclear fusion and fission that happens entirely naturally - or, at God's will, whatever you prefer - and God has apparently given us the ability to not only understand these processes, but harness them for our own benefit, yet somehow that's our fault? I don't get that.
 
Last edited:
So is the nuclear bomb, one of the worst things ever to grace this earth, all in the name of science.
Not science, but the free will you claim a god gave us!

But please do share the body count for nuclear weapons Vs religious conflicts.
 
Last edited:
Not science, but the free will you claim a god gave us!

But please do share the body count for nuclear weapons Vs religious conflicts.
I'd rather not get involved in anything that involves the deaths of people, but if you want to make it a **** measuring contest between who has the biggest kill count between scientific warfare vs religious conflicts then feel free. I'll just sit here on the sidelines chilling and praying to God.

Also when did I ever say that God gave us free will? If anything all I've ever said is that absolute free will is an illusion, human beings have relative free will, not absolute true free will in any sense.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather not get involved in anything that involves the deaths of people, but if you want to make it a **** measuring contest between who has the biggest kill count between scientific warfare vs religious conflicts then feel free.
Can you explain what scientific warfare is?
 

Why is a nuclear explosion scientific warfare? The term doesn't seem to make sense to me. But regardless...

A quarter million dead is the estimate from the two atomic bombs released in armed conflict. The crusades (alone) are estimated to have killed 7 times as many people at time when the world population was much smaller.

This is based on your definition of "scientific warfare".
 
Why is a nuclear explosion scientific warfare? The term doesn't seem to make sense to me. But regardless...

A quarter million dead is the estimate from the two atomic bombs released in armed conflict. The crusades (alone) are estimated to have killed 7 times as many people at time when the world population was much smaller.

This is based on your definition of "scientific warfare".

This is the Scientific resolution, fight fire with fire or rather, fight wrong with more wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather not get involved in anything that involves the deaths of people, but if you want to make it a **** measuring contest between who has the biggest kill count between scientific warfare vs religious conflicts then feel free.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 129,000 to 226,000


The Crusades - 1,000,000 to 3,000,000


But I'm sure I chose the wrong wars.
 
The Crusades - 1096-1300 CE (200 years) across 8 expeditions

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 1945 (3 days) with a grand total of 2 bombings

All this proves is that Science really does trump religion when it comes to having a large amount of people killed within a certain space of time.

No actually, science is the application of knowledge. Often when it comes to war an effort is made to avoid fighting, using information gained by studying how people work and what makes them fight.
Oh yeah, all that good knowledge was sure applied and dropped all over Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't it.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, all that good knowledge was sure applied and dropped all over Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't it.
Given your previous solipsistic ramblings, I'm now wondering why you'd have imagined such a reality and blaming it on "science" when really it was you and in any case the dead people didn't exist.


This is one of the more bizarre defences of deicism given God's death toll includes everyone except Noah, his kids, and their wives.
 
"Everything is unfolding as God planned".
"Child leukemia is part of God's plan?"
"Who gives a ****"?
The truth is as human beings were a merely just small pieces of flesh a bone in an entire universe full of physical matter, a human being going through such is no different from a tree being cut down, or a celestial object smashing into another celestial object. It's all just physical matter interacting with physical matter so what reason is there to even care or give a **?
Might be one of the grossest statements I've seen on this site in years b/c this is effectively what you're saying; if everything is unfolding to the plan of a higher power, who cares if people suffer.

You sound less like a religious fanatic & more like a Christian cultist with how quickly & ignorantly the lengths you go to defend your high power's "will".
 
Oh yeah, all that good knowledge was sure applied and dropped all over Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't it.
Knowledge is not good or bad, it just is. It can be used for anything, but that is up to whoever is trying to use it.

The development of nuclear weapons is science, but no part of that involves killing. While the bombs were dropped without regard for civilians, which was wrong, they were also dropped in an attempt to reduce casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan. They potentially reduced the death toll of the war. Their use in WWII also doesn't nullify the benefits of nuclear technology like energy production and defense of the Earth.
 
Science is bad because atom bombs herp derp. It's not like the leading scientist of the time didn't caution against their destructive power.

Conversely, I've yet to witness an exponent of religion caution against the unfettered power of theocratic regimes. Any unfavourable fallout from them is obviously the fault of us wicked, imperfect humans. It's original sin. The original sin of wanting to know more.
 
Last edited:
"Everything is unfolding as God planned".
"Child leukemia is part of God's plan?"
"Who gives a ****"?

Might be one of the grossest statements I've seen on this site in years b/c this is effectively what you're saying; if everything is unfolding to the plan of a higher power, who cares if people suffer.

You sound less like a religious fanatic & more like a Christian cultist with how quickly & ignorantly the lengths you go to defend your high power's "will".
Nice way of being selective with what you quote.

"Unless of course there's more to a human being than just their physical vessel, maybe the soul or spirit or consciousness or whatever label you wish to give it, maybe that certain "something" that is beyond physical actually gets something out of it all in the end from going through a relatively short period of apparent physical **** and suffering."

My point is that the science you all put your faith into deems this reality to be nothing but materialism and physical matter. So as someone else eluded to, according to your best scientific theories the only reason human beings care or feel empathy to one another is because it's helpful at propagating genes and DNA blablabla. That's literally what some other dude made it out to be earlier in this discussion, it simply makes us out to be nothing more than biochemical machines right?

My point is that I believe there is a greater purpose to everything including our suffering, that we feel empathy for others because we have souls or rather we are souls simply in physical vessels. Say we see a wounded animal and feel a natural urge to help it, but why? Does it help propagate and spread our DNA in any kind of way? No, it's because animals are beings (souls) just like we are and so we naturally feel an urge to help that goes beyond logic, an urge that comes from the heart/soul.


TB
You asked for totals, I gave you totals. Way to move the goalposts.

Show me where I asked for totals. Way to make **** up?
 
My point is that the science you all put your faith into

Nobody puts faith in science. Science doesn't require faith; it just is. Saying people put faith in science would be like saying people put faith in baking. Baking, like science, is just a process: what happens when we put flour, eggs, sugar and butter in a tin and heat it up? Once, nobody knew. Then someone tried it and cake happened. What happens when we smash this atom into that one? Only one way to find out. No faith required.

deems this reality to be nothing but materialism and physical matter.

It is. And that's ok.

So as someone else eluded to, according to your best scientific theories the only reason human beings care or feel empathy to one another is because it's helpful at propagating genes and DNA

That's right. And that's ok.

it simply makes us out to be nothing more than biochemical machines right?

We are. And that's ok.

My point is that I believe there is a greater purpose to everything including our suffering, that we feel empathy for others because we have souls or rather we are souls simply in physical vessels. Say we see a wounded animal and feel a natural urge to help it, but why?

Depends on the animal. If it resembles a threat people are less likely to help it because it could turn on you (therefore preventing gene propagation); if it's small and unthreatening (usually termed "cute") it can trigger the same genetic response as one might have to an unwell baby, because the animal, in that moment, resembles one.

Way to make **** up?

You believe in a deity.
 
Last edited:
Nice way of being selective with what you quote.
The rest of your quote doesn't excuse the absurdity of it.
"Unless of course there's more to a human being than just their physical vessel, maybe the soul or spirit or consciousness or whatever label you wish to give it, maybe that certain "something" that is beyond physical actually gets something out of it all in the end from going through a relatively short period of apparent physical **** and suffering."
You still basically excuse human suffering as something that's justified in your God's will, whether by "who gives a ****" or "well, the child gets something out of it in the end".

It really makes no change on my post; reading your replies & quick dismissal is cultish than religious.
 
The rest of your quote doesn't excuse the absurdity of it.

You still basically excuse human suffering as something that's justified in your God's will, whether by "who gives a ****" or "well, the child gets something out of it in the end".

It really makes no change on my post; reading your replies & quick dismissal is cultish than religious.
I personally think his use of terms like "apparent" suffering in response to my observation regarding children with cancer could certainly be described with a word which begins with "cu" and ends in "tish".

I'd be tempted to substitute another letter for the "L", though.
 
Last edited:
My point is that the science you all put your faith into deems this reality to be nothing but materialism and physical matter.
Faith is antithetical to science.

What is the problem with materialism? You're really hung up on everything being physical when it's such a trivial detail. We are "just" matter. That doesn't mean we don't feel, that doesn't mean we aren't alive.
So as someone else eluded to, according to your best scientific theories the only reason human beings care or feel empathy to one another is because it's helpful at propagating genes and DNA blablabla. That's literally what some other dude made it out to be earlier in this discussion, it simply makes us out to be nothing more than biochemical machines right?
Yes. Notice though that despite being biological machines we still care for each other.
My point is that I believe there is a greater purpose to everything including our suffering,
Greater purpose seems unlikely. It is possible that there is more to the world than we currently know, but unless that can be proven the idea doesn't do much for us. It's also potentially dangerous to hold on to such ideas if they get in the way of understanding what is actually going on.
that we feel empathy for others because we have souls or rather we are souls simply in physical vessels.
Your explanation does not tell us anything. You could just ask why do souls feel things? Oddly enough if souls did exist and were required for emotions, the reasons why could go back to something like evolution. That would at least provide us with information that we could use to better understand the world, as is the case with the study of real evolution.

If someone asks "why do people make judgements based on appearance?"

Evolution can provide an answer, visual similarity may be a stand in for genetic closeness, and knowing this it might be a good idea to remember people that they have a bias that is influencing their decision making. The result of that is hopefully a more fair world to live in.

What are we supposed to do with the idea of souls? Nothing more than the physical world is required for love and empathy.
Say we see a wounded animal and feel a natural urge to help it, but why? Does it help propagate and spread our DNA in any kind of way? No
Humans have lived with animals for millennia. Cats can protect our stored foods from infestation. Dogs can guard our homes. Horses provide transportation. Helping animals does help us.

Though you also have to remember how evolution actually works. The passing of genes and increase in survival rates is something that happens on a population scale, not an individual one. Altruism helped and continues to help us, and so it was one of the things passed on from our ancestors. As a result we are still altruistic today. No one confronted with a situation actively thinks about how to manipulate the situation to better their odds of passing on genes. Evolution does not have a goal, nor does it enforce a goal on living things.
it's because animals are beings (souls) just like we are and so we naturally feel an urge to help that goes beyond logic, an urge that comes from the heart/soul.
More information is needed here. The souls seem totally irrelevant. Maybe if they were defined this would make a little more sense.
 
Have you ever considered the possibility that all is actually unfolding perfectly and exactly as it should according to the will of a higher power?
There are babies born with AIDS.

I understand this is from two pages ago but it really needs to be hammered home.
 
Last edited:
maybe that certain "something" that is beyond physical actually gets something out of it all in the end from going through a relatively short period of apparent physical **** and suffering."
I think you really do need to address the "babies are born with aids" or leukemia issue. Usually religious people excuse this somehow by explaining that that child's entire life serves no purpose but as a lesson for some other life, which is sick.
My point is that the science you all put your faith into deems this reality to be nothing but materialism and physical matter. So as someone else eluded to, according to your best scientific theories the only reason human beings care or feel empathy to one another is because it's helpful at propagating genes and DNA blablabla. That's literally what some other dude made it out to be earlier in this discussion, it simply makes us out to be nothing more than biochemical machines right?

My point is that I believe there is a greater purpose to everything including our suffering, that we feel empathy for others because we have souls or rather we are souls simply in physical vessels. Say we see a wounded animal and feel a natural urge to help it, but why? Does it help propagate and spread our DNA in any kind of way?
Yes it does.

Your "nothing more than biological machines" statement is essentially "I don't like this explanation because it doesn't require the supernatural". You've assumed your conclusion. You reject physical explanations because they're physical.
Show me where I asked for totals. Way to make **** up?
I'd rather not get involved in anything that involves the deaths of people, but if you want to make it a **** measuring contest between who has the biggest kill count between scientific warfare vs religious conflicts then feel free.
With this statement, you were implying that you believe "scientific warfare" has the biggest kill count. Even by your own definition it does not. So you should probably recant this.
 
The Crusades - 1096-1300 CE (200 years) across 8 expeditions

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 1945 (3 days) with a grand total of 2 bombings

All this proves is that Science really does trump religion when it comes to having a large amount of people killed within a certain space of time.
"It's okay to kill millions because they don't share your religious beliefs as long as you take your time."
 
Last edited:
The rest of your quote doesn't excuse the absurdity of it.

You still basically excuse human suffering as something that's justified in your God's will, whether by "who gives a ****" or "well, the child gets something out of it in the end".

It really makes no change on my post; reading your replies & quick dismissal is cultish than religious.
I don't excuse anything because I'm not position of power to do so (that's God's job), I simply accept the raw truth of reality. You seem to be the one who has a problem with certain aspects of reality and because of that you cause yourself more grief and suffering as a result.

"It's okay to kill millions because they don't share your religious beliefs as long as you take your time."
It's okay to drop nuclear bombs over settlements and kill thousands of people because nuclear bombs act as a deterrent for more war and not as a true solution to humanities problems?
 
Last edited:
Back