Do you believe in God?

[hampus_dh]

Wow, just read it. It's hard to comprehend that stuff.

You answered that thread the 8th of Nov...

This might be something you haven´t read. Pretty interesting.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

 

[TankAss95]

You answered that thread the 8th of Nov...

This might be something you haven´t read. Pretty interesting.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

Comparing intelligence between people is a very difficult task to do. There are many different values that contribute to one's intelligence. Creativity, mathematics, judgment, perception, and communication are some examples of what intelligence is made up of. An IQ test has been proven as a very inaccurate test to prove ones intelligence. We all have strengths and weaknesses, some quite extreme in some subjects compared to others.
I know very little about science of a whole, but I strive to learn. With the little I know about quantum physics it seems like it is a gift wether one can comprehend it or not. If you are suggesting that I have difficulty understanding the topic purely because I am religious then that is a foolish statement for you to say. Once again I remind you about the staggering amount of Nobel Prize winners who were Jewish.

 

[Tic Tach]

Once again I remind you about the staggering amount of Nobel Prize winners who were Jewish.

And I remind you that many people who are "Jewish" are Jewish in the cultural sense, not necessarily the religious sense. Many Jewish people don't believe in a god.

 

[TankAss95]

And I remind you that many people who are "Jewish" are Jewish in the cultural sense, not necessarily the religious sense. Many Jewish people don't believe in a god.

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod.htm

And do you think all God believers are brain dead robots that are insufficient of involving in argument or conversation?

 

[hampus_dh]

Comparing intelligence between people is a very difficult task to do. There are many different values that contribute to one's intelligence. Creativity, mathematics, judgment, perception, and communication are some examples of what intelligence is made up of. An IQ test has been proven as a very inaccurate test to prove ones intelligence. We all have strengths and weaknesses, some quite extreme in some subjects compared to others.
I know very little about science of a whole, but I strive to learn. With the little I know about quantum physics it seems like it is a gift wether one can comprehend it or not. If you are suggesting that I have difficulty understanding the topic purely because I am religious then that is a foolish statement for you to say. Once again I remind you about the staggering amount of Nobel Prize winners who were Jewish.

I think you miss understood the whole link to be honest.
It´s not really about the IQ test itself. It´s about the fact that there seems to be a pattern.

 

[TankAss95]

I think you miss understood the whole link to be honest.
It´s not really about the IQ test itself. It´s about the fact that there seems to be a pattern.

Using that as an argument against an individuals belief I think is irrelevant. But hey, let's see how far we get as a civilisation by judging someone's beliefs or views by those who think similar. I don't see that working very well.

 

[Tic Tach]

And do you think all God believers are brain dead robots that are insufficient of involving in argument or conversation?

Certainly not; I have already given the example of Francis Collins several pages ago. And in said example, I displayed how even "smart" people can have blind spots, which shows just how compartmentalized and partitioned the human mind can be.

I'll give you another example: There's the true account of the wealthy Texan who was an oil tycoon. He was a young earth creationist, yet used the knowledge and methods for finding oil.........based on a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Does that help you understand that people who may indeed be smart in one area, can be not necessarily stupid when it comes to their god belief, but intellectually dishonest. After all, all these smart people that you champion would have to do is provide evidence for their gods. They have none.

 

[HP]

Then you would start a cult.

The Bible speaks about false prophets and that you must obey no other God but the true God (the trinity).
You'd probably end up getting followers I'm guessing but you would be no different to others who have done so in the past.

Hey Tank,

My post is a hypothetical situation that assumes the "Jesus" both looks like the original & is convincing in the role of the messiah. We can of course say "ah yes, here is another false prophet" but if the congregation in question is convinced that he is He then they would believe. Would that then mean the congregation just turned into a cult?

Remember it is hypothetical & the "Jesus" is no David Koresh whacko.

Also dude, you mentioned false prophets - how would He, should he truly descend from heaven, be distinguished from the false ones?

 

[hampus_dh]

Using that as an argument against an individuals belief I think is irrelevant. But hey, let's see how far we get as a civilisation by judging someone's beliefs or views by those who think similar. I don't see that working very well.

Don´t shoot the messenger.

It´s just interesting to see how a book can manipulate people´s minds imo.

You said yourself you are striving to learn more about science yet you dismiss the most basic scientific discoveries ever found.

Like evolution, like how old the earth is.

And the fact that if you were brought up in Tibet you would probably be a monk and not a christian.

 

[TankAss95]

Certainly not; I have already given the example of Francis Collins several pages ago. And in said example, I displayed how even "smart" people can have blind spots, which shows just how compartmentalized and partitioned the human mind can be.

I'll give you another example: There's the true account of the wealthy Texan who was an oil tycoon. He was a young earth creationist, yet used the knowledge and methods for finding oil.........based on a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Does that help you understand that people who may indeed be smart in one area, can be not necessarily stupid when it comes to their god belief, but intellectually dishonest. After all, all these smart people that you champion would have to do is provide evidence for their gods. They have none.

I understand your thoughts. Just a reminder that he may believe in a creator without actually following Christianity, or any religion for that matter. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "young earth creationist", but that may be an explanation to what I'm trying to understand. If he believes the earth is only 6000 years old then your point is perfectly valid.

 

[Joel]

I understand your thoughts. Just a reminder that he may believe in a creator without actually following Christianity, or any religion for that matter. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "young earth creationist", but that may be an explanation to what I'm trying to understand. If he believes the earth is only 6000 years old then your point is perfectly valid.

Young Earth creationist means exactly that, that the world was created by God about 6000-10000 years ago.

 

[TankAss95]

Young Earth creationist means exactly that, that the world was created by God about 6000-10000 years ago.

Ahh okay thanks.

 

[TankAss95]

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrSdkG2WsQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please don't get me wrong, this is not valued as a point to hold against atheists, but rather to those who like and support Richard Dawkins work.

 

[hampus_dh]

I hate the word atheist. Just call me normal.

 

[TheCracker]

I hate the word atheist. Just call me normal.

Once upon a time, in the western world at least, being an atheist probably ment something. These days it's a default setting. i don't see any need for the word anymore.

 

[hampus_dh]

I agree. I don´t like the fact that there´s a name for not believing in something.

If people were born christian or some other religion and we atheists made the choice not to believe then i could buy the argument but since everyone on this planet, including Tankass here is born an atheist we should scrap the name and just have names for people that choose to believe in something.

 

[TankAss95]

I hate the word atheist. Just call me normal.

Throughout this discussion you have constantly given unclear suggestions. Do you think that a person who lives following a religion or faith is not normal? What gives you the right to class what is normal or not anyway?
And I would encourage you to watch the video if you have not already done so.

 

[hampus_dh]

Throughout this discussion you have constantly given unclear suggestions. Do you think that a person who lives following a religion or faith is not normal? What gives you the right to class what is normal or not anyway?
And I would encourage you to watch the video if you have not already done so.

And throughout our discussions you have constantly filled in the blanks.

Is that my problem or yours?

 

[TankAss95]

And throughout our discussions you have constantly filled in the blanks.

Is that my problem or yours?

Sorry but I am lost. I don't understand what your trying to say here.

Earlier in this discussion I dismissed the fact that I was an Atheist at birth, and I was wrong. I never properly understood what the definition of the actual word atheist was at the time, now I understand that it is a disbelief in any Gods. I thought being an atheist was when one believed in the theories of science, but that is not true (to my understanding, anyway). I was born atheist and continued to be atheist until I found God. Classing people as normal specifically because they don't believe in God is a very dangerous statement to make because it suggests that believers are not normal. Even Dawkins suggests that there may possibly well be intelligent design in the video I have provided, then goes on to say that "he is attacking all Gods", which he said in his book: The God Delusion.

Here is another video for you to check out. It is a debate between Dawkins and another creationist. Although the video is quite long, I would encourage you to watch and comment towards the video, and your opinions towards Dawkins stance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[hampus_dh]

Yes believing in imaginary figures that have no proof at all to exist but in someone´s head or by a cult telling you to believe i would not consider normal no.

 

[TankAss95]

Yes believing in imaginary figures that have no proof at all to exist but in someone´s head or by a cult telling you to believe i would not consider normal no.

You have yet to respond to the video, though. Your response indicates that I am possibly delusional. That means my opinions must not be valued? I must be a potential dangerous being who is incapable of clear thought? Is that true, just because I believe in intelligent design and reason in the universe? I would like a response, from any atheist.

And I would encourage any person viewing this post to watch this video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I would like some responses. Thanks in advance.

 

[Exorcet]

You have yet to respond to the video, though. Your response indicates that I am possibly delusional. That means my opinions must not be valued? I must be a potential dangerous being who is incapable of clear thought? Is that true, just because I believe in intelligent design and reason in the universe? I would like a response, from any atheist.

And I would encourage any person viewing this post to watch this video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I would like some responses. Thanks in advance.

This goes back to what I was saying however many pages ago. From the atheist point of view, you hold an illogical belief, so it would seem that you have a tendency to accept the illogical more easily than an atheist would. This does not make you incapable of clear though, or dangerous in everyday life. However being prone to believing the illogical can lead to negative consequences.

An example, religious extremism. I know from the theist point of view in this thread, they are not truly religious. But if God is not real and religion is just a bunch of stuff people from 1000's of years ago made up, then the extremists aren't much different from mainstream in that they do what they do because they believe. If God is illogical, and all illogical thought was wiped out (impossible) then extremism would not exist.

I don't have time to watch the video now.

 

[TankAss95]

This goes back to what I was saying however many pages ago. From the atheist point of view, you hold an illogical belief, so it would seem that you have a tendency to accept the illogical more easily than an atheist would. This does not make you incapable of clear though, or dangerous in everyday life. However being prone to believing the illogical can lead to negative consequences.

An example, religious extremism. I know from the theist point of view in this thread, they are not truly religious. But if God is not real and religion is just a bunch of stuff people from 1000's of years ago made up, then the extremists aren't much different from mainstream in that they do what they do because they believe. If God is illogical, and all illogical thought was wiped out (impossible) then extremism would not exist.

I don't have time to watch the video now.

If you watched the video, then maybe you would understand why the belief in God is not illogical.
Atheists are capable of extreme criminal events, similar or identical to religious massacres. What is the point of the weak? Why should we care for the weak anyway? Why defy the process of the survival of the fittest? Shouldn't we give natural selection a hand by killing off the disabled and mentally troubled, and the sooner the better? (Examples are based on the teachings of your theories)

It is an arrogant statement to say that if all illogical thought is wiped out that there would be no extremist events.

 

[Tic Tach]

Your response indicates that I am possibly delusional.

Delusion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.


If the shoe fits.......

 

[TheCracker]

Delusion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.


If the shoe fits.......

👍

 

[TankAss95]

Delusion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.

If the shoe fits.......

I think that the two videos I have displayed above shows that the existence in a God is not nullified by any scientific evidence.

 

[Exorcet]

If you watched the video, then maybe you would understand why the belief in God is not illogical.
Atheists are capable of extreme criminal events, similar or identical to religious massacres. What is the point of the weak? Why should we care for the weak anyway? Why defy the process of the survival of the fittest? Shouldn't we give natural selection a hand by killing off the disabled and mentally troubled, and the sooner the better? (Examples are based on the teachings of your theories)

It is an arrogant statement to say that if all illogical thought is wiped out that there would be no extremist events.

My bad, I thought religious extremist was implied by context. Yes, things like hate crimes could still exist.

As for evolution, it has no "teachings". Humans care for each other because we evolved that way. Killing each other would not do us any good. Caring for the weak is not denying survival of the fittest, that happens no matter what. If medicine can cure all ills, everyone is "fit".

 

[hampus_dh]

I think that the two videos I have displayed above shows that the existence in a God is not nullified by any scientific evidence.

Could you give us an example on intelligent design?

Please refer from using the eye as we have went over that.

 

[Tic Tach]

I think that the two videos I have displayed above shows that the existence in a God is not nullified by any scientific evidence.

After all this time posting & reading here you still don't get the most basic thing, and it's why you keep going in circles.

Understand this:

A baseless assertion - no matter what it is - doesn't need to be nullified by evidence! It is the claim maker (the theist in this case) who is saddled with providing evidence for their claims. They have none. End of story.

 

[TankAss95]

My bad, I thought religious extremist was implied by context. Yes, things like hate crimes could still exist.

As for evolution, it has no "teachings". Humans care for each other because we evolved that way. Killing each other would not do us any good. Caring for the weak is not denying survival of the fittest, that happens no matter what. If medicine can cure all ills, everyone is "fit".

👍

I think the fact that we, as humans, have moral stances (or we are moral beings) is questionable evidence in itself for the existence of God.

So God created human beings in His own image.In the image of God He created them;male and female He created them.
-Genesis 1:27 (NLT)