Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

@ Tic Tach: Did it hurt? Did they teach you to be bad, mean, vicious, abusive? Did they teach you to smash children into stone walls? If they were christians, or from any other religion I know of that isn't run by a bunch of crazy persons (Westboro Church, a name I knew afetr Steve Jobs died, rings a bell here) .... I bet they didn't.

So, just stop pretending a christian education did to you any harm. (Not disregarding that other realities may have hurt you in your life, happens to us all). You weren't abused by the christianity of your parents, you were TAUGHT very important values in the process. And your freedom of thought allowed you - as it allows all christians, by the very nature of christianity - to chose to believe in something else. Or to NOT believe in anything. That's cool, that's your choice, that's your problem, that's whatever you want it to be.

But don't even think that for a split second I - or anyone else that gives unprejudiced THOUGHT a chance - will buy that 🤬 about your mind being assaulted or abused.

Oh and by the way, if you have kids, teach them all you want, even that God doesn't exist, or that if He exists he is worse than Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other kind of hate messages you like to spread around to ridicule the faith in God and those that have it.

But do this: try to teach tolerance towards the ones that aren't like you. Because I do, when I take a rest from assaulting and abusing my kids minds, I tell them atheism is to be respected. And I also tell them that when the day comes for them, as it comes for everybody, when deep inside you experience doubts .... whatever happens and whatever they chose to believe/not believe from that moment onwards won't change anything and doesn't make me concerned. Unless they start to belitle the "old man" because he believes in an entity that he can't possibly prove. Because then they'll be like you. And I wouldn't like that.

 

[Bobalob]

What I know is that from birth, my mind was assaulted (and in a sense abused) by my parents who (with all good intentions) filled my unformed mind with a false, supernatural belief system; a map of the world which simply did not and does not map onto reality in any way, shape or form. I resent that. Luckily, I escaped the delusional virus of faith, but few who are indoctrinated from birth do. I wish they had taught me how to think, instead of what to think. These critical thinking skills I had to learn later all by myself.

Link.

I would view religion exactly the same if it was forced on me, however my dislike of it is from knowledge on medical history I have and how it's been held back for a long time by various religions

There's also many things parents teach their kids that others would probably find wrong it's when you bounce around the world this should iron itself out.

This theory even worked in your case apparentally tich tach but I do share your enthusiasim for the denouncement of dangerous single mindedness.

 

[TankAss95]

Psalm 137:9

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20137&version=NIV

Wait for it............."That's out of context!"

Enjoy:
http://rotation.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6216088121/m/1301011931

 

[Tic Tach]

Interesting read:

 

[TankAss95]

I urge everyone to watch this. Please comment about it. It's only 3 minutes 45 seconds long and I think it holds a massive importance to the discussion of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2a_0Y4wO1k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Tic Tach]

I urge everyone to watch this. Please comment about it. It's only 3 minutes 45 seconds long and I think it holds a massive importance to the discussion of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2a_0Y4wO1k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I sense that gentleman is a nice guy. Dumber than a sack of hammers, but nice.

I was trying to keep count of how many baseless assertions he was making but I couldn't count that fast.

What are we to make of that video?

 

[TankAss95]

I sense that gentleman is a nice guy. Dumber than a sack of hammers, but nice.

I was trying to keep count of how many baseless assertions he was making but I couldn't count that fast.

What are we to make of that video?

The very discussion of the existence of God between separate individuals is futile. Our belief or non-belief of God is based on our perception of the universe around us (please confirm your stance on that statement).
The argument about the limits of science is crucial. Can science really explain everything?
It has been mentioned plenty of times before that God can neither be proven or disproven because he is not in the realms of the material world. There is evidence for God (historical, personal experiences, etc) but it is all questionable. To conclude, my understanding is that science is invaluable in this conversation unless it is proven that it can explain everything about the universe and our existence (like an ultimate theory), and therefore has no limits. That is an argument in itself.

Edit: And if you consider that guy as being "Dumber than a sack of hammers", then I fear that judging by comparison, I must be mentally insane and/or incapable of intelligent thought.

 

[Tic Tach]

The very discussion of the existence of God between separate individuals is futile.

It's only futile because one of the parties involved is intellectually dishonest. Guess which one?

Our belief or non-belief of God is based on our perception of the universe around us (please confirm your stance on that statement).

No. Our belief or non-belief in God is based on many factors. For the atheist, is based on evidence and reason; for the theist is based on reasons which I suggest our terribly poor.

The argument about the limits of science is crucial. Can science really explain everything?

Yes, it can. Again, science is open to all observable phenomena. You continue to fail to appreciate the emptiness of your position. You seem to feel that because we "don't know everything", that somehow your infantile, supernatural idea of a God is somehow valid. You continue to hold his maddening position that because someone can't disprove your fantasy that somehow it is real. Snap out of it.

It has been mentioned plenty of times before that God can neither be proven or disproven because he is not in the realms of the material world.

Would you please stop with these wild baseless assertions? If you're going to make such a wild claim please back it up with evidence, a lot of evidence.

There is evidence for God (historical, personal experiences, etc) but it is all questionable.

Yes, highly questionable. You seem to feel that because some humans (in their ignorance and superstition) made a "first guess" about gods, that this is somehow a valid argument. It is not. And "personal experiences" are always just that, emotions and feelings. No more valid than the myriad other feelings and emotions we experience when we entertain certain ideas.

 

[TheCracker]

The argument about the limits of science is crucial. Can science really explain everything?

By definition, 'science' is the systematic exploration of the physical or material universe, gained through observation and experimentation.

Science isn't an all-knowing being. It's the very process of understanding. You can't compare the two.

There is evidence for God (historical, personal experiences, etc) but it is all questionable.

There is absolutely no evidence for God at all. No more than there is for Lord Voldemort.

 

[VRacer]

I would believe in God, Jesus or any other religius object if I would see him.

All religions were created centuries ago, when science of that time couldn't explain many things that it now can (e.g. rain, sun, why the crops sometimes grow and other times don't grow, gravity, birth,...). That's why people believed there must be some higher creature that controls all this. We now know that that is not the case.

That said, I don't have any objection to peaceful religions. Anyone can do what they choose - we live in a free society (at least most of us). I do have objections to religions that preach hate, and consider all other people beside themselves as immoral. You know which religion I'm talking about.

 

[huskeR32]

The very discussion of the existence of God between separate individuals is futile. Our belief or non-belief of God is based on our perception of the universe around us (please confirm your stance on that statement).
The argument about the limits of science is crucial. Can science really explain everything?

Yes, it can. Again, science is open to all observable phenomena. You continue to fail to appreciate the emptiness of your position. You seem to feel that because we "don't know everything", that somehow your infantile, supernatural idea of a God is somehow valid. You continue to hold his maddening position that because someone can't disprove your fantasy that somehow it is real. Snap out of it.

As fun as it's been to watch this cycle keep repeating, TankAss, you've got to stop and really listen to what's being said.

I understand that it's tough for you to listen objectively to reason here, because your belief in god is so important to you, so let's use a different but similar situation, so you can see the real message.

Since there's been a lot of attention paid to earthquakes the last couple years, let's go with that.

Ancient man was probably terrified of earthquakes. Without a sophisticated understanding of plate tectonics or the basic makeup of the earth, ancient man would have had no way of explaining what these violent tremors were. As humans are very uncomfortable not understanding something, he made up a explanation.

Let's say this ancient man explained earthquakes with a story about a giant cyclops, living in the bowels of the earth, trying to break through to the surface with a giant hammer. This may have made perfect sense to a primitive man without the technology to properly study the world around him, and without any knowledge passed down from past generations.

Now, fast forward in time a bit, let's say to the 1800s. Man is now beginning to embrace science and technology, and the Industrial Revolution is looming. While plate tectonics is not yet a working theory, it is widely understood at this point that earthquakes are a completely natural phenomena. They might not be able to explain them, but they no longer chalk it up to superstition or myth. The hammer-swinging cyclops is no longer a valid or widely accepted idea. They don't have proof of the existence or non-existence of the cyclops, and they don't have a completely developed and proven alternate explanation yet, but no matter. Logic tells them the cyclops isn't real, and never was. No big deal, they move on knowing that somebody someday will figure it out.

Now fast forward to the present day. We have a very substantial understanding of how earthquakes happen, thanks to plate tectonics. Do we still have a few details to work out about the inner workings of the earth? Sure. But we've got it mostly figured out. At this point, anybody who still subscribed to the cyclops theory of earthquakes would be enormously ignorant. Willfully so, considering all of the well-documented evidence supporting the real explanation. I very highly doubt that you would support somebody's insistence on clinging to the idea of the hammer-wielding cyclops.

Now, let's play the substitution game, and apply this to one of your favorite topics: the origins of the universe. In the above story, substitute:
-"how the uinverse was created" for "earthquakes"
-"god" for the "cyclops"
-"big bang/string theory/etc." for "plate tectonics"

I'll leave it to you to figure out what should be substituted for "still subscribing to the idea of a hammer-wielding cyclops."

It has been mentioned plenty of times before that God can neither be proven or disproven because he is not in the realms of the material world. There is evidence for God (historical, personal experiences, etc) but it is all questionable. To conclude, my understanding is that science is invaluable in this conversation unless it is proven that it can explain everything about the universe and our existence (like an ultimate theory), and therefore has no limits. That is an argument in itself.

It sure is! 👍

 

[TJC_69]

I wish there was a like button for HuskeR32's above post , it was a worthwhile read .

However , I feel some people in the World are destined to travelling their circular path as they are possibly too stubborn or ridgidly set in their views .

Does God truly exist ? Who knows .
Will we find evidence for God ? Doubtful / unprovable . Unless we are of alien descent & we learn of our ' creator / s .
Who created God ? Man , no question .

That's my view . 👍

 

[TankAss95]

IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?

Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:

“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”

Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support for our project.

God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.

Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration that there is also a God. In other words, if God is there, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they do not know that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making the calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made the calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then scientists have shown that both the total mass and energy of the universe including God are zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God is also light, and therefore He is spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.

Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!

It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero.

So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?

But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.

From:http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/who_created_the_creator/
Thoughts?

 

[TheCracker]

Wordy bollocks.

 

[TankAss95]

Wordy bollocks.

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

 

[TheCracker]

 

[huskeR32]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah
..............

.....

Thoughts?

What the 🤬 is that drivel you just posted?

Since the universe has zero energy, part of that zero energy must be a zero-everything god? How exactly does your mind even allow itself to make this jump?

So you're saying that if I place two objects with identical mass on a scale, and they perfectly balance each other, the only logical conclusion is that inside of one of those weights dwells a god with zero mass? As far as I can tell, this absurd sentiment is parallel to what you just posted.

Also, I like the return of the old tried-and-true method of theists: ignore what I just posted, which would hopefully provoke an interesting response from you, and instead start screaming loudly about something that is completely unrelated and nonsensical.

You know why theists always end up winning these discussions? Because everybody else goes insane trying to follow where you're coming from.

 

[TJC_69]

TankAss95

How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light.

So ...... we're all lightbulbs then ?

And God created man in his own image as the desert story goes yes ?

Not very consistent.

 

[TankAss95]

What the 🤬 is that drivel you just posted?

Since the universe has zero energy, part of that zero energy must be a zero-everything god? How exactly does your mind even allow itself to make this jump?

So you're saying that if I place two objects with identical mass on a scale, and they perfectly balance each other, the only logical conclusion is that inside of one of those weights dwells a god with zero mass? As far as I can tell, this absurd sentiment is parallel to what you just posted.

Also, I like the return of the old tried-and-true method of theists: ignore what I just posted, which would hopefully provoke an interesting response from you, and instead start screaming loudly about something that is completely unrelated and nonsensical.

You know why theists always end up winning these discussions? Because everybody else goes insane trying to follow where you're coming from.

God has not been in the material world ( I think) since Jesus.

 

[Tic Tach]

Also, I like the return of the old tried-and-true method of theists: ignore what I just posted, which would hopefully provoke an interesting response from you, and instead start screaming loudly about something that is completely unrelated and nonsensical.

You know why theists always end up winning these discussions? Because everybody else goes insane trying to follow where you're coming from.

Indeed. And that reminds me of two gems:


Having a debate with a creationist is equivalent to playing a chess match against a pigeon who knocks over all the pieces, takes a crap on the board and flies back to his flock and claims victory.


It seems to me that Christians worship the incredible shrinking god. I mean at one time it was supposedly capable of flinging thousands of billions of galaxies into existence with a mere thought. By the time of Noah, it was reduced to flooding an insignificant speck in the cosmos. By the time of Moses, its best trick was moving a tiny portion of a minor sea aside for a short while. By the time of Jesus, it has to send a delegate on its behalf who leaves behind only rumors that he was able to turn water into another beverage, or render himself extra buoyant. Now it counts as a miracle if a water stain grows mold that kind of looks like a bearded face which could be claimed to resemble this supposed delegate. How much more pathetic can this god get? How do Christians manage to sing praises of its glory and greatness without feeling like fools, or at best, like new parents gushing over their toddler's ability to make a pee. (Kronk)

 

[TJC_69]

God has not been in the material world ( I think) since Jesus.

God has never been in the material world as he is an imaginary fictional character . 👍

 

[Tic Tach]

God has not been in the material world (I think) since Jesus.

Correct. He's all in your head.



The idea of god was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure. Desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father; for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind. (Sigmund Freud)

 

[TJC_69]

An interesting thought for anyone who refuses to look outside their religion bubble .....

God is male , why is this ?

Does it have anything to do with human males being the dominant sex in early history perhaps ?
Now let's say women were the dominant sex throughout that time period .

Look again at this scenario & tell me that God wouldn't have instead been called ' Goddess ' .

God , or indeed the characterisation of such a thing , is a man made creation .

Welcome to rational thinking . 👍

 

[Hun200kmh]

God has never been in the material world as he is an imaginary fictional character . 👍

That is a belief.

Correct. He's all in your head.

That is a belief.

God , or indeed the characterisation of such a thing , is a man made creation .

That is a belief.

Welcome to rational thinking . 👍

I was there already. Rational thinking tells me I have a belief. Apparently you guys fail to recognize the same thing about your denial.

Just admit it: You guys go overboard. Be rational and limit yourselves to saying: "Theists say God exists and that's a pure belief. We just say there's no proof of its existence."


Same deal with aliens really. There's no proof they exist, will you all guys go as far as stating categorically they DON'T EXIST?

Again ... Welcome to rational thinking. 👍

 

[huskeR32]

Same deal with aliens really. There's no proof they exist, will you all guys go as far as stating categorically they DON'T EXIST?

Again ... Welcome to rational thinking. 👍

Except for the fact that a lot of scientific reasoning suggests that intelligent life certainly exists in this universe on places other than earth. In an infinite universe/multiverse/whatever, it's almost mathematically impossible that we are the only life to be found. So you're right, no proof of "alien" life (I hate that word), but plenty of logical and reasoned indications that it does exist.

God on the other hand has never been supported by a shred of scientific, mathematical, observational or otherwise credible piece of information.

As always, your attempts to compare god to something logical and reasonable fails. Better check your GPS again before trying to welcome the rest of us to a place you're not in.

 

[TJC_69]

That is a belief.



That is a belief.




That is a belief.




I was there already. Rational thinking tells me I have a belief. Apparently you guys fail to recognize the same thing about your denial.

Just admit it: You guys go overboard. Be rational and limit yourselves to saying: "Theists say God exists and that's a pure belief. We just say there's no proof of its existence."


Same deal with aliens really. There's no proof they exist, will you all guys go as far as stating categorically they DON'T EXIST?

Again ... Welcome to rational thinking. 👍

Atheism isn't a belief . You haven't understood that after many pages of this fact being reiterated I see ? Oh dear .

Rational thinking ? Nope . It seems you like your mystical fairy bubble my friend & are willing to defend the fairytale existence of a mythological invisible man without every realising the notion of such an entity is laughable to the extreme .

 

[Hun200kmh]

@ HuskeR32: They fail according to you, and last time I checked you weren't the "truth" impersonated. I think you fail, greatly, at trying to say I'm not in that disputed place. Because I know a belief when I see it. I know kids discussions of

- Is
- Is not
- Is
- Is not

And frankly I find it funny that you guys fail at recognizing your own "denial of belief" as a belief itself. And, I'll add, there's nothing rational about such a way of thinking.


@ TJC_69: Your blindness is amazing. Strong or Hard atheism (look it up please) is the kind of atheism you profess. Yes, profess. It goes beyond saying "I won't believe in God unless it is scientifically proven that such an entity exists" - THIS IS NOT A BELIEF

It goes to the point of saying "God does not exist" - And that, my friend, is a belief.

But I'm not surprised you guys don't recognize this, and instead try to belitle what I'm saying with expressions like "fairytale bubble". I understand, very clearly, that there's no rational thinking from most atheists when they refer to the belief in God. In the end, very ironic.

 

[Tic Tach]

....Same deal with aliens really. There's no proof they exist, will you all guys go as far as stating categorically they DON'T EXIST?

Epic fail. The atheist does not say "There is no god", rather, they simply do not believe in god(s), because there is no good reason.

 

[Tic Tach]

And frankly I find it funny that you guys fail at recognizing your own "denial of belief" as a belief itself.

And your not collecting stamps is a hobby of yours, right?


AAAaaaaagggggghhhh!!!!!!

 

[TJC_69]

They fail according to you, and last time I checked you weren't the "truth" impersonated. I think you fail, greatly, at trying to say I'm not in that disputed place. Because I know a belief when I see it. I know kids discussions of

- Is
- Is not
- Is
- Is not

And frankly I find it funny that you guys fail at recognizing your own "denial of belief" as a belief itself. And, I'll add, there's nothing rational about such a way of thinking.

I think you've become lost in discussion or something .....

This issue was discussed a long time ago in this thread .
However , it is nice to see that there are always people in the World who are still learning about what is and is not a baseless assertion . 👍