Is God real post your thoughts!

[Zierro]

If that's what is troubling you, then the answer is yes. Most agnostics would say strong atheism requires a leap of faith not unlike theism, because there's no proof (even though there can't be any proof IMO) that God does not exist.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what I was getting at. But what do you mean by there can't be any proof? It is impossible to prove or to disprove god exists.

[ArmadylArcher]

I think god is real, and if anyone thinks differently...well [bleep] em *ahem* I mean that's their prerogative.

 

 

 

Likewise...whatever, who cares what people think

[lobsta]

Why is it important to define the orders of magnitude regarding atheism - in this context. Regardless of whether or not someone is a strong atheist or a weak atheist, the result is still the same. A lack of belief in God.

 

An atheist does not make a leap of faith in anyway comparable to that of a theist. A theist believes something for which there is absolutely no evidence for. It is unimportant whether or not we define atheism as a belief system - because the human brain works on a series of beliefs, consciously and unconsciously. Im sorry, but getting technical about definition is a bit silly.

 

God does not exist.

[mmmcannibalism]

Why is it important to define the orders of magnitude regarding atheism - in this context. Regardless of whether or not someone is a strong atheist or a weak atheist, the result is still the same. A lack of belief in God.

 

An atheist does not make a leap of faith in anyway comparable to that of a theist. A theist believes something for which there is absolutely no evidence for. It is unimportant whether or not we define atheism as a belief system - because the human brain works on a series of beliefs, consciously and unconsciously. Im sorry, but getting technical about definition is a bit silly.

 

God does not exist.

 

 

 

its important because there is a difference between not thinking god exists and being so sure that you say things like "God does not exist".

[user1991]

Why is it important to define the orders of magnitude regarding atheism - in this context. Regardless of whether or not someone is a strong atheist or a weak atheist, the result is still the same. A lack of belief in God.

 

An atheist does not make a leap of faith in anyway comparable to that of a theist. A theist believes something for which there is absolutely no evidence for. It is unimportant whether or not we define atheism as a belief system - because the human brain works on a series of beliefs, consciously and unconsciously. Im sorry, but getting technical about definition is a bit silly.

 

God does not exist.

 

 

 

its important because there is a difference between not thinking god exists and being so sure that you say things like "God does not exist".

 

 

 

The English language is at fault here. Many people consider "I don't believe in God" the same as saying "there is no God." Whilst many people do say "there is no God," what is meant by 99% of them is "there is no evidence for any God, and therefore I consider it highly unlikely that God exists." Simply because theism is a positive assertion, lots of people consider atheism to be the exact opposite, and therefore a positive assertion, when in actuality, saying that "there is no evidence for God therefore I do not believe" is not the same as saying "there is no God." I doubt any atheist here would claim that it is actually impossible for there to be a God.

 

 

 

The whole "strong atheism" thing was just created to satisfy the annoying, semantics arguing theists who can't seem to understand that the English language isn't perfect and that phrases can have different meanings. So again, being an atheist does not mean that you say it is impossible for there to be a God (hardly anyone would say this), but simply that there is no/not enough evidence to believe in the existence of a God.

 

 

 

When an atheist says "there is no God," they say it in the same way that they would say "there are no fairies". Fairies could conceivably exist, yet we say that they "don't" because there is no evidence for their existence. In our opinion, it is the same for God. However, it is obvious, at least to anyone who actually cares to consider the nuances of the English language and what is meant when we say things, that the phrase "there is no", rarely actually means "there is no possible way that ___ could ever exist". It simply means that there is no evidence for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism is a lack of a belief and a belief at the same time. It is a lack of belief because atheists do not believe the fact that god exists. It is also a belief (not a lack of) because atheists believe that god does not exist. Theists have a lack of belief too though - they lack the belief that there is no god.

 

 

 

Both atheism and theism have a belief and a lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the only one with no beliefs - unless you count not having sufficient information to form an opinion as a belief.

 

 

 

Going back to the "crux" of the argument - it is neither possible to prove or disprove god so there is no evidence. And since atheists and theists alike have beliefs, but they are beliefs that have no evidence, they are beliefs which are based on faith.

 

 

 

You are drastically oversimplifying the issue here. Again, have you considered that the English language isn't perfectly suited to describe these things? First of all, consider that the atheist says these two sentences:

 

 

 

1. I have no belief in God

 

2. I believe that God does not exist

 

 

 

The phrase "having no belief" is, technically, different in meaning to "I believe there is no," yet when used in discussing the existence of something or any sort of empirically based claim (you're the ones that started it. If you want to argue God isn't possibly or logically knowable a posteriori then that's an argument for another day) what is actually meant is that "the evidence shows that there is no therefore I do not consider ___ to exist" As shown earlier, the English language - coupled with your need to see things as diametric opposites and without any sort of gradation, are misleading in the sense that the "I believe" leads us to believe that the second is a positive assertion, when in actuality, what is actually meant is "I believe that there is no/little evidence for God, and therefore consider that he does not exist."

 

 

 

What you, and many people before you are doing, is playing a big game of semantics and jumping on a flaw in the English language to advance your happy medium fallacy and make agnosticism seem like the only reasonable thing to believe. No. How many times do I have to hear "atheism and theism are both dogmatic as they are both positive assertions, belief and belief in the lack of blah blah blah blah im a douche bag" before you guys understand that "belief in the lack of", as well as belief as a concept are misleading in pretty much every possible way and that naturally, inconsistencies in the technicalities of language make certain things (such as belief), confusing, especially when arguing positive assertions, and that before we start arguing the veracity of certain claims, we need to make clear the EXACT meaning of all the concepts involved, which is as follows;

 

 

 

Theists: "God exists."

 

 

 

Atheist: "I have looked at the evidence for and against God's existence and have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Although it is still technically possible, I consider it highly unlikely"

 

 

 

Arguing that opposite "beliefs" are positive assertions simply because they are "beliefs" is idiotic and dishonest in every way I can think of. The burden of proof is on them because as repeated a billion times, you don't start with a conclusion, you have to give proof or at least evidence before we consider the existence of something. Claiming the non existence of something, unless it has already been proven, is not a positive assertion because it makes no positive claim on the nature of what we know to be reality.

 

 

 

"Yellow Elephants who can talk and call themselves Peter exist."

 

 

 

"No they don't."

 

 

 

"FAITH FAITH. AHAH STUPID ANTI ELEPHANTIST DENIALIER. YOU HAVE FAITH. THEREFORE EVERYTHING WE SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now theists, and oversimplification loving agnostics, this has been explained to you 50023400 times before. Please, never mention it again.

[Zierro]

You're right. Our literary system makes it unfair for atheists. Just like how our logical system makes it unfair for theists. I'm pretty sure that debate ended with atheists concluding, "It's all we have available so of course we're gonna use it."

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, Yellow Elephants who can talk and call themselves Peter exist =/= God.

[lobsta]

You're right. Our literary system makes it unfair for atheists. Just like how our logical system makes it unfair for theists

 

lol

[The Runar]

Though I'm an atheist, I think that there might be something supernatural. I don't believe it's a god though.

[Zierro]

You're right. Our literary system makes it unfair for atheists. Just like how our logical system makes it unfair for theists

 

lol

 

 

 

You might be in the place to say that if you you hadn't asserted, "God does not exist." ;)

 

 

 

Either way, it's still true. Humans put their tools to use and assume that, because it's what the construct of what they think is "correct thinking" tells them, god must not exist. For example, the burden of proof. Even though it's in a field where proof is irrelevant, it's the most brought up argument. If you want to blame unfairness on the "system" then logic is just as guilty as language.

[mmmcannibalism]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

 

 

I feel you, why cant people just accept that our god has bigger balls then theirs and get on with their lives.

[Lenticular_J]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

Maybe because you don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster as God for another. And you have acted like a [bleep] about it.

[Lenticular_J]

The stupid spaghetti monster isn't real to me (and for some reason, I don't think anybody in the world thinks it is), just as my God isn't real to you - or anybody else for that matter. You're an ignorant [bleep] head if you disrespect personal beliefs, which is all that spaghetti thing is used for anymore. It was created to be a bit of satire and poke some fun at the Catholic Church, now it's like those stupid mudkips.

 

 

 

Everybody has the right to decide which religion is real. For themselves. And everybody has a right to criticize religion, because religion is inherently stupid, because religion stems from collections of similar personal beliefs, and people's personal beliefs are stupid, because we're all idiots. But it's cool that we're stupid, because there's nothing better.

 

 

 

I see it as religion started out along the same lines modern-day "logic" and "rationality" started. "I heard a voice that said I shouldn't kill you."

 

"Oh, bro, same here dawg."

 

"Let's see if anybody else thinks so."

 

 

 

To... "Hey, the apple falls. So does everything else. Bet there's a reason."

 

"Yep."

 

"Hey, a lot a people do."

[noble_aloof]

there exists something out there beyond our wildest imagination.

 

whether it is the god whom Abraham talked to, a god with eight arms, or a spiritual being- every religious story has some truth.

 

the problem is that there are SO many religions. There may be a religion with 100 followers, all of whom worship and know the EXACT truth- we have no way of knowing this, unfortunatly. with any type of religion comes morals- one of the most important points of your self-being.

 

 

 

some people try to be little rebels, some people take after their parents.

 

personally, i go to a jesuit highschool- i go to mass, i receive, i've been confirmed, etc.

 

 

 

but, i do a lot of thinking: each day there are miracles, there must be some truth to the stories in the bible, some people claim to talk to god, what about ghosts?

 

 

 

the big bang theory is bull, honestly. somehow those original molecules and "laws" were created.

 

which came first? the chicken or the egg?

 

 

 

 

 

edit: i just have one question- i remember a religion teacher of mine telling me about a _______ saint- one who does not decay when (she) died?

 

she told me that this body was on display somewhere. could someone clear this up?

[Rien]

I'll be brief, noble_aloof:

 

 

 

there exists something out there beyond our wildest imagination.

The problem with this is that no one can be sure of it.

 

with any type of religion comes morals- one of the most important points of your self-being.

Morals are derived from Society; Religion merely incorporates those deemed "acceptable."

 

but, i do a lot of thinking: each day there are miracles, there must be some truth to the stories in the bible, some people claim to talk to god, what about ghosts?

People have claimed to have spoken with all manner of supernatural beings or to have witnessed some form of supernatural event for thousands of years. I'll assume your point to be something along the lines of "since so many people have made similar claims for as long as they have, at least a few of the claims must be genuine." Supposing this to be true, how can you know, how do you determine which are vaild? It seems to me that, since the supernatural defies natural classifiction by definition, it would be impossible to distinguish between the lies and the truths; those who attempt to do so are merely cherry-picking without proof of any sort.

 

the big bang theory is bull, honestly. somehow those original molecules and laws were created.

 

which came first? the chicken or the egg?

You are free to believe what you will, but let me ask you this: "If God created the Universe, then what created God?" Personally, I don't see the need to suppose that the Universe had to have been created. Is it so difficult a concept to assume that the Universe has always existed, rather than extrapolate and suppose that the Universe was created instead by God (who you, in turn, assume to have always existed)? I believe Occam's Razor has been referenced to a number of times previously in this thread, but you'll want to read through it if you haven't already (yes, I know I'm using Wikipedia as a source, but please bear with it).

 

You're arguing causation, my friend, and that won't get us anywhere. It's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.

 

edit: i just have one question- i remember a religion teacher of mine telling me about a _______ prophet- one who does not decay when (she) died?

 

she told me that this body was on display somewhere. could someone clear this up?

I don't know of the specific example, but simply because the corpse of a prophet hasn't decayed since the person died doesn't imply that he or she is under some form of "divine protection." I submit as proof the darling Rosalia:

 

 

 

 

She'll turn 89 this December.

[noble_aloof]

i wasn't expected a mature response, thank you.

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

the big bang theory is bull, honestly. somehow those original molecules and laws were created.

 

 

 

 

Both theories whether it was God or the BBT which created the universe are as illogical as others, 1 just has physical proof and the other doesn't.

 

 

 

Both theories are based on something appearing out of nowhere, whether it's God or the vast amounts of matter involved in the BBT, both are as illogical as the other as nothing can appear out of nowhere or be made from nothing, matter can't just appear but neither can an all-powerful being.

 

 

 

I go to the Jesuit school also, we're encouraged to think for ourselves, develop our own opinions but also the basic Jesuit ethos, be the best of what you can be and help others. Honestly, sounds like you're just going with what the priests you know are telling you to believe. At least it's Jesuits you're listening to anyway, religious people with a lot of sense.

[Housepig]

You're an ignorant [bleep] head if you disrespect personal beliefs

 

 

 

And respecting opinions purely because they're 'personal beliefs' isn't ignorant? Hitler had strong personal beliefs; we ought to respect them; never mind the fact they happened to include mass genocide. I don't respect his beliefs, nor do I respect the beliefs of Al-Qiueda (spelling...) or Sarah Palin. There's no difference.

 

 

 

which came first? the chicken or the egg?

 

You can't pinpoint the generation when whatever primordial creature was laying eggs at that time evolved into a what we call a chicken.

[Shinjula]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

But just because some people label you an idiot for that belief doesnt make you an idiot. What it does is tell you a lot about which people on the forum give respect and who you should be interested in talking to, actually youve done the thread a service.

 

 

 

Ignore those who dont give respect, treat well those who do. You may not actually believe in the FSM but as long as you take the position that you do, on a debate forum, I have to take the position that you believe it, otherwise I miss the point of what you are trying to say and the logical inconsistencies that it points out in other peoples arguments

[user1991]

 

 

 

the big bang theory is bull, honestly. somehow those original molecules and laws were created.

 

 

 

 

Both theories whether it was God or the BBT which created the universe are as illogical as others, 1 just has physical proof and the other doesn't.

 

 

 

Both theories are based on something appearing out of nowhere, whether it's God or the vast amounts of matter involved in the BBT, both are as illogical as the other as nothing can appear out of nowhere or be made from nothing, matter can't just appear but neither can an all-powerful being.

 

 

 

I go to the Jesuit school also, we're encouraged to think for ourselves, develop our own opinions but also the basic Jesuit ethos, be the best of what you can be and help others. Honestly, sounds like you're just going with what the priests you know are telling you to believe. At least it's Jesuits you're listening to anyway, religious people with a lot of sense.

 

 

 

The Big Bang isn't "something out of nothing"

 

 

 

Also, even if it was, people continuously talk of the Big Bang in the sense that "something can't come from nothing" or "actual infinites cannot exist, the universe never having a beginning is an actual infinite therefore the universe must have had a beginning," when in actuality both of these assertions are hilariously stupid. God too can be made to regress infinitely. Where did God come from? How can actual infinites not exist when God is infinite, as well as heaven and hell? They start out with the most complex physical thing (the Universe), and in order to explain the so called inconsistencies in scientific theory, they posit an actual omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient consciousness that they call God. Which one of these two ideas is more complex?

 

 

 

It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be making any assumptions (which you shouldn't be), positing an infinitely wise consciousness that is everywhere at once and outside of the rules of logic in order to explain the Universe is preposterous. You might as well just assume the Universe is infinite.

[WoodenFruit]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Because that 'religion' was invented for a joke to poke fun at religion and theists, enough people voted it as a religion in the census however no-one will take you seriously if you start talking about it.

[user1991]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Because that 'religion' was invented for a joke to poke fun at religion and theists, enough people voted it as a religion in the census however no-one will take you seriously if you start talking about it.

 

 

 

I think you miss the point

[WoodenFruit]

I love how people openly accept major gods but the second I mention the FSM I'm labeled an idiot :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Because that 'religion' was invented for a joke to poke fun at religion and theists, enough people voted it as a religion in the census however no-one will take you seriously if you start talking about it.

 

 

 

I think you miss the point

 

 

 

I was quite aware of the point...I just think that other people had a right to call him an idiot for bringing up something that was made to poke fun at religion.

[NoobelPrize]

There is actually a book I read recently, I don't know if anybody would be able to get it. It was written by a man in my town, Eyes of an Angel.

[RichieMcD]

[hide=Long quote.]

 

 

 

the big bang theory is bull, honestly. somehow those original molecules and laws were created.

 

 

 

 

Both theories whether it was God or the BBT which created the universe are as illogical as others, 1 just has physical proof and the other doesn't.

 

 

 

Both theories are based on something appearing out of nowhere, whether it's God or the vast amounts of matter involved in the BBT, both are as illogical as the other as nothing can appear out of nowhere or be made from nothing, matter can't just appear but neither can an all-powerful being.

 

 

 

I go to the Jesuit school also, we're encouraged to think for ourselves, develop our own opinions but also the basic Jesuit ethos, be the best of what you can be and help others. Honestly, sounds like you're just going with what the priests you know are telling you to believe. At least it's Jesuits you're listening to anyway, religious people with a lot of sense.

 

 

 

The Big Bang isn't "something out of nothing"

 

 

 

Also, even if it was, people continuously talk of the Big Bang in the sense that "something can't come from nothing" or "actual infinites cannot exist, the universe never having a beginning is an actual infinite therefore the universe must have had a beginning," when in actuality both of these assertions are hilariously stupid. God too can be made to regress infinitely. Where did God come from? How can actual infinites not exist when God is infinite, as well as heaven and hell? They start out with the most complex physical thing (the Universe), and in order to explain the so called inconsistencies in scientific theory, they posit an actual omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient consciousness that they call God. Which one of these two ideas is more complex?

 

 

 

It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be making any assumptions (which you shouldn't be), positing an infinitely wise consciousness that is everywhere at once and outside of the rules of logic in order to explain the Universe is preposterous. You might as well just assume the Universe is infinite.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Sorry, I must have worded what I wanted to say wrongly, I believe in the BBT and not anything close to the form of an omnipotent being which created us and is unique to 2 billion people, meaning 4 billion people are ignorant and going to burn in hell.

 

 

 

Whether it's God you believe in or the 'word' of God, both are as unrealistic or more than quite a lot of scientific theories out there.

[Boris5000]

I was in Hyde Park on Sunday, and well this guy kept on telling me...

 

 

 

"Jesus loves you", Doesn't that make Jesus a paedophile?

 

 

 

But the bible is very very flawed... Aparently I am commiting Adultery... but don't you have to be married to do that :P