Is God real post your thoughts!

[Saru Inc]

Goddamnit. Bump if if you have something of value to say, not because you're cool for having a big topic. This topic simply encourages bigotry, flaming, and wars in general. I really think this topic should be locked.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Goddamnit. Bump if if you have something of value to say, not because you're cool for having a big topic. This topic simply encourages bigotry, flaming, and wars in general. I really think this topic should be locked.

Yes, because what you posted had any value whatsoever? I'm not doing it to be cool you immature goon, I'm doing it because if it has 4000+ posts obviously it was a valued topic. I don't care if you think it should be locked? That's not up to you, it's up to mods, who if you check, have posted in this thread, I really don't think they have an issue with it.

 

Don't post if you don't like it, it's alot easier to hit the back button then make yourself look like an idiot, at least for most people - you seem to have ease at both.

[Saru Inc]

You Sure? Quantity is not quality, we all know. And almost no debate on the internet has any value, because its very rarely sincere. Most people frankly just approval suck through the debate, saying whatever they want so they can look good in the eyes of the 'cool people.' The other side are the trolls who mess up most debates, those are the only factions, all other people simply don't bother. The reason I say it has no discussion value is not because I was 'beaten' in the debate or whatever, is because it's the same debate, someone says A statement, someone combats with B statement, A person says C statement to combat B person, and about 15 pages later two new people ask the same questions. Look the the topic, I did. It's all the same arguments over and over, the reason I said "you think you're cool" is due to your first post where you try and "answer" our questions? I may have certainly misinterpreted your meaning, but that doesn't mean I've misinterpreted this last post. Obviously you were offended because I said I disliked this topic, I hate to start a flame war but.. Grow up pretty much. It happens all over TIF, "stupid topic inb4lock" why should yours be any different? And let's compare our posts "this topic has a lot of value. bump"

My post: "this thread incites flaming, bigotry etc." I had reasons as to why I believed this topic should be locked, and mods and admins have all posted on topics that later should be locked. There have been so many fights on this thread, some of them even started/finished by yours truly, thats why I think it's best to lock the topic. Not because I believe in God, while very few other people here do, but because everything that's can be discussed, has basically been discussed. I would have been completely fine if you bumped this, with perhaps an interesting article you found showing evidence for/against God. But it seemed in my opinion, that you were simply having an ego boost (based on this topic, and many of your other posts on tif)

 

And remember, idiot is as idiot does.

[tripsis]

First of all: cut it out you two. There's no need to rip each others' throats out over this.

 

Joes_So_Cool - although I understand you think this thread has some great discussion value, Saruman44 does have a bit of a point. Our policy on bumping states that you may only bump a thread if you make a valuable contribution to the discussion. Bumping just for the sake of bumping is not permitted so please refrain from doing that in the future.

 

That being said, rather than splitting off your bump and the replies that follow, thus sending this thread back to the dark pages, I will give this thread a chance for continued discussion. Please keep all posts after this one on-topic and flaming will not be permitted. Debate is certainly welcome but personal attacks and flaming will not be taken lightly.

[DaN]

Ask yourself this.

 

Do you believe in Unicorns?

 

Do you believe in Fairies?

 

Do you believe in Trolls?

 

Do you believe in Thor?

 

Do you believe in Zeus?

 

Do you believe there is a Tea Cup in orbit around Saturn?

 

Do you believe in God?

 

These are all things that we cannot disprove the existence of, however the inability to disprove their existence does not provide any reason to believe that they exist.

[Lenticular_J]

Ask yourself this.

 

Do you believe in Unicorns?

 

Do you believe in Fairies?

 

Do you believe in Trolls?

 

Do you believe in Thor?

 

Do you believe in Zeus?

 

Do you believe there is a Tea Cup in orbit around Saturn?

 

Do you believe in God?

 

These are all things that we cannot disprove the existence of, however the inability to disprove their existence does not provide any reason to believe that they exist.

That's one of the most boring and immature "arguments" over this [cabbage] there is. A real theologian debate would consider this the work of a child. Every 16 year old that wants to feel rebellious asks these questions. And none of them question anything. One could easily ask if you believe in history. Did you experience it all yourself? No, you're basing your ideas on what others have written and told you.

 

A good book on this matter that I'm reading now, nay, a fantastic book: The Thinker's Guide to God.

 

Essentially, one large essay compiling the thoughts of the greatest thinkers of the West on God, who has generally remained the same basic idea for two millenia - although, as with the Reformation, the idea of God was split. St. Thomas Aquinas was very responsible for that, as he turned Catholic ideas about God into what they are now (well, technically what the Church condones as the Catholic idea. Everyone has their own ideas) - the beliefs of Aristotle as the Philosopher's God, existing outside of the universe wholly simply (not the definition we use now) and as 100% Good (yet again, different than typical denotation).

 

That book has two good metaphors. One involves goldfish in a pond in a yard. Most swim around happily in their pond. One is a philosophical goldfish. He bemuses over what lies outside the pond, but cannot comprehend it because his mind is not built to understand anything but the pond. Human logic is built out of space and time. Quantum mechanics, which many believe to be the plans that have built the universe, are not built in space/time. Neither is religion.

 

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

Study up, guys.

[i_love_burritos]

 

That's one of the most boring and immature "arguments" over this [cabbage] there is [cont..] Every 16 year old that wants to feel rebellious asks these questions [cont...] Study up, guys.

 

Aren't you 15 anyways ?

[Saru Inc]

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

[Romy]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

[Skeptical]

If mankind is going to survive we have to at least TRY!

 

 

 

This is my point, for example, Global Warming is a major issue and we all need to try to do our best to curb our energy use. No amount of praying will get rid of global warming, we have to do it ourselves.

 

 

 

Unless something out of our control happens like a massive meteor hits the earth and wipes out the human race or a new virus forms with no cure then we will all survive for millenia to come.

 

 

 

Global warming ISN'T a problem, the air is made up of about 0.03% of co2 so all this crap about recylcling every little thing and do everything to reduce the amount of co2 you produce is total crap. Think about the hypocrisy aswell there flying around in private jets with a few people on board all over the world all the time, couldn't they just go business class?

 

I agree that CO2 is not the problem. First of all, your "argument" is senseless crap. Because a few people choose to remain ignorant, does that really mean that our behavior should be altered? After all, this is a topic for discussing religion.

 

Now, to deal with CO2: http://uanews.org/node/4815. There. Done. Literally. You can't insist that there isn't more going on than just carbon floating in the air. The next question to put to a sforum.tip.it20whether or not they can predict and compare solar flares. Interestingly, we can't (closest we've come, and read the limitations: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3075). Remember, it takes massive amounts of energy (and I mean massive amounts: http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#payback). Read the chapter on it in [super Freakonomics/i], and you'll encounter arguments with far more detail concerning the tipping point and other challenges to the argument, including the accusation that funding can no longer be found for research that might refute the current hypothesis, aside from oil and coal companies

 

However, for all practical purposes, I entirely support the anti-global-warming agenda: after all, how can you say carbon-caps (punishing corporations for their excessive fossil-fuel consumption) renewable energy (we need something: it's just a matter of when we'll actually require it) and conservation of natural resources.

 

Food for though.

[Saru Inc]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

 

Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it. Wow. And what I mean to say, is you should question your beliefs, but what I'm implying is that if there are 5 billion people who believe in a Christian god for example, compare that to the 4 people who believe in Unicorns... There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow. While a lot of Christians are gullible mindless followers, a lot more atheists are as well, then they would like to admit. Atheists tend to believe they copy wrote intelligence, logic, "truth," etc when in reality it shows how foolish most are. And at your fishing comment, its an analogy, people compare baking a cake to putting together a house, sure you're both times building something, but you can't eat a house, and you can't sleep in the average sized cake. It's an analogy, I repeat.

[Perakp]

And almost no debate on the internet has any value, because its very rarely sincere.

I disagree, in my eyes Internet debates have value, because they are debates. Troll & spamfests don't have value, but there are real, valuable debates on the internet.

 

The reason I say it has no discussion value is not because I was 'beaten' in the debate or whatever, is because it's the same debate, someone says A statement, someone combats with B statement, A person says C statement to combat B person, and about 15 pages later two new people ask the same questions. Look the the topic, I did. It's all the same arguments over and over (...)

And because there are always new people asking those same old questions, they must always be re-answered, no other way around it. We don't have the power to make people read through the last 15 pages of the discussion or the books that would explain the arguments and we can't stop them from asking the questions... So there's no point complaining about it. And it doesn't de-value the discussion.

 

That book has two good metaphors. One involves goldfish in a pond in a yard. Most swim around happily in their pond. One is a philosophical goldfish. He bemuses over what lies outside the pond, but cannot comprehend it because his mind is not built to understand anything but the pond. Human logic is built out of space and time. Quantum mechanics, which many believe to be the plans that have built the universe, are not built in space/time. Neither is religion.

I've learned that if you can't explain something, or you don't know why you are doing what you are doing (example: "why exactly must we study matrices?"), it must have something to do with quantum mechanics. QM is like the troll under the bridge, or your worst nightmare, you can't fight it, it will get to you when you least expect it.

Now, you mentioned human logic, my question is: is there some other form of logic other than human logic? and if there is not, there's no need to call it "human logic" as if it was somehow lesser than the real, "absolute" logic. It doesn't matter in this debate, but in general I don't like it when people use the word human with another word to convey a negative tone.

The idea that we can (/are allowed to/ are able to) assess the existence of God with logic is important. I salute the philosophical goldfish. This is exactly what this topic is about: showing people that you can ask questions, it doesn't matter wether you are going to get an acceptable answer or not, asking the question is what matters.

 

There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

No.

There is no evidence about the supernatural, if there was, it wouldn't be supernatural. If there was proof, it wouldn't be called religion, but science. If there was proof of the existence of God, we'd hardly be here discussing this matter further.

[assassin_696]

That book has two good metaphors. One involves goldfish in a pond in a yard. Most swim around happily in their pond. One is a philosophical goldfish. He bemuses over what lies outside the pond, but cannot comprehend it because his mind is not built to understand anything but the pond. Human logic is built out of space and time. Quantum mechanics, which many believe to be the plans that have built the universe, are not built in space/time. Neither is religion.

 

That's also a very childish metaphor. You're saying that we can devise and build beautiful experiments that test every facet of nature so we can explain and understand what's going on in most of the known universe but should still believe in a divine being outside the Universe simply because the human posesses the ability to ask abstract "what if?" questions? Of course our understanding of the Universe isn't complete, but there also aren't many gaps for God to hide in. Not only that but this divine being that's outside of the laws of physics regularly intervenes in the observable Universe?

 

You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it. You argue for the existence of a God by saying that it exists outside the laws of nature and the Universe. If you want to believe that that's fine but it strikes me as curious as to why you should when you don't need one but that's fine. But then you say the God directly or indirectly intervenes in the Universe on a regular basis for the benefit of us. So are you a deist or a theist? If it's the former then fine, we'll never know. But an interventionist God would surely have an effect on this Universe.

 

Quantum mechanics is a theory firmly built in space and time, so I don't know where you got that idea from.

[Alg]

There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

No.

There is no evidence about the supernatural, if there was, it wouldn't be supernatural. If there was proof, it wouldn't be called religion, but science. If there was proof of the existence of God, we'd hardly be here discussing this matter further.

It's one of those ideas that are inherently unscientific because there is no way to test and prove it. And that really should only matter if you're the kind of person that thinks only scientific, provable ideas have any value (Which as a right brained fan of psychology and art, I'm not :lol:).

[DaN]

 

That's one of the most boring and immature "arguments" over this [cabbage] there is. A real theologian debate would consider this the work of a child. Every 16 year old that wants to feel rebellious asks these questions. And none of them question anything. One could easily ask if you believe in history. Did you experience it all yourself? No, you're basing your ideas on what others have written and told you.

 

Ad-hominem's will get you nowhere. :thumbsup: You also failed to address my argument, instead going off on a tangent.

[Joes_So_Cool]

 

That's one of the most boring and immature "arguments" over this [cabbage] there is. A real theologian debate would consider this the work of a child. Every 16 year old that wants to feel rebellious asks these questions. And none of them question anything. One could easily ask if you believe in history. Did you experience it all yourself? No, you're basing your ideas on what others have written and told you.

 

Ad-hominem's will get you nowhere. :thumbsup: You also failed to address my argument, instead going off on a tangent.

 

I agree, that statement where you implied if you don't try something yourself it's fake, that goes for everyday things for example if your friend tells you he shot a deer and it was a 16 pointer but you weren't there then it's fake. I relate believing in God in the same way, only obviously to a higher belief.

[Alg]

But who are we to try to change the way people see the world?

[Romy]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

 

Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it.

You have to admit the Bible encourages it, especially chauvinism and homophobia.

You also have to admit we'd have less chauvinist, homophobic, racist, etc. people, without the Bible.

Ofcourse, there are homophobic(/chauvinist/racist) atheists too, and there are religous people who are not, but the stats show the average of each group is more inclined to go one way.

Also, you cannot choose to be any of those, it's not that simple. Just like you cannot choose you likes and dislikes, you cannot choose to like cheese cake, you cannot choose to be homophobic.

 

Wow. And what I mean to say, is you should question your beliefs, but what I'm implying is that if there are 5 billion people who believe in a Christian god for example, compare that to the 4 people who believe in Unicorns... There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

No, because there's no "point" in believing in unicorns. Unicorns don't explain the unexplainable (such as why we're here, how we got here, where we're going to, etc), and a God does.

I see religion as comfort. It explains what we cannot understand, it hands over some guidelines, it gives meaning to life, etc. That's why there are so many believers, not necessarily because there's "evidence".

 

While a lot of Christians are gullible mindless followers, a lot more atheists are as well, then they would like to admit.

I wouldn't got for "a lot more", especially since there are less atheists than Christians to begin with.

 

 

Atheists tend to believe they copy wrote intelligence, logic, "truth," etc when in reality it shows how foolish most are.

Not to be petty, but atheists are statistically more educated and smarter.

Ofcourse, that does not mean all atheists are smart, and neither does it mean that being religous makes you dumb.

 

And at your fishing comment, its an analogy, people compare baking a cake to putting together a house, sure you're both times building something, but you can't eat a house, and you can't sleep in the average sized cake. It's an analogy, I repeat.

Yes, it is an analogy. What I was pointing out is that this analogy only stands for fishing as a hobby, or even a way of life, rather than fishing as dictating morals and encourging bigottry.

[magekillr]

Probably not, but it's possible. I'm not terribly interested in his/her existence. Chances are if he/she is real, he/she doesn't really give a [cabbage] or is off in some other part of the universe. However, when religious Jesus Freaks affect the lives of others, that's when I get involved. Christian fundamentalists and their obsession with fetuses and gays, Zionist fundamentalist Jews/Christians who use the Bible to justify their occupation, Muslim fundamentalists with the recent Muhammad spat and Sharia Law; I'd rather they all just drop their religion and keep it to themselves.

 

I think religion can be helpful at times in our society. The driving force behind MLK's advocacy was his religion. I think it can serve a purpose in our society, especially when I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Global warming ISN'T a problem, the air is made up of about 0.03% of co2 so all this crap about recylcling every little thing and do everything to reduce the amount of co2 you produce is total crap. Think about the hypocrisy aswell there flying around in private jets with a few people on board all over the world all the time, couldn't they just go business class?

 

Global warming isn't a problem, huh? Your basis for saying that is...what, exactly? Your hatred of science? The dislike of having to possibly give up some of your overindulging lifestyle? Or maybe it's Jesus:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

[Saru Inc]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

 

Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it.

You have to admit the Bible encourages it, especially chauvinism and homophobia.

You also have to admit we'd have less chauvinist, homophobic, racist, etc. people, without the Bible.

Ofcourse, there are homophobic(/chauvinist/racist) atheists too, and there are religous people who are not, but the stats show the average of each group is more inclined to go one way.

Also, you cannot choose to be any of those, it's not that simple. Just like you cannot choose you likes and dislikes, you cannot choose to like cheese cake, you cannot choose to be homophobic.

 

Wow. And what I mean to say, is you should question your beliefs, but what I'm implying is that if there are 5 billion people who believe in a Christian god for example, compare that to the 4 people who believe in Unicorns... There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

No, because there's no "point" in believing in unicorns. Unicorns don't explain the unexplainable (such as why we're here, how we got here, where we're going to, etc), and a God does.

I see religion as comfort. It explains what we cannot understand, it hands over some guidelines, it gives meaning to life, etc. That's why there are so many believers, not necessarily because there's "evidence".

 

While a lot of Christians are gullible mindless followers, a lot more atheists are as well, then they would like to admit.

I wouldn't got for "a lot more", especially since there are less atheists than Christians to begin with.

 

 

Atheists tend to believe they copy wrote intelligence, logic, "truth," etc when in reality it shows how foolish most are.

Not to be petty, but atheists are statistically more educated and smarter.

Ofcourse, that does not mean all atheists are smart, and neither does it mean that being religous makes you dumb.

 

And at your fishing comment, its an analogy, people compare baking a cake to putting together a house, sure you're both times building something, but you can't eat a house, and you can't sleep in the average sized cake. It's an analogy, I repeat.

Yes, it is an analogy. What I was pointing out is that this analogy only stands for fishing as a hobby, or even a way of life, rather than fishing as dictating morals and encourging bigottry.

 

1)

Here's what I think in all honesty Romy:

The Bible does not encourage the thoughts of homophobia, but it was the law, back then in Israel, guys couldn't have sex with guys, because Israel was a small as redneck country in the boonies, they needed people. HOWEVER (and this is why I said it doesn't support homophobia) the chapter of Ruth, is a about a LESBIAN that God loved, very much, I mean she got her own book in the Bible. People proved this, because in the original language, the word (I think its this word) "clung" (as in past tense "to cling") when used with a person ex: she clung to her" it means romantically, and sexually needing. And the word is commonly used when describing men and women's sex lives in the Bible. However, after Ruth's husband died she "clung" to her lady friend and lived with her for all of her days. To the Chauvinism comment, while I do admit the Bible suggests it, meh I don't know XD you're right I guess... But it's more about chauvinism in the church, Men are supposed to be Church leaders, not Women. On the other hand it is said in many times, women should obey and submit themselves to their husbands, AND husbands should submit, love, obey, and PROTECT their wives. However, men tend to leave off that 2nd part when preaching because it's more convenient.

 

 

2) I completely understand when you say we use God to fill in the unexplainable, it's completely true. However, the argument lies in whether or not this fills the unexplainable, or simply coats with it a sugary warm feeling. I am honestly not surprised when people call me an illogical fool, I believe a guy in the sky who no one's ever seen, created the entire universe in 6 days, and all his miracles can be explained by natural causes. But I think it's the way you look at it in all honesty, to the miracle section, you can say that the physical proof of miracles is proof that God works within nature's laws, or you could say people were confused by the events, so said God did them. But really, I'm surprised anyone has ever been converted to Christianity, because it does seem very far fetched... But it's true, and I can't explain why. And thats why I don't debate it on the intern-..... :wall:

 

3)There may be more intelligent Atheists, I wasn't saying there weren't, simply stating there can be Christians who ARE smarter than Atheists, and are not dilusioned old fools. I just find it odd, how a lot of people in this world (on both sides of the god debate) complain about the world being close minded, bigoted etc, but never examine their own beliefs. Many Christians never question god, examine their beliefs, because in the Bible God said "let he be blessed who believes but does not see" (as in doesn't question their faith) but thats just ridiculous. I did question my faith, I looked up evolution, Islam, everything ( I even looked up Zoroastrianism to see if it held validity) and nothing seemed right, except Christianity. Atheism just seemed too empty, and too contradictory in that Christians use God to fill in the void with faith, while Atheists put there faith in science, hoping it would one day be full. And I bring in Pascals wager, only briefly, I'd rather go to Sunday like once every two months (basically how often my family goes, I've had pretty bad church experiences) and forgo a tiny bit of... well.. earthly pleasure, and when I die, I'll go to heaven. If God doesn't exist, and I just Dissapear, I'll at least have been a good person.

 

4)I see your point, but I guess I see both sides of the analogy. I.e. (if I may say so) your interpretation is the product, the goal. Mine, is the process. The guy doesn't understand why he does it, why. Not how many fish he kills, or or coffee cups he drinks to stay awake.

 

*also Romy, I'm not sure if you took it this way, but in the post you quoted, I wasn't flaming you, but I can see that it could come off that way.*

[fakeitormakeit2]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

 

Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it.

1. You have to admit the Bible encourages it, especially chauvinism and homophobia.

You also have to admit we'd have less chauvinist, homophobic, racist, etc. people, without the Bible.

Ofcourse, there are homophobic(/chauvinist/racist) atheists too, and there are religous people who are not, but the stats show the average of each group is more inclined to go one way.

Also, you cannot choose to be any of those, it's not that simple. Just like you cannot choose you likes and dislikes, you cannot choose to like cheese cake, you cannot choose to be homophobic.

 

Wow. And what I mean to say, is you should question your beliefs, but what I'm implying is that if there are 5 billion people who believe in a Christian god for example, compare that to the 4 people who believe in Unicorns... There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

2. No, because there's no "point" in believing in unicorns. Unicorns don't explain the unexplainable (such as why we're here, how we got here, where we're going to, etc), and a God does.

I see religion as comfort. It explains what we cannot understand, it hands over some guidelines, it gives meaning to life, etc. That's why there are so many believers, not necessarily because there's "evidence".

 

While a lot of Christians are gullible mindless followers, a lot more atheists are as well, then they would like to admit.

3. I wouldn't got for "a lot more", especially since there are less atheists than Christians to begin with.

 

 

Atheists tend to believe they copy wrote intelligence, logic, "truth," etc when in reality it shows how foolish most are.

4. Not to be petty, but atheists are statistically more educated and smarter.

Ofcourse, that does not mean all atheists are smart, and neither does it mean that being religous makes you dumb.

 

And at your fishing comment, its an analogy, people compare baking a cake to putting together a house, sure you're both times building something, but you can't eat a house, and you can't sleep in the average sized cake. It's an analogy, I repeat.

Yes, it is an analogy. What I was pointing out is that this analogy only stands for fishing as a hobby, or even a way of life, rather than fishing as dictating morals and encourging bigottry.

1. You say the Bible instigates bigotry against several groups. I would have to disagree. One of the most well known Jesus quotes "love your enemy". Jesus is considered the final prophet and completes the word of God so His commands finalize all instructions of God. He also says not to judge least you're judged 7 x 7 times (which is emphatic language to mean a lot). Now there might be people like the WBC who distort the Bible and spread messages of hate, but the WBC are also denounced by every church who I have heard give a statement on them. The Catholic Church doesn't even acknowledge them as a church.

 

2. God does not explain why we are here, the physical processes of how we were created, etc. as those can all be scientifically explained. The existence of God deals with the study of the interior disposition and our international unity. And religion does not explain the unexplainable because every single confirmation, the bishop of my diocese always says the same cliche when he explains all this unexplainable stuff which fundamentalist religion says the Bible answers and he goes so now do you understand it? Usually everyone says yes and he goes good, cuz I don't and than rants on and on about how we can't and will not.

 

3. I think he means percentage. And there are a lot of gullible and stupid atheists. I have no statistic that compares the religiously education measurement to atheist, but I know of many atheist who are so because it is "cool" and the like. I'm not saying many atheists are like this, I just know of this type. Gullible and submissive has little to do with religious or atheistic affiliation more with personal inclination.

 

4. I simply disagree with that. That's your own baseless feeling of superiority.

[db300]

4. I simply disagree with that. That's your own baseless feeling of superiority.

 

How can you "simply disagree" with something that's pretty well documented and proven?

[Alg]

4. I simply disagree with that. That's your own baseless feeling of superiority.

 

How can you "simply disagree" with something that's pretty well documented and proven?

Because of how similar it is to the ideas of social darwinism? Remember the 19th-20th century where apparently it was sound scientific thought that said that white people were intellectually superior?

 

Or perhaps how intelligence is more tied to social and economic status than religious belief? How would they go about proving it anyway?

 

Feel free to prove me wrong, though. I just think this is a group of atheists trying to make themselves feel better by misusing science.

[Perakp]

Ask yourself this.

(...)

These are all things that we cannot disprove the existence of, however the inability to disprove their existence does not provide any reason to believe that they exist.

What you said is absolutely correct, but is hardly ever relevant when discussing things like beliefs, faith, values, morals etc. As has been said, they can't be proven, but that doesn't mean they can't exist. This gets us nowhere.

 

It's one of those ideas that are inherently unscientific because there is no way to test and prove it. And that really should only matter if you're the kind of person that thinks only scientific, provable ideas have any value (Which as a right brained fan of psychology and art, I'm not :lol:).

I'd say no one is that kind of person; everyone believes some things without proof, it is only reasonable to do so.

 

But who are we to try to change the way people see the world?

Nothing wrong in it, is there? Unless they clearly say "no, I don't want to hear what you have to say, go away".

 

I completely understand when you say we use God to fill in the unexplainable, it's completely true. However, the argument lies in whether or not this fills the unexplainable, or simply coats with it a sugary warm feeling. I am honestly not surprised when people call me an illogical fool,

(...)

But really, I'm surprised anyone has ever been converted to Christianity, because it does seem very far fetched... But it's true, and I can't explain why. And thats why I don't debate it on the intern-..... :wall:

Awesome :thumbsup:

 

Atheism just seemed too empty, and too contradictory in that Christians use God to fill in the void with faith, while Atheists put there faith in science, hoping it would one day be full.

If you can't fill the void, you gotta learn to live with it. Which understandably may be hard sometimes.

[Romy]

[hide]

Another regarding this childish hatred of religion by people who just wish to feel superior, also regarding the language of religion which, out of necessity, contradicts itself: Your friend gets up at 4 am every morning to go fishing. You ask him why. He says he enjoys fishing. You don't love fishing, not enough to dedicate so much time to it, but you understand and respect his love of fishing. One time, curious, you ask him just what appeals to him so much about fishing - what makes it so great. He ponders awhile, until he replies: "Fishing is fishing." This statement makes absolutely no damn sense, and yet you can probably understand what he means.

 

This one doesn't hold much meat besides for the fact that people care about religion.

 

 

Fishing is a hobby, and not one that would make you anywhere near a bigot, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a racist...

To make sure no one misunderstands this, I'm not saying all religous are, I'm saying religion brought some people to be 1 or more of the above.

 

I must say I do agree with Lent, and also you don't have huge masses believing in unicorns, which must count for something.

 

I don't think it matters. The truth is the truth whether no one believes in it, and whether everyone does.

 

Saying that religion is believeable because of the amount of people following it, is like saying I shouldn't question it because no one else does.

The fact that many believe, is not a ground for the truthfulness of the matter.

 

Romy, that statement is bizarre. The people who follow the Bible that are racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, etc. CHOOSE to be racist, homophobic and chauvinistic, the Bible doesn't make them do it.

You have to admit the Bible encourages it, especially chauvinism and homophobia.

You also have to admit we'd have less chauvinist, homophobic, racist, etc. people, without the Bible.

Ofcourse, there are homophobic(/chauvinist/racist) atheists too, and there are religous people who are not, but the stats show the average of each group is more inclined to go one way.

Also, you cannot choose to be any of those, it's not that simple. Just like you cannot choose you likes and dislikes, you cannot choose to like cheese cake, you cannot choose to be homophobic.

 

Wow. And what I mean to say, is you should question your beliefs, but what I'm implying is that if there are 5 billion people who believe in a Christian god for example, compare that to the 4 people who believe in Unicorns... There's gotta be evidence for God, for that many people to follow.

No, because there's no "point" in believing in unicorns. Unicorns don't explain the unexplainable (such as why we're here, how we got here, where we're going to, etc), and a God does.

I see religion as comfort. It explains what we cannot understand, it hands over some guidelines, it gives meaning to life, etc. That's why there are so many believers, not necessarily because there's "evidence".

 

While a lot of Christians are gullible mindless followers, a lot more atheists are as well, then they would like to admit.

I wouldn't got for "a lot more", especially since there are less atheists than Christians to begin with.

 

 

Atheists tend to believe they copy wrote intelligence, logic, "truth," etc when in reality it shows how foolish most are.

Not to be petty, but atheists are statistically more educated and smarter.

Ofcourse, that does not mean all atheists are smart, and neither does it mean that being religous makes you dumb.

 

And at your fishing comment, its an analogy, people compare baking a cake to putting together a house, sure you're both times building something, but you can't eat a house, and you can't sleep in the average sized cake. It's an analogy, I repeat.

Yes, it is an analogy. What I was pointing out is that this analogy only stands for fishing as a hobby, or even a way of life, rather than fishing as dictating morals and encourging bigottry.

 

1)

Here's what I think in all honesty Romy:

The Bible does not encourage the thoughts of homophobia, but it was the law, back then in Israel, guys couldn't have sex with guys, because Israel was a small as redneck country in the boonies, they needed people. HOWEVER (and this is why I said it doesn't support homophobia) the chapter of Ruth, is a about a LESBIAN that God loved, very much, I mean she got her own book in the Bible. People proved this, because in the original language, the word (I think its this word) "clung" (as in past tense "to cling") when used with a person ex: she clung to her" it means romantically, and sexually needing. And the word is commonly used when describing men and women's sex lives in the Bible. However, after Ruth's husband died she "clung" to her lady friend and lived with her for all of her days. To the Chauvinism comment, while I do admit the Bible suggests it, meh I don't know XD you're right I guess... But it's more about chauvinism in the church, Men are supposed to be Church leaders, not Women. On the other hand it is said in many times, women should obey and submit themselves to their husbands, AND husbands should submit, love, obey, and PROTECT their wives. However, men tend to leave off that 2nd part when preaching because it's more convenient.

 

 

2) I completely understand when you say we use God to fill in the unexplainable, it's completely true. However, the argument lies in whether or not this fills the unexplainable, or simply coats with it a sugary warm feeling. I am honestly not surprised when people call me an illogical fool, I believe a guy in the sky who no one's ever seen, created the entire universe in 6 days, and all his miracles can be explained by natural causes. But I think it's the way you look at it in all honesty, to the miracle section, you can say that the physical proof of miracles is proof that God works within nature's laws, or you could say people were confused by the events, so said God did them. But really, I'm surprised anyone has ever been converted to Christianity, because it does seem very far fetched... But it's true, and I can't explain why. And thats why I don't debate it on the intern-..... :wall:

 

3)There may be more intelligent Atheists, I wasn't saying there weren't, simply stating there can be Christians who ARE smarter than Atheists, and are not dilusioned old fools. I just find it odd, how a lot of people in this world (on both sides of the god debate) complain about the world being close minded, bigoted etc, but never examine their own beliefs. Many Christians never question god, examine their beliefs, because in the Bible God said "let he be blessed who believes but does not see" (as in doesn't question their faith) but thats just ridiculous. I did question my faith, I looked up evolution, Islam, everything ( I even looked up Zoroastrianism to see if it held validity) and nothing seemed right, except Christianity. Atheism just seemed too empty, and too contradictory in that Christians use God to fill in the void with faith, while Atheists put there faith in science, hoping it would one day be full. And I bring in Pascals wager, only briefly, I'd rather go to Sunday like once every two months (basically how often my family goes, I've had pretty bad church experiences) and forgo a tiny bit of... well.. earthly pleasure, and when I die, I'll go to heaven. If God doesn't exist, and I just Dissapear, I'll at least have been a good person.

 

4)I see your point, but I guess I see both sides of the analogy. I.e. (if I may say so) your interpretation is the product, the goal. Mine, is the process. The guy doesn't understand why he does it, why. Not how many fish he kills, or or coffee cups he drinks to stay awake.

 

*also Romy, I'm not sure if you took it this way, but in the post you quoted, I wasn't flaming you, but I can see that it could come off that way.*

[/hide]

 

1. I don't know about lesbians, but I'm certain the Bible encourages hatred towards male gays. I'd cite it, but I don't have a Bible in English.

If it's really needed, I could probably find one somewhere on the net though.

 

2. Lol at your joke :).

Anyway, God fills a gap that currently cannot be filled otherwise. Whether it is a "warm feeling" as you describe it, or actual "understanding" of the matter, that's what it does.

 

3. "There may be more intelligent Atheists, I wasn't saying there weren't, simply stating there can be Christians who ARE smarter than Atheists, and are not dilusioned old fools. "

I was very careful at avoiding these misunderstandings. I said it myself- being a part of either group does not make you smarter or dumber. You just said that there are many more dumb atheists, and I was pointing to a statistic that shows the average Joe at each group is more likely to be this or that.

 

"while Atheists put there faith in science"

Atheism is not a religion. Unlike religions (and sub religions) you cannot classify them as a group believing in anything. Personally, I believe (for a lack of better word) that science is valid enough to be taken as the most serious form of gained knowledge. Was science ever wrong? Yes, certainly. Is it possible that certain things are considered right by sceince, although in reality they're actually wrong? Yep.

I'm skeptic, I don't take it for granted. I do take it as "more probable" though.

 

"and when I die, I'll go to heaven."

According to Christianity, perhaps. But too many other religions see you as doomed already. If we take each religion and give it the same odds at being "the right one", then this whole world is a lot more likely to go to hell (or receive some other form of punishment), than go to heaven.

 

"I'll at least have been a good person."

Out of curiousity, do you think that, if you became an atheist in the future, you'd be a bad person? Or less of a better person?

 

 

4) M'kay :P.

 

*Nope, didn't take anything as flaming :).