Is God real post your thoughts!

[lordkafei]

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIt is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[db300]

This thread has blown up WAY to much for me to answer all your replies but I'll enjoy reading a few a day! #-o

 

 

 

Seems like it's happened again, Joe. #-o :boohoo:

[tryto]

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIt is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[lordkafei]

Nice wall of quotes. Do you have any ideas of your own?

 

 

 

Why re-invent the wheel? They speak for me.

 

 

 

I didn't complain when people started quoting the Bible...

[tryto]

Point taken, although I think quotes of the bible shouldn't be allowed in this thread. Or at least not used as evidence or an argument.

[Korskin]

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIt is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[warri0r45]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

[Korskin]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

 

I'll rephrase: The initial quote is nonsense and so is my quote.

[warri0r45]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

 

I'll rephrase: The initial quote is nonsense and so is my quote.

 

 

 

Yeah, the original quote is strictly non-sensical but it's designed to make a point, that being that we all reject innumerable gods because there is no reason to believe in them be it through lack of evidence, etc, yet atheists just go one god futher than theists. Was your quote making any point other than the original quote was non-sensical?

[lordkafei]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

 

 

 

Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol:

[Rebdragon]

Faith doesn't require evidence, that's why it's called faith. The real question is whether we think the Bible, miracles or Jesus are evidence or not.

 

Circular Logic : .

 

 

 

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

But there's a major flaw with that statement, a flaw the originial quote does not harbor- you require something new of a person, faith, when the original quote requires nothing new; it only asks for a slightly higher level of rejection/lack of belief.

 

 

 

Basically, the first quote runs on the idea that everyone is an atheist to a degree, which, considering the number of gods considered to exist in the world, is pretty true. You, on the other hand, are trying to say in that quote that everyone is a theist to a degree, which, considering the fact that the people you are talking to hold absolutely no belief in any god whatsoever, holds no water as a counter-analogy ("I just believe in one more God than you do", they don't believe in a god in the first place to allow you to make that statement). You're trying to take a converse, which, if you've learned proofs in Geometry or PreCalc, almost always fail.

 

 

 

Good play on words though :-k .

[MasterMarduk]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

 

 

 

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

 

 

 

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

[Korskin]

Yeah, the original quote is strictly non-sensical but it's designed to make a point, that being that we all reject innumerable gods because there is no reason to believe in them be it through lack of evidence, etc, yet atheists just go one god futher than theists. Was your quote making any point other than the original quote was non-sensical?

 

It didn't have any point other than me thinking the quotes were lacking substance. If your best religious quotes include some from Richard Dawkins you really need to learn more about religion. In my book he's about as competent as the average off-topicer in philosophy and theology.

 

 

 

Circular Logic : .

 

Circular logic or not, faith does not necessarily depend on empirical evidence. You can't attack faith because it's by definition not relying on evidence.

 

But there's a major flaw with that statement, a flaw the originial quote does not harbor- you require something new of a person, faith, when the original quote requires nothing new; it only asks for a slightly higher level of rejection/lack of belief.

 

To me it's not a slightly higher level of rejection. If I remove God from my life, I remove the most important thing in my life.

 

Basically, the first quote runs on the idea that everyone is an atheist to a degree, which, considering the number of gods considered to exist in the world, is pretty true. You, on the other hand, are trying to say in that quote that everyone is a theist to a degree, which, considering the fact that the people you are talking to hold absolutely no belief in any god whatsoever, holds no water as a counter-analogy ("I just believe in one more God than you do", they don't believe in a god in the first place to allow you to make that statement). You're trying to take a converse, which, if you've learned proofs in Geometry or PreCalc, almost always fail.

 

 

 

Good play on words though :-k .

 

It was merely a play with words. But sure, it has some flaws.

[warri0r45]

Korskin, you haven't once adressed the actual point of the quote. It's a very simple one. What about it the point it makes lacks substance to you?

 

 

 

You can be sceptical of Dawkins if you think he's a biased atheist but the ad hom infatuation rather than considering the point of the quote dosen't do anything for your argument that the quote lacks substance.

[insane]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

 

 

 

Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol:

 

 

 

And you can't honestly make the claim that I am an atheist at all, for I have not claimed to lack belief in any God. The quote that Korskin paraphrased is one of the stupidest quotes I have ever read.

 

 

 

Further, going "one god further" is not as simple as you think. Going from two gods to one god, is a LOT different than going from one god to no gods at all, and you all know this. The entire quote is rubbish.

[warri0r45]

I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.

 

 

 

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

 

 

 

Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol:

 

 

 

And you can't honestly make the claim that I am an atheist at all, for I have not claimed to lack belief in any God. The quote that Korskin paraphrased is one of the stupidest quotes I have ever read.

 

 

 

Further, going "one god further" is not as simple as you think. Going from two gods to one god, is a LOT different than going from one god to no gods at all, and you all know this. The entire quote is rubbish.

 

 

 

You are not an atheist, but that's not strictly the point it makes. You can call it artistic licence or you can call it stupid and utter rubbish as you have.

 

 

 

The point is that an atheist percieves all gods as a theist percieves all gods but his.

 

 

 

I doubt going one god further would be easy at all for the theist but then again you'd need to realise this isn't a conversion attempt. It's a statement that an atheist sees all gods the same and the mere 'one god further' is not such a hard step for an atheist because of this.

 

 

 

It's a way to equalize all gods where a theist often sees theirs on a pedestal (regardless of what god this theist believes in) with no more evidence than anyone else.

 

 

 

I'd argue it's this attitude of 'my god is superior to every other ever considered' that this quote is at least partly directed at because there is equal evidence for anyones chosen version of god over another - none.

[lordkafei]

The point is that an atheist percieves all gods as a theist percieves all gods but his.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

So, how many of the Christians here believe in gods other than Yahweh?

 

 

 

Why don't you believe in Zeus, Kukulkan or Shiva?

 

 

 

From where I sit, they are all four the same.

[darkforaster]

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIt is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[mixand]

When you die your just going to be in a hole in the ground \

 

 

 

I really hope when i die somebody dosn't spend heaps of money for a funural, they should just throw me in a hole.

[Korskin]

According to Ludwig Feuerbach, god doesn't exist, humans made him up. They made all of these stories and made god up with them. We created what god is, and made him look like us and made the idea saying that we were created in his image. By that i think it is looks, not intelligence nor personality. hard to explain.

 

I don't see the connection between we look like God and therefore we created God.

 

Richard Dawkins believed that faith is what we use because we can't be bothered to find out if something's the truth or not. he also states at the end that faith is not reliable. I believe he thought it was silly to believe something that wasn't reliable. It's like believing a 5 year old about an answer to a gcse style question, you'd think they guessed.

 

To me it's the other way around. The only thing that's complete and utterly reliable is God. Dawkins and many other atheists tend to rely on science. I choose to rely on something unchanging (God) instead of something changing (science).

 

 

 

I also think that non-believers are sometimes guilty of not bothering to find out which religion holds the truth. Instead they'll say: "How am I supposed to know which religion is the right one when there is no evidence?" I'd advice to really know what you're rejecting before you reject it. Sometimes it feels like people are hiding under some quotes or things like: "Religion is illogical", "There is no evidence of God". Most likely you haven't successfully proven religion wrong just because you found a nifty quote.

 

I don't see how this is an argument to Epicurus's quote, Judgement day is the day you die, your judged if you go to heaven or hell. However, he's saying that god is either not omni potentent or all-loving because there is evil in the world. if the evil takes form in a human, why did god let that human do all the evil things he did?

 

We have free will, so that we can do either good or bad. But God doesn't allow evil, so he will punish evil as a good God would do.

 

Most of your arguments come from you misunderstanding them and not realising thier true meaning.

 

That's the downside with quotes. They are often taken out of context and you won't have the whole picture. Quotes are often more witty than substantial.

[wildernessfreelancer]

I don't see the connection between we look like God and therefore we created God.

 

 

 

If we look like God then I don't see why we can't make God up. God shouldn't look like us or any other living being (much less a figment of our imagination). If we can't see/perceive God as one of His creations, then it will be harder to disprove that we made God up in the first place.

[darkforaster]

According to Ludwig Feuerbach, god doesn't exist, humans made him up. They made all of these stories and made god up with them. We created what god is, and made him look like us and made the idea saying that we were created in his image. By that i think it is looks, not intelligence nor personality. hard to explain.

 

I don't see the connection between we look like God and therefore we created God.

 

 

 

We humans have created the idea of a god and made him into our image and thrown in a lot of stories with him. That is what Ludwig Feurbach was trying to say.

 

 

 

Richard Dawkins believed that faith is what we use because we can't be bothered to find out if something's the truth or not. he also states at the end that faith is not reliable. I believe he thought it was silly to believe something that wasn't reliable. It's like believing a 5 year old about an answer to a gcse style question, you'd think they guessed.

 

To me it's the other way around. The only thing that's complete and utterly reliable is God. Dawkins and many other atheists tend to rely on science. I choose to rely on something unchanging (God) instead of something changing (science).

 

 

 

i can't see how you think that god's existance is 100% reliable. It isn't, there's very little proof of his existance; most of which comes from unreliable sources .

 

 

 

I don't see how this is an argument to Epicurus's quote, Judgement day is the day you die, your judged if you go to heaven or hell. However, he's saying that god is either not omni potentent or all-loving because there is evil in the world. if the evil takes form in a human, why did god let that human do all the evil things he did?

 

We have free will, so that we can do either good or bad. But God doesn't allow evil, so he will punish evil as a good God would do.

 

 

 

yet he punishes the good with suffering for accidentally being involved in evil's doings. E.g. twin towers, lots of people died due to a few terrorists. All of them shouldn't have deserved that.Why would an allloving god allow such unjust punishment for the good people and the undeserving.

 

 

 

===============

 

 

 

By the way, i do believe in god. I just don't believe in him being all loving, omnipotent and omniscient. i also believe that many of the bible stories are just that. Stories. tales without proof or evidence of them ever happening.

 

 

 

I would be very grateful if someone told me the word for all loving.

[Korskin]

We humans have created the idea of a god and made him into our image and thrown in a lot of stories with him. That is what Ludwig Feurbach was trying to say.

 

Yeah, I get that. If you don't believe in God he must have been created by humans. What I don't get is how us being the image of God means that God was created by man.

 

 

 

i can't see how you think that god's existance is 100% reliable. It isn't, there's very little proof of his existance; most of which comes from unreliable sources .

 

You can never really be 100% sure of anything. I would say that there are many things pointing toward the existence of a God. The Bible, Jesus, the earth and humans and all religious people just to name a few. However, these so called proofs or evidence doesn't mean much if you don't believe. From my experience God is 100% reliable and is always there when I need him.

 

yet he punishes the good with suffering for accidentally being involved in evil's doings. E.g. twin towers, lots of people died due to a few terrorists. All of them shouldn't have deserved that.Why would an allloving god allow such unjust punishment for the good people and the undeserving.

 

As sin entered this world it has been an unfair and evil world. Many people might not get the life they deserve here on earth. But that's because earth is broken and ruined. What's important is not how comfortable our life has been on earth. It's whether we end up in heaven or hell that really matters.

 

 

 

I'm thinking that if we're supposed to have free will God can't interfere with every wrong decision we make.

 

By the way, i do believe in god. I just don't believe in him being all loving, omnipotent and omniscient. i also believe that many of the bible stories are just that. Stories. tales without proof or evidence of them ever happening.

 

I can see why you find it hard to combine the world we live in with an all loving God. But look at what God did. He sent his son to die for our sins. We didn't deserve it but he did it anyway because of his love for us.

[destro3979]

I believe in god but not as most do

 

 

 

i think he created everything and let it go.... he doesn't control anything, he just made it

 

 

 

all he does now is decide if you can get into heaven or not

 

 

 

also he could of made other living things in other galaxies, who knows.... i don't

[Plectrum]

I believe in god but not as most do

 

 

 

i think he created everything and let it go.... he doesn't control anything, he just made it

 

 

 

all he does now is decide if you can get into heaven or not

 

 

 

also he could of made other living things in other galaxies, who knows.... i don't

I understand what you are saying. But I am wondering who is controlling the world if God isn't. The Devil? Humans? Animals? Nature?

 

 

 

What makes the world go round?