Is God real post your thoughts!

[Nom]

Eh, guess I'll address it then.

 

 

 

Faith is belief in revelation. I had a revelation when I saw someone sit in a chair, before that I was doubtful (disregarding the curiosity I had when I was a child. If it makes it easier pretend you are caveman that saw someone sit in a chair for the first time). Revelation is not a lack of evidence, revelation is an acceptance of evidence as proof from an external or internal source (depending on your view point).

 

 

 

My faith in the craftsmanship of my chair does not have a hole in the evidence. All of the evidence is there, regardless if I think it will hold me up or not. Just because I think it will hold me up is not proof that it will hold me up.

 

 

 

Talk about judging a book by it's cover :boohoo: ..

 

 

 

You don't have faith that the chair will hold you up; you have made a logical conclusion that it will hold you up after seeing evidence in favor of that conclusion.

 

 

 

I don't know where you get this 'faith is based on revelation' thing. Faith is belief in a concept despite a total lack of evidence. There is a total lack of evidence for God, therefore it is a matter of faith to believe in Him. It is not a matter of faith to believe that the chair will hold you up, because you have seen evidence that it will. Therefore, you can make the logical assumption that it will hold your weight.

 

 

 

Faith is illogical. Believing in something without any evidence whatsoever is the exact opposite of logic, is it not?

[Plectrum]

Eh, guess I'll address it then.

 

 

 

Faith is belief in revelation. I had a revelation when I saw someone sit in a chair, before that I was doubtful (disregarding the curiosity I had when I was a child. If it makes it easier pretend you are caveman that saw someone sit in a chair for the first time). Revelation is not a lack of evidence, revelation is an acceptance of evidence as proof from an external or internal source (depending on your view point).

 

 

 

My faith in the craftsmanship of my chair does not have a hole in the evidence. All of the evidence is there, regardless if I think it will hold me up or not. Just because I think it will hold me up is not proof that it will hold me up.

 

 

 

Talk about judging a book by it's cover :boohoo: ..

 

 

 

 

You don't have faith that the chair will hold you up

Well, then I must be pretty foolish for sitting on something I don't think will hold me up.

; you have made a logical conclusion that it will hold you up after seeing evidence in favor of that conclusion.

Your point is...

 

 

I don't know where you get this 'faith is based on revelation' thing. Faith is belief in a concept despite a total lack of evidence. There is a total lack of evidence for God, therefore it is a matter of faith to believe in Him. It is not a matter of faith to believe that the chair will hold you up, because you have seen evidence that it will. Therefore, you can make the logical assumption that it will hold your weight.

Look at some of my analogies and you will understand why you can't rule out evidence. Ignorance of evidence does not deny it's existence. It only shows that we are ignorant. True God may not exists and true the evidence may not exist but there are no finites to post-discovery and definitely not to the unknown or unknowable.

 

 

Faith is illogical.

Only if you don't see the evidence.

Believing in something without any evidence whatsoever is the exact opposite of logic, is it not?

Correct, but who is to say that there is no evidence of God?

[Guest]

Geez you got more faith that me (being a Christian) if your going to believe that! Thats a theory-and-a-half! Especially since you can't even state how that matter got their in the first place. At least I say that a higher more powerful being was able to put it there.

 

Then I guess the Nat Geo "How the Earth [and Solar System] was Formed" documentary lied to me, if you have reason to believe it's wrong >_>.

 

 

 

 

Mine taping the part where it explains how it got there in the first place? Then upload it onto youtube and try convince me its fact. Once again I commend your faith in a theory.

[Rebdragon]

Mine taping the part where it explains how it got there in the first place? Then upload it onto youtube and try convince me its fact. Once again I commend your faith in a theory.

 

One) Don't care enough to do that.

 

 

 

Two) I'm not talking about the Big Bang or the creation of the universe here, if that's what you're thinking. I'm talking about nebulae. You know, nebulae, the things astronomers have observed, the big space clouds all over the universe? Need me to explain how those got there, or can I trust you to be able to research for yourself?

 

 

 

Three) Wiki. Not sure if that's precisely the same thing, but then again, it's far too late for me to go looking around for you.

 

 

 

Four) Why heck do you a) care and B) attack me about about an extraneous sarcastic remark I made that honestly has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever?

 

 

 

If you want to keep talking with me about this, think about PM'img me, but don't hold your breath for a response. This thread doesn't need this discussion, so let's leave this side-story dead beside the road where it belongs.

[Iamdan]

Anyone interested in religion should watch this. It has a lot of unbiased information about religion, though overall it gets biased.

 

 

 

It talks about how many religions are based on the same thing, the main difference being the zodiac age. Also how religion is used to make people do things without question, along with plenty of facts suggesting christianity was invented by man.

[NorthernHero]

Pretty much sums up the whole nature of the debate. Wink

 

 

 

Yep...

 

 

 

You cannot scientifically directly prove or disprove anything because none of it can reproduced right now. All you can do is look at indirect things and use them to try to see the bigger picture.

 

 

 

Like Rebdragon said, basically it all comes down to which position you place your faith in.

 

Well to be exact it doesn't come down to which position you place your faith in.. Atheists have no faith involved. They just don't see faith nessessary at all, big bang is just a theory, but if it gets proven to be right someday thats just better. And if someone manages to prove gods existense, meaning real proofs of it, nothing like those stinky revelations of bible, but real evedense. Then even atheist would believe there is a god, when no faith is required. I think most of them wouldn't worship that god but believe newertheless.

[warri0r45]

Pretty much sums up the whole nature of the debate. Wink

 

 

 

Yep...

 

 

 

You cannot scientifically directly prove or disprove anything because none of it can reproduced right now. All you can do is look at indirect things and use them to try to see the bigger picture.

 

 

 

Like Rebdragon said, basically it all comes down to which position you place your faith in.

 

Well to be exact it doesn't come down to which position you place your faith in.. Atheists have no faith involved. They just don't see faith nessessary at all, big bang is just a theory, but if it gets proven to be right someday thats just better. And if someone manages to prove gods existense, meaning real proofs of it, nothing like those stinky revelations of bible, but real evedense. Then even atheist would believe there is a god, when no faith is required. I think most of them wouldn't worship that god but believe newertheless.

 

 

 

Just because I feel like it, here's warri0rÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s science 101 for yours and others reading pleasure.

 

 

 

Observations and previous knowledge inspire hypotheses, or statements about the natural world that may be true. Hypotheses offer predictions and those predictions are tested. A hypothesis is either supported or rejected based on the outcomes of testing. It is not 'proven'. A hypothesis that is supported by numerous tests, data, observations and other evidence becomes a fact - "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". Such facts may be that the earth revolves around the sun, that heredity material is made of DNA, or that matter is made of particles called atoms.

 

 

 

Theories emerge when a sufficient number of intertwined hypotheses regarding the same or similar phenomena come to the fore. Theories in science are never mere guess or conjecture. A strong theory is supported by numerous tested hypotheses, facts and data, perhaps some general principles and/or laws and other evidence, all linked in a logical framework. Theories offer a 'leg-up' for more scientific advancement by way of offering more predictions to be tested. Theories are not, nor will they ever be 'proven'. The main job of a theory is as a system of explanation, born out by their cumulative nature, which inevitably helps us understand the natural world better.

 

 

 

Science does not 'prove'. Mathematics and logic proves. Science cumulatively and tentatively understands by forming factual knowledge of the natural world to be encompassed by theoretical systems of explanation.

 

 

 

Anyone interested in religion should watch this. It has a lot of unbiased information about religion, though overall it gets biased.

 

 

 

It talks about how many religions are based on the same thing, the main difference being the zodiac age. Also how religion is used to make people do things without question, along with plenty of facts suggesting christianity was invented by man.

 

 

 

Pfft. You think a movie like that is a reliable source? As much as I love the George Carlin and Bill Hicks routines, I seriously doubt that movie is an accurate source of information.

[Beaumonde]

Well to be exact it doesn't come down to which position you place your faith in.. Atheists have no faith involved. They just don't see faith nessessary at all, big bang is just a theory, but if it gets proven to be right someday thats just better. And if someone manages to prove gods existense, meaning real proofs of it, nothing like those stinky revelations of bible, but real evedense. Then even atheist would believe there is a god, when no faith is required. I think most of them wouldn't worship that god but believe newertheless.

 

 

 

I see with my little eye, two fallacies.

 

 

 

First of all atheists, being one myself, is a term used to describe someone who "lacks belief in a god" which doesn't necessarily mean their is no "faith" involved.

 

 

 

Second, the Big Bang Theory is a theory in a way like the theories of Gravity and Relativity are theories, they are true however we call them theories because we can never be 100% sure.

[Plectrum]

Gravity is a theory?

[Rebdragon]

Gravity is a theory?

 

No wai :o!

[BlueLancer]

Gravity is a theory?

 

 

 

Yes, just as the theory of relativity is a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean 'unproven'. A theory is either valid or invalid. The two theories mentioned above are valid theories and their content cannot be disproven. For example, from the article:

 

 

 

Time dilation: Moving clocks tick slower than an observer's "stationary" clock.

 

Length contraction: Objects are observed to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

 

Relativity of simultaneity: two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect to A.

 

Mass-energy equivalence: E = mcÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

 

 

 

Other valid theories include Field theory (mathematics), Evolution theory (science), Chaos theory (probability & odds, but disputed in economics occassionally)

 

 

 

There are thousands of theories, some are mere hypothesis' while others are already proven by empirical evidence & studies to be correct.

[Iamdan]

 

Pfft. You think a movie like that is a reliable source? As much as I love the George Carlin and Bill Hicks routines, I seriously doubt that movie is an accurate source of information.

 

I checked it's sources, looks alright to me. Of course parts cannot be taken seriously, as something like that has an overall biased view. It does however have some interesting things in there.

[warri0r45]

 

Pfft. You think a movie like that is a reliable source? As much as I love the George Carlin and Bill Hicks routines, I seriously doubt that movie is an accurate source of information.

 

I checked it's sources, looks alright to me. Of course parts cannot be taken seriously, as something like that has an overall biased view. It does however have some interesting things in there.

 

 

 

Well, as long as you check your sources and don't take hokey documentaries (however entertaining they may be) on face value.

[AlexDT]

Burden of faith.

 

*Thread explodes*

 

 

 

No, seriously. I'm not going to make a thread asking people to disprove the spirit wolf eating the cheerios in my pantry.

[TheLastTemplar]

Very interesting thread.

 

I have a question: what is life's meaning according to the atheist?

 

I mean, they have so many other answer can they answer this?

[Rebdragon]

Very interesting thread.

 

I have a question: what is life's meaning according to the atheist?

 

I mean, they have so many other answer can they answer this?

 

Our life's meaning is detected by ourselves; it is, theoretically, not universal, but personal. We find it for ourselves.

 

 

 

I'd recommend you read Man's Search for Meaning*, by Viktor Emil Frankl [a man both a psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor]. Good book, should explain things for ya.

 

 

 

[*url goes to a page with a few quotes explaining some of the basic ideas of the book. If nothing else, read the last quote on the page; it's a good response to your specific post.]

[TheLastTemplar]

That's still confusing though.

 

There is no greater being, so what's the point? What's keeping us from suicide and genicide?

[Rebdragon]

That's still confusing though.

 

There is no greater being, so what's the point? What's keeping us from suicide and genicide?

 

....

 

 

 

ourselves? Our will to survive and our general human nature, from which we can understand the differences between good and evil? What exactly are you looking for here?

[TheLastTemplar]

I am looking for answers to life.

 

Is what Hitler did evil? If it is a matter of personal preference and there is no absolutes then can he truely be called an evil man?

 

 

 

What's keeping me from putting a bullet in my neighbor's head?

 

I just don't understand.

[venomai]

That's still confusing though.

 

There is no greater being, so what's the point? What's keeping us from suicide and genicide?

 

You should probably seek help if the concept of a greater being is the only thing keeping you from suicide/murder.

 

 

 

I am looking for answers to life.

 

Is what Hitler did evil? If it is a matter of personal preference and there is no absolutes then can he truely be called an evil man?

 

Hitler believed what he was doing was right, and so did many of his followers. True "evil" is defined by the society and culture, and those values tend to evolve over time.

 

For example, homosexuality was often seen as an "evil act" hundreds of years ago -- yet today most people would not label it as such.

 

 

 

What's keeping me from putting a bullet in my neighbor's head?

 

Morals, laws, guilt, fear, family. Many factors keep you from doing such a thing, least of all religion.

 

 

 

Simply because there is no God to tell atheists to "love thy neighbour" does not mean that all atheists want to put bullets in their neighbours heads. :)

[TheLastTemplar]

That's still confusing though.

 

There is no greater being, so what's the point? What's keeping us from suicide and genicide?

 

You should probably seek help if the concept of a greater being is the only thing keeping you from suicide/murder.

 

 

 

I am looking for answers to life.

 

Is what Hitler did evil? If it is a matter of personal preference and there is no absolutes then can he truely be called an evil man?

 

Hitler believed what he was doing was right, and so did many of his followers. True "evil" is defined by the society and culture, and those values tend to evolve over time.

 

For example, homosexuality was often seen as an "evil act" hundreds of years ago -- yet today most people would not label it as such.

 

 

 

What's keeping me from putting a bullet in my neighbor's head?

 

Morals, laws, guilt, fear, family. Many factors keep you from doing such a thing, least of all religion.

 

 

 

Simply because there is no God to tell atheists to "love thy neighbour" does not mean that all atheists want to put bullets in their neighbours heads. :)

 

So then is that an absolute? Is it an absolute that the deffinition of "evil" changes over time?

 

What if I go to a cousellor and he can't give me any better reason for not killing a neighbor???

 

What are laws? They don't matter in the end. What's the point to life?

[TheLastTemplar]

Does no one have answers?!

[Rebdragon]

Your life's meaning is not things we can tell you Templar. Go experience life and figure these things out for yourself; you're not going to find such answers on a Runescape fansite forum.

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post, why does everything have to be set and stone somewhere for a basic understanding of good and evil to exist within the human psyche, for a society to form moral standards? As venomai stated, do you seriously believe there is nothing holding you back from killing your neighbor than your God and the fear of Hell? You better not hope that's true, 'cause honestly, that's pretty sick.

 

 

 

You can think for yourself, you can come to your own philosophical conclusions rather than blindly following someone elses. So don't go looking for other people to find the all answers of life for you, 'kay?

[warri0r45]

So then is that an absolute? Is it an absolute that the deffinition of "evil" changes over time?

 

What if I go to a cousellor and he can't give me any better reason for not killing a neighbor???

 

What are laws? They don't matter in the end. What's the point to life?

 

 

 

Some people only see life as meaningful if it is dictated by absolutes. Others are content finding meaning for themselves in a manner that isn't absolute.

 

 

 

Both views are driven by what we personally think is most meaningful to us, i.e. you would personally seem to see life as only having meaning with absolutes, whereas I personally see life as meaningful when that meaning is figured out for myself.

 

 

 

If you want answers you're going to have to figure them out yourself. The most thought about philosophical concept of all time isn't something anyone can prove to you.

[yomom1919]

Does no one have answers?!

 

 

 

First of all, what's keeping you from suicide? In believing in a creator, aren't you living to die for an afterlife, and the only reason for not committing suicide would be because the Church says it is immoral?

 

Obviously not, you're not living to die, or at least I should hope. So take that [the afterlife] out of the equation, and find what you, you specifically, are looking for in life on earth. For you, being a Christian, could be to connect with your creator and God, but if that's the only answer you have then, logically, you should become a priest. So there's definitely something that lies outside the religious spectrum.

 

Well, whadda know, your not that much different from an athiest!