Is God real post your thoughts!

[Rien]

Allah is the same person (for lack of a better term) as God. I'd rather have faith in God than have no faith. Why? Because, say I go through life believing God doesn't exist and he does, then I've lost out on something more important than life. If I believe in God and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have I lost?

 

And regarding the Zeus question, if I truly believe God exists I shouldn't have to worry about other gods, should I?

 

 

 

Excuse me for saying this, but that's pretty pathetic.

 

 

 

I don't criticize others for believing in God, as it is their decision and I feel that I have no right to pass judgement on them--despite being an Atheist myself. You, however, I condemn for choosing to believe in God for the /single wrong reason/ that exists. I can't describe how much I hate the mentality of "Oh, I'll believe in God, because if he's real I'll get to go to Heaven, and if he's not it won't matter anyway, l00zorz."

 

 

 

If you're going to be a Theist in the first place, let it not be for the possible "rewards" you may or may not gain in the afterlife--let it be because you actually have faith in a Higher Being and choose to recognize/respect said Being. -.-

[Spiffeh]

I recently went to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky. I'm non-religious/atheist/don't care, and wanted to see what it was like.

 

 

 

One room was what they thought the world would be like without religion. It had spray paint everywhere, and showed videos of what people would be doing (teen pregnancy etc.). It also had news paper articles on the walls, with headlines about murders and other things.

 

And then I realized, all of this is happening in a world WITH religion.

 

 

 

A large portion of the museum was about how they think dinosaurs were around with humans. There was a video about dragons..and how they could have been dinosaurs. That just seems so ridiculous to me.

 

They showed a video of a dinosaur skeleton being dug up, and the two researchers disagreed on how old it was. The one who believed it to be only around 3000 years old said they had different "starting points". One being the bible, and the other being actual science.

[Rebdragon]

Allah is the same person (for lack of a better term) as God. I'd rather have faith in God than have no faith. Why? Because, say i go through life believing God doesn't exist and he does, then I've lost out on something more important than life. If I believe in God and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have I lost?

 

And regarding the Zeus question, if I truly believe God exists I shouldn't have to worry about other gods, should I?

 

Anyone and everyone who follows the doctine of Pascal's wager is not a true believer.

[Tom_Servo]

[hide=]

I recently went to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky. I'm non-religious/atheist/don't care, and wanted to see what it was like.

 

 

 

One room was what they thought the world would be like without religion. It had spray paint everywhere, and showed videos of what people would be doing (teen pregnancy etc.). It also had news paper articles on the walls, with headlines about murders and other things.

 

And then I realized, all of this is happening in a world WITH religion.

 

 

 

A large portion of the museum was about how they think dinosaurs were around with humans. There was a video about dragons..and how they could have been dinosaurs. That just seems so ridiculous to me.

 

They showed a video of a dinosaur skeleton being dug up, and the two researchers disagreed on how old it was. The one who believed it to be only around 3000 years old said they had different "starting points". One being the bible, and the other being actual science.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Sounds like that museum took the worst parts of both sides......

 

 

 

On topic: There is no way to prove God exists, but there is also no way to prove he doesn't. Is a pretty solid deadlock and nobody will ever know the real answer until the day they die. You cannot prove God isn't real just by saying religion is stupid or by giving random what if scenarios. Just because you cannot prove something is real, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anybody who knows anything about modern science should know that. If your one of those people who is atheist just because they believe the Bible is just a bunch of stories, guess what, your right. They are stories, and most of them don't make much sense, but that is not the point. The whole point of those stories is the morals behind them. If you cannot see that then you are truly blind and cannot possibly have an opinion about this subject.

 

 

 

Most of the arguments here are "I'm right and you are wrong". One side puts faith in God. The other in science. But if you look close enough, you will see that they are one in the same. Faith is faith no matter what it is you have faith in. You cannot say that one form of faith is absolutely irrational while yours is obviously correct. Some say that they have faith in science because science looks at things, tests them, and proves that they are right or wrong. But does it? Countless things that were previously declared FACT are now considered preposterous. Things that we widely accept as fact today will probably be looked upon by our decedents as ridiculous. Dealing an absoulte like saying that YOUR religion believes this and that so that is what you believe and nothing else, such as this quote from the previous page, is not an argument:

 

You have the audacity to call me arrogant, yet you belong to a religion that believes;

 

 

 

1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God.

 

2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray.

 

3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG.

 

4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth.

 

5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God"

 

 

 

This is true arrogance. To believe that all people who believe in God are mindless slaves to their religion. This is not an argument because it can easily be turned around to day the exact thing about their point of view. "you are atheist so you obviously hate people who believe in God and you think only your ideas are correct". Is that not exactly what is in the quote? It is. What is particularly ignorant about that quote is an obscured view on what God religions believe in. Almost every single monotheistic religion believes in the same God. That is one of the points they actually agree on. Every single point in that quote is incorrect and I suggest that they do some research before picking apart something they do not understand.

 

 

 

The bottom line of religion is that it gives people something to live by and something to live for. It is simply a guide on how to act as a person and gives hope for the future both in life and in death. Both science and religion believe in the same things, just a different wording. One believes in stone cold facts, the other in those same facts, just masked under extra layers of stressed moral values and hope.

[monkeyboo2]

Religion cant be proved. OH MAI GOD THERES REMNANTS OF CARRIAGE WHEELS AND WEAPONS UNDER THE RED SEA MOSES MUSTVE BEEN THERE. no.

 

 

 

Neither can science be proven before the big bang. Neither side can prove where the universe came from, one follows a book where the world was created in 6 days, the other doesn't have enough evidence earlier than the big bang.

 

 

 

You just look stupid by implying people are stupid for believing in a religion. FYI if anybody wants to start some anti-religion thing towards me I'm Atheist.

 

 

 

What i don't understand is why people get at each others throats at this; so some people believe in god and some believe in science, big whoop, however if believing in one of those makes someone else happy, without hurting other people, why should they argue endlessly?

 

 

 

 

 

It does hurt people. Look at 9/11 or Northern Ireland or Discrimination against Atheists in many American schools. Take for example, the case of the girl who was kicked out of school for not joining the prayer circle. Disgusting.

 

 

 

What the hell does 9/11 and the troubles in Northern Ireland got to do with peoples belief in Religion or Science. Both are religious conflicts, 9/11 is Islam V America essentially, Northern Ireland is portrayed as Catholics V Protestants but it's more really Republicans (majority Catholics) V Loyalists (majority protestants / presbyterian)

 

 

 

They are conflicts of a religous cause which cause problems for innocent people. That relevance is that they are examples of how religion does ' hurt other people'; to justify why we need to argue.

[RyderJ]

Mini_Me234's above post is very true.

 

 

 

I personally have been harmed, and had my loved ones harmed, through others' religious intolerance. This is the only reason I can put any basis on my own personal intolerance of Christianity. I don't hate Christians for being Christian, I don't judge people based on anything but their own actions. It may be seemingly hypocritical of me to be disgusted by some of these things, but when I see something like... a homosexual friend being verbally abused by a Christian Fundamentalist, I can't help but be angered. I can't respect beliefs like that, so call it Intolerance Intolerance, if you like, but the blood bond, as it can be called, connecting me to my loved ones is more dear to myself as a human than anything else. To anyone who's read the Oresteia, I hope you can see this connection to the Eumenides.

 

 

 

I can't look past, and accept these beliefs of others like I wish I could. But it's why I'm as intolerant as I am.

[user1991]

[hide=]

I recently went to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky. I'm non-religious/atheist/don't care, and wanted to see what it was like.

 

 

 

One room was what they thought the world would be like without religion. It had spray paint everywhere, and showed videos of what people would be doing (teen pregnancy etc.). It also had news paper articles on the walls, with headlines about murders and other things.

 

And then I realized, all of this is happening in a world WITH religion.

 

 

 

A large portion of the museum was about how they think dinosaurs were around with humans. There was a video about dragons..and how they could have been dinosaurs. That just seems so ridiculous to me.

 

They showed a video of a dinosaur skeleton being dug up, and the two researchers disagreed on how old it was. The one who believed it to be only around 3000 years old said they had different "starting points". One being the bible, and the other being actual science.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Sounds like that museum took the worst parts of both sides......

 

 

 

On topic: There is no way to prove God exists, but there is also no way to prove he doesn't. Is a pretty solid deadlock and nobody will ever know the real answer until the day they die. You cannot prove God isn't real just by saying religion is stupid or by giving random what if scenarios.STRAWMAN. I'm aware God could exist. I don't refute that. What I refute is RELIGIOUS people using irrelevent, deistic arguments for "proof" of their Gods Just because you cannot prove something is real, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're right. But that really isn't a good argument. I can't prove there isn't a unicorn on the moon, but it doesn't mean there isn't - yet the concept is still ridiculous.Anybody who knows anything about modern science should know that. If your one of those people who is atheist just because they believe the Bible is just a bunch of stories, guess what, your right. They are stories, and most of them don't make much sense, but that is not the point. The whole point of those stories is the morals behind them. If you cannot see that then you are truly blind and cannot possibly have an opinion about this subject. No, YOU are truly blind. You cherry pick your morality. Need I point out all the stuff in the book of Leviticus? We have people in society who preach the Bible as a "rigid moral code", then when confronted about the evil sections of scripture they say "they are open for interpretation." What sort of rigid moral code is open for interpretation? You cannot have it both ways. If you don't realise that INTERPRETATION is simply you choosing what you want to believe, then it is YOU who has no place to be debating this.

 

 

 

Most of the arguments here are "I'm right and you are wrong". One side puts faith in God. The other in science. This is another ridiculous argument put forward by the religious. My "faith" in science isn't the same as a religious person's faith in God. I have "faith" in science because as evidence shows, science progresses over time. 500 years ago we didn't have electricity. Science progresses, and this is a trend shown by the ever increasing complexity of modern medical treatments as well as general technology. This "faith" is based on evidence. Faith in God, is blind faith. You believe in God, regardless of anything else, and choose to believe in God no matter what. My beliefs are flexible. I can change them over time. Times change, which is one of the beautiful things about human civilisation - it progresses - yet the religious denounce logic and reason and simply refute everything and anything to do with them because they have immovable, blind faith in God. But if you look close enough, you will see that they are one in the same. Faith is faith no matter what it is you have faith in. No, it isn't. As said previously, you can have faith in something because it shows a common trend in its progression. You can also have faith in something for no other reason than to have faith in something. They are very different. You cannot say that one form of faith is absolutely irrational while yours is obviously correct. I can, and I just did, and it makes sense. Some say that they have faith in science because science looks at things, tests them, and proves that they are right or wrong. But does it? Countless things that were previously declared FACT are now considered preposterous. Which further proves my point. Science progresses, which is why I have "faith" in it. At the time, these ideas were the most sensible ideas, and even though we now see that they are ridiculous, they have played an important part in telling us how enzymes work, etc. It is only through the progression of an idea that it can become sound and solid. The scientific method works because it looks at present evidence, and then declares a conclusion, noone is saying that our ideas are 100% absolutely definitely correct, but they are atleast based upon evidence. Religious belief is based upon a number of things, evidence not being one of them. Things that we widely accept as fact today will probably be looked upon by our decedents as ridiculous. Maybe, but we have much more evidence than previous generation. They made predictions of smaller amounts of evidence - we have advanced in terms of technology to a point where we are capable of things that were not even thought of back then. Whilst some of our ideas will probably be proven wrong, we are atleast basing them off of evidence, instead of simply blindly guessing. Dealing an absoulte like saying that YOUR religion believes this and that so that is what you believe and nothing else, such as this quote from the previous page, is not an argument: I didn't say that in such general terms. For the specific example I gave, it was true. Obviously, if I say "your religion believes in God" - then this is obviously true, otherwise they wouldn't be a member of his religion. I said that as a Christian, he has absolute faith in God, which means that he believes that all the other Gods can't possibly be the "right" ones, unless they are of course exactly the same to his God (which they aren't) To whoever compared Allah to the Christian God, I'll point out one flaw - THE TRINITY.

 

You have the audacity to call me arrogant, yet you belong to a religion that believes;

 

 

 

1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God.

 

2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray.

 

3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG.

 

4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth.

 

5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God"

 

 

 

This is true arrogance. To believe that all people who believe in God are mindless slaves to their religion. This is not an argument because it can easily be turned around to day the exact thing about their point of view. "you are atheist so you obviously hate people who believe in God and you think only your ideas are correct".No. A God could exist. Hell, the Christian God could exist. Zeus could exist, so could Venus and Mars, and Yakub, and Jesus. I am NOT refuting that. What I am saying is that these religious beliefs are based on FAITH. A belief in something simply because you CAN believe in something does not make that belief correct. It doesn't make it wrong either, but religious belief is irrational. I don't think that my ideas are "correct" - I simply think that the atheist position is the most rational. Even if you make deistic arguments, it has no impact on theistic belief because it doesn't prove all the other stuff that comes along with the idea of a "God." Is that not exactly what is in the quote? It is. What is particularly ignorant about that quote is an obscured view on what God religions believe in. Almost every single monotheistic religion believes in the same God. No, they really don't. They share common traits, but to assert that they are the same God is just ridiculous. Ever heard of the Trinity? And it doesn't matter about their Gods, what is more important is their rules. You can see, simply by looking at their holy texts, that their Gods are not the same. If their Gods were the same, you would expect them to have the same will, would you not? Why is it that Muslims can't eat pork while Christians can? Or why is it that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. They obviously aren't the same. That is one of the points they actually agree on. Every single point in that quote is incorrect and I suggest that they do some research before picking apart something they do not understand.

 

 

 

The bottom line of religion is that it gives people something to live by and something to live for. It is simply a guide on how to act as a person and gives hope for the future both in life and in death. Both science and religion believe in the same things, just a different wording. One believes in stone cold facts, the other in those same facts, just masked under extra layers of stressed moral values and hope.

How are they incorrect. Let's go over them shall we.

 

 

 

1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God

 

Other than some really vague predictions that Christians say have come true, this is pretty much the only reason for the justification of believing the Bible to be the word of God. If you ask a Christian why it is the word of God, they will usually say "it is extremely wise" or "it has given me comfort" or "because it is." These aren't arguments, because they prove nothing..

 

 

 

2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray.

 

To be forgiven, all you have to do is to forgive other peoples' sins. It says so in Matthew, and I can find the quote if you really want.

 

3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG.

 

Christians, when asked, will say that their religion is correct. To say that their religion is correct, that must mean the other religions are wrong. They can't both be right, unless there are multiple Gods, which in turn, would make all the religions wrong because they aren't polytheist. You don't hear Christians say that their religion is the "most plausible" or "most likely," - they say that it is correct (generally).

 

4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth.

 

The only way you can get into heaven is to accept the Christian God - according to the Bible. As Christians, you are the only ones who accept the Christian God, and therefore you are the only ones who possess this "absolute truth".

 

 

 

5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God"

 

Are you really going to try and argue that this isn't the case? This is the whole point of faith. You cannot believe in an eternal God and then refute the idea that he has always been the "right God." If you believe him to be the one true God, and also eternal, then you believe that he has, and always will be, the right God.[/

[Tom_Servo]

No, they really don't. They share common traits, but to assert that they are the same God is just ridiculous. Ever heard of the Trinity? And it doesn't matter about their Gods, what is more important is their rules. You can see, simply by looking at their holy texts, that their Gods are not the same. If their Gods were the same, you would expect them to have the same will, would you not? Why is it that Muslims can't eat pork while Christians can? Or why is it that Christians

 

 

 

Yes they do. LOOK IT UP. The only difference between them is what OTHER parts they believe in. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all started as Judaism. The muslims and christians split off after the arrival Muhammad and Jesus respectively. They believe in the same God, but they do not agree on the path to him.

 

 

 

You have the audacity to call me arrogant, yet you belong to a religion that believes;

 

 

 

1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God.

 

2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray.

 

3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG.

 

4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth.

 

5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God"

 

 

 

Want to go over them? Fine.

 

 

 

1) Not all of the Bible is the word of God.

 

2) There are such things as unforgivable sins.

 

3) Christians do not believe Judaism/Islam is wrong. It's the same religion, but Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, not just a prophet. The entire religion is not incorrect because of one difference.

 

4) No. Only God is the possessor of absolute truth.

 

5) Christians believe in God. The same God shared with Jews and Muslims.

 

 

 

And yes, those are not air proof counters I'm sure you will have no problem turning them into what a religious extremist believes.

 

 

 

Oh and my last post was in no way an argument. I was simply trying to show similarities and point out how many of the arguments here are not arguments because it is based on misinformation, generalization, and stereotypes. I'm not going to try to prove atheism wrong because I don't understand their point of view and never will. To make a good argument you have to look at things from both sides. Something that many of you do not understand. YOU CANNOT MAKE EVERYONE AN EXTREMIST. I'm done here.

[Lenticular_J]

Well, to Ag, maybe it's because of faith? He/She wants people to believe in him/her (yes, I've thought God could be a woman, sorta 60/40 in a man's favor) without needing concrete evidence, perhaps. I'd rather have faith and believe I'd die and go to Heaven then believe nothing in the world matters, like the general atheists around my school.

 

 

 

Atheism doesn't say that nothing in the world matters. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God.

 

 

 

Stop strawmanning.

 

 

 

Once you start accepting things without evidence then there are no boundaries to your perception of reality. You can literally assume anything you want.

 

 

 

You believe what you want, regardless of reality. Hopefully, you can admit that that is irrational. That's all it takes.

 

Can you not read my post? The general atheists around my school. They're idiots, and if you met them, I'm sure you'd agree.

 

 

 

Does my having religion actually hurt you? It's just as irrational of you to believe that your word is the truth, and that everyone else is wrong. That is complete arrogance and narrow-mindedness.

 

 

 

As to the same-God thing, yes, all monotheist religions essentially believe in the same God. But they all have different variations in tradition, worship, etc. In fact, all monotheism began with Sun-worship, probably Egyptian or early Judaistic. Polytheist religions began as paganism, for the most part.

[user1991]

Well, to Ag, maybe it's because of faith? He/She wants people to believe in him/her (yes, I've thought God could be a woman, sorta 60/40 in a man's favor) without needing concrete evidence, perhaps. I'd rather have faith and believe I'd die and go to Heaven then believe nothing in the world matters, like the general atheists around my school.

 

 

 

Atheism doesn't say that nothing in the world matters. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God.

 

 

 

Stop strawmanning.

 

 

 

Once you start accepting things without evidence then there are no boundaries to your perception of reality. You can literally assume anything you want.

 

 

 

You believe what you want, regardless of reality. Hopefully, you can admit that that is irrational. That's all it takes.

 

Can you not read my post? The general atheists around my school. They're idiots, and if you met them, I'm sure you'd agree.

 

 

 

Does my having religion actually hurt you? It's just as irrational of you to believe that your word is the truth, and that everyone else is wrong. That is complete arrogance and narrow-mindedness.

 

 

 

No it isn't. It doesn't work like that. All beliefs aren't equal simply because they're beliefs. I don't think you're wrong, just that you're irrational. I try and base my beliefs on evidence as much as possible. I don't deny that a God could exist - I just see no reason to suggest that he does. And if I did, I wouldn't know anything about him so I would see no reason to worship him, pray to him, ask him for things, even consider him in anything I do. The entire concept would be irrelevent.

 

 

 

The problem I have with your religion is that there are Christians who would have no problem controlling every single thing in society under the guise of it being the "Will of God." By even accepting their irrational, dogmatic belief, you're enabling them to pretty much do whatever.

 

 

 

As to the same-God thing, yes, all monotheist religions essentially believe in the same God. But they all have different variations in tradition, worship, etc. In fact, all monotheism began with Sun-worship, probably Egyptian or early Judaistic. Polytheist religions began as paganism, for the most part.

 

 

 

I'd agree with you on that - but they aren't the same now. Christianity believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - something which Islam has a huge problem with. The God may be similar but the path to "reaching him" is completely different - which in turn makes the God different. /quote]

 

 

 

 

 

And to whoever said "Not all of the Bible is the Word of God" - Who decides which parts are? The reader? Aren't they simply cherry picking their morality and then labelling it as the "Word of God"? How can the Bible EVER be considered a "rigid moral code" if it is up for discussion which parts are to be considered the word of God and which ones aren't? Your interpretation stems from your belief system, so if you read it and then preach the sections you agree with as the word of God all you're doing is trying to subject people to YOUR will by telling them that "God" wants them to act that way. How can you not see this..?

[assassin_696]

Allah is the same person (for lack of a better term) as God. I'd rather have faith in God than have no faith. Why? Because, say i go through life believing God doesn't exist and he does, then I've lost out on something more important than life. If I believe in God and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have I lost?

 

 

 

Because surely an omniscient god wouldn't be able to see through that cunning little ploy? Oh wait...

[user1991]

Allah is the same person (for lack of a better term) as God. I'd rather have faith in God than have no faith. Why? Because, say i go through life believing God doesn't exist and he does, then I've lost out on something more important than life. If I believe in God and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have I lost?

 

 

 

Because surely an omniscient god wouldn't be able to see through that cunning little ploy? Oh wait...

 

 

 

I give up.

 

 

 

Seriously. Their faith is immovable. They believe what they want, regardless of anything else. They want to subject their will upon everybody else under the cloak of it being the "will of God."

 

 

 

Religion takes advantage of peoples' insecurities and worries. Why do you always hear people say "If you're depressed turn to God" or "If you're in despair turn to God" - and never "If you're perfectly content and happy turn to God" or "If everything in your life is good turn to God." You offer people a bubble in which they can pretend God protects them by blindly believing in the authority of a book of stories that is full of contradictions. You implant into their subconscious this idea of rejecting one's perception of reality and substituting it with the concept of religious thought, something which they believe in simply because they believe in it. What the concept of faith is, is a backbone to which one can eternally return if any of their basic suppositions are challenged within. This cognitive dissonance, for use of a better word, is immediately disabled by the idea of faith. It offers them comfort, knowing that no matter what, they will always have something which they know, in their mind anyway, is certain. Often, by assuming this self-serving cyncism on the outside, they hide their deeper need for meaning - the one thing that is actually the basis for their "faith" in the first place. It is this need for "answers" that is ironically, the one thing that stops us from developing our understanding of life and all its conquests. Regardless of whether or not a God exists, they are living a lie - because their beliefs are backed up simply by their need for beliefs in the first place. What the above quote shows, is that people need something - just anything to hold onto, something that never changes, and never dies. "Faith" offers them this. What they do not realise is that their "faith" is the one thing that is holding us back from actually attaining knowledge that one day, could help us answer the questions that we feel so desperate to answer.

[monkeyboo2]

 

Allah is the same person (for lack of a better term) as God. I'd rather have faith in God than have no faith. Why? Because, say i go through life believing God doesn't exist and he does, then I've lost out on something more important than life. If I believe in God and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have I lost?

 

And regarding the Zeus question, if I truly believe God exists I shouldn't have to worry about other gods, should I?

 

 

 

You are using a version of Pascals Wager.

 

The idea that you may as well worship God just incase he exists- you have nothing to lose

 

This argument is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. It assumes that you haven't lost anything if God doesn't exist. This is not true. I'm not brilliant at explaining this; but think of the time that you spent in religous ways and money spent in religous ways. Think of how you'd had the burden of God and had been unable to live life to the full because you'd assumed there was afterlife.

 

As an atheist i try to enjoy life as much as possible instead of waiting for the next life.

 

 

 

2. It assumes that contributing to religion is not hurting other people; either directly or passively.

 

Passively would be encouraging religion; which if you're wrong could be hurting people as shown in point 1 or it could be that the people that also have been deluded with your religons ideas, go on to be extremists.

 

Or it could be that yuor religous doctrine encourages the beating of women (islam) or happens to discriminate against others including atheists on a lrage scale (see girl who got kicked out of public school for not joining Christian Prayer circle.

 

If you pass on your doctrine to your children, and it turns out to be wrong; you may have spoilt their lives aswell.

 

Passively is basically spreading the doctrine which re-enforces the otrocities

 

Directly would be being so convinced of your religion you become an extremist yourself / commit the otrocities yourself.

 

If you are wrong about, you my have done alot of damage for nothing.

 

If you are right, you might have 'slain the heretics' to please God.

 

 

 

3.It assumes that there are only 2 paths, Christianity and Atheism. It fails to account for the problem that if the Christian God is not the true god; and maybe Zeus is; he will not like you worshipping in a Christian way so may send you to hell anyway.

 

You do not avoid the 'hells' of other possible gods.

 

 

 

Oh and you said

 

And regarding the Zeus question, if I truly believe God exists I shouldn't have to worry about other gods, should I?

 

 

 

This is part of the dillusioned principals of religion. No matter how hard you believe in something, it doesn't make it real or not real. At the end of the day if another god such as Zeus exists and you've simply been believing in a Christian god...your going to the Underworld.

 

Can you believe people actually believed they would go to the underworld with Hades to be tantilized? I'm sure yuo think its stupid- but mabe people in the future will look back on your beliefs and find them rather silly aswell.

[user1991]

3.It assumes that there are only 2 paths, Christianity and Atheism. It fails to account for the problem that if the Christian God is not the true god; and maybe Zeus is; he will not like you worshipping in a Christian way so may send you to hell anyway.

 

You do not avoid the 'hells' of other possible

 

 

 

Exactly - probably the best counter argument there.

 

 

 

It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague. People forget this, which is probably why so many Christians make deistic arguments and act like it actually means anything when trying to justify their theistic beliefs.

[Lateralus]

It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have introduced you. TheTrueNoob, I'd like you to meet Yahweh, the omnipotent master of the universe.

[user1991]

It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have introduced you. TheTrueNoob, I'd like you to meet Yahweh, the omnipotent master of the universe.

 

 

 

It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a (commonly used)name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague.

[x1992x]

To answer the question of the tread. No i don't believe God is real. I don't think theres enough proof to say God exist.

[Agunimon979]

To answer the question of the tread. No i don't believe God is real. I don't think theres enough proof to say God exist.

 

 

 

lol there is no proof that god exists except for a book written thousands of years ago by crazy nomads wandering aimlessly through a desert talking to bushes.

[Lenticular_J]

Your arguments are so tactful.

[user1991]

Your arguments are so tactful.

 

 

 

And yours don't exist.

[x1992x]

Your arguments are so tactful.

 

 

 

And yours don't exist.

 

 

 

so well put =D>

 

 

 

@ agu; that is one way to put it :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

Your arguments are so tactful.

 

 

 

And yours don't exist.

 

Is that really the best you can come up with?

[x1992x]

Your arguments are so tactful.

 

 

 

And yours don't exist.

 

Is that really the best you can come up with?

 

 

 

nah but it is enough -.-

[Lenticular_J]

You're very bad at making a point.

[user1991]

You're very bad at making a point.

 

 

 

You believe in interpretation of the Bible yet still maintain that the Bible is a "rigid moral code", even though interpretation is simply our subconscious choosing of scripture which we already agree with.

 

 

 

/thread

 

/religion

 

/the bible