Is God real post your thoughts!

[RayOxide]

I have the 2nd part of a 2000th post.

 

The non-thread post count

 

:twisted:

 

 

 

Ima just post my opinion.

 

 

 

If there was a God why would God allow accidental deaths? (even if the person was a good person.)

 

Why is the story of Adam and Eve made of 100% incest?

 

 

 

Not as many people believe in god now as they did back 10 years.

 

 

 

Reason? Science.

[warren211]

I have the 2nd part of a 2000th post.

 

The non-thread post count

 

:twisted:

 

 

 

Ima just post my opinion.

 

 

 

If there was a God why would God allow accidental deaths? (even if the person was a good person.)

 

Why is the story of Adam and Eve made of 100% incest?

 

 

 

Not as many people believe in god now as they did back 10 years.

 

 

 

Reason? Science.

 

 

 

1. It's been explained many times in this thread why God would let someone die.

 

2. Because the world had to start somewhere. People didn't just pop in on the earth. They were created somehow or another, whatever your beliefs are. Somebody had to bang their sister somewhere along the line to keep the race going.

 

3. How many scientific advances have there been in 10 years to disprove God's existence and turn everyone away from him?

[RayOxide]

@1. It's not exactly just, and if this 'god' is what people say he is he wouldnt let 8 yr olds get hit by cars.

 

@2. If that did happen we'd be much more [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

@3. Obviously nothing direct, but just proving that we were created by atoms and cells. Not by 2 random naked people who made their kids have incest relations.

 

The bible says that but yet still tells us not to do incest things.

 

 

 

Damn stupid.

[Lenticular_J]

Errr. You do know that every single human on the planet is related, right? We all came from a Cro-Magnon ancestor that decided to become Homo Sapian, and maybe a small group with that person.

 

 

 

Whoever you have sex with in the future will be somehow related to you, most likely a cousin.

[venomai]

Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites.

 

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism")

[tryto]

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

 

 

 

Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be telling people that if they sin, they will burn in a garbage dump named the Valley of Hinnom.

 

 

 

The continuously burning garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna (lit. hell) was used to burn criminals, usurpers, carcasses of dead animals, etc... It was an actual physical place in Jerusalem where the worst of the worst would be disposed. At no point do Jesus or the Bible mention anything about your "soul" ending up in there.

 

 

 

Book of Revelations and Hebrews 10:27 also mention 'raging fire' or 'lake of fire' in relation to 'gehenna'.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 25:41

 

 

 

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

 

 

 

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 

 

 

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

 

 

 

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

 

 

 

 

Eternal. Explain the word eternal. Explain the word punishment.

[Zierro]

Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites.

 

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism")

 

 

 

Like I said, the burden of proof is a two-way street. You can be indifferent to the existence of God but making the claim that he doesn't exist is also a positive assertion. See Tryto's last post on page 100.

[BlueLancer]

 

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 

 

 

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

 

 

 

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

 

 

 

 

Eternal. Explain the word eternal. Explain the word punishment.

 

 

 

It's an overly literal intepretation of scripture, in the words of Pope John Paul II:

 

 

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 99_en.html

 

 

 

"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy"

 

 

 

Amongst theologists it's usually accepted that "hell" is not a place of actual 'physical torture'. It means departion from God, and being inadmissible to heaven. Amateur theologists or smaller sects sometimes intepret the verses as meaning literal, eternal physical suffering extracted by a supposedly benevolent God (which itself is a paradox exploited by philosophists like Epicurus).

 

 

 

This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called hell

 

 

 

Eternal damnation, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites.

 

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism")

 

Aww... when you say strong atheism you make it sound so manly...

 

 

 

Because as much as saying "God exists" is an assertion, so too is the statement "God does not exist". Both statements imply there is no chance of the opposite being true, and thus, both imply there is proof to back themselves up.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe God exists either. I'm just not going as far to say there is no God without any proof. That makes me as bad as them.

 

 

 

Saying "There is no proof of God's existence" is not a positive assertion.

[Howlin0001]

I was looking up a thing on google and I came across this Genesis isn't a science book: Vatican to study evolution.

 

 

 

I didn't get to read all of it, only some (it's massive) but what I picked up from it is that:

 

Genesis isn't 100% accurate and there to study Charles Darwin theory and then discuss evolution again.

 

 

 

Did I pick that up right or wrong(probley wrong)?

 

 

 

(If wrong I'm sorry can you tell me what it means(if you know))

[tryto]

 

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 

 

 

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

 

 

 

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

 

 

 

 

Eternal. Explain the word eternal. Explain the word punishment.

 

 

 

It's an overly literal intepretation of scripture, in the words of Pope John Paul II:

 

 

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 99_en.html

 

 

 

"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy"

 

 

 

Amongst theologists it's usually accepted that "hell" is not a place of actual 'physical torture'. It means departion from God, and being inadmissible to heaven. Amateur theologists or smaller sects sometimes intepret the verses as meaning literal, eternal physical suffering extracted by a supposedly benevolent God (which itself is a paradox exploited by philosophists like Epicurus).

 

 

 

This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called hell

 

 

 

Eternal damnation, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created.

 

 

 

ROME - Hell is a place where sinners burn in an eternal fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

 

 

 

God's mercy and love are great, but those who reject him should know that hell "exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more," Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed during a weekend visit to a Rome parish.

 

 

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262007/ne ... dnews_.htm

 

 

 

That's the present one. Popes contradict each other all the time, none of them can agree. Sorry, but a quote from the Pope doesn't necessarily convince me, as I can easily find one who disagrees with John Paul. Who decides which parts of the Bible are literal or not? Who can decide that the unambiguous wording of Deuteronomy to not eat shellfish, pork, or wear polyester is either outdated or metaphorical? Why can John Paul endorse evolution when it is expressly stated as not happening in the Bible? Is that metaphorical too?

 

Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are metaphorical, and I can murder everyone I wanted to and make graven images?

 

 

 

Just as a note, is it honestly expected that the Tribe of Israel had no laws or commandments until Moses came down from the Mount? Religion tries to take credit for these types of moral laws, but am I to believe that the Tribe got all that way with absolutely NO laws at all, murdering and raping each other as they pleased? I don't think so.

[venomai]

Because as much as saying "God exists" is an assertion, so too is the statement "God does not exist".

 

I'm well aware of this.

 

 

 

Both statements imply there is no chance of the opposite being true, and thus, both imply there is proof to back themselves up.

 

This is your own interpretation of strong atheism. In reality, my position does not imply that there is no chance of the opposite being true, nor does it imply that there is any amount of proof supporting my claim.

 

 

 

I'm just not going as far to say there is no God without any proof. That makes me as bad as them.

 

I believe that Santa Claus does not exist.

 

I believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.

 

I believe that Russell's teapot does not exist.

 

 

 

Absence of evidence is often evidence of absence. Is it unreasonable for me to believe in the non-existence of the above entities?

 

 

 

What proofs are you waiting for? Surely not empirical proof? We've already established that it's impossible to observe something that does not exist.

 

 

 

Saying "There is no proof of God's existence" is not a positive assertion.

 

If "X exists" is a positive assertion, and "X does not exist" is also a positive assertion, then "[proof of god] does not exist" must also be a positive assertion. Your logic, not mine.

 

 

 

You have yet to show how I am a hypocrite for believing that god does not exist. You also have not shown why it is any more unreasonable to believe in the non-existence of god than the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

 

Like I said, the burden of proof is a two-way street. You can be indifferent to the existence of God but making the claim that he doesn't exist is also a positive assertion. See Tryto's last post on page 100.

 

Even if the burden of proof does lie on me to disprove something which is by definition not falsifiable, how does this suggest that I am a hypocrite?

[Zierro]

Even if the burden of proof does lie on me to disprove something which is by definition not falsifiable, how does this suggest that I am a hypocrite?

 

 

 

Because you know as much as I do that God is just as impossible to prove as he is to disprove.

[venomai]

Even if the burden of proof does lie on me to disprove something which is by definition not falsifiable, how does this suggest that I am a hypocrite?

 

 

 

Because you know as much as I do that God is just as impossible to prove as he is to disprove.

 

And... uh... how does this answer my question?

[Zierro]

Maybe you missed something here.

 

 

 

And also, there are Atheists here who are flat out saying God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

(He means they say it as if it is an indisputable piece of information. They are giving a positive assertion.)

 

 

 

Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites.

 

 

 

(He means that people who think it is an indisputable piece of information are hypocrites because they have no proof for their assertion, yet their main argument is the burden of proof.)

 

 

 

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism")

 

 

 

By this, you are saying that you're one of those people, and if you're not then why would you think this applies to you?

 

 

 

I think it's just a misunderstanding of the term "not believing". If you ask me, in order to "not believe" you would have to make a 100% conscious decision. From the looks of things, I think that's what Saru and Ginger meant too.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Exactly. I've no problem with people saying "I don't believe in God", because that's a personal opinion that doesn't need justifying to anyone else but you. The same applies to those who believe in God too.

 

 

 

Hell, I'll even go as far to say I wish there was a higher being. I just don't personally believe there is one.

 

 

 

It's when people go about saying, "God does exist", or "God definitely does not exist" that I have a problem. There is no 100% reliable, conclusive evidence for either of those two claims.

[user1991]

Exactly. I've no problem with people saying "I don't believe in God", because that's a personal opinion that doesn't need justifying to anyone else but you. The same applies to those who believe in God too.

 

 

 

Hell, I'll even go as far to say I wish there was a higher being. I just don't personally believe there is one.

 

 

 

It's when people go about saying, "God does exist", or "God definitely does not exist" that I have a problem. There is no 100% reliable, conclusive evidence for either of those two claims.

 

 

 

Realistically, most atheists put God in the same realm as the tooth fairy, santa claus etc. He COULD exist, sure, but I believe that there is no evidence for such a claim and therefore we may as well just assume that he doesn't.

 

 

 

If I claim that there is a Unicorn in a distant Galaxy who is worshipped by Dinosaurs who have evolved into intelligent beings, you cannot disprove it.

 

 

 

But, as there is no evidence for it, saying that it "does not exist" simply means that "it does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt".

 

 

 

Most things we cannot prove 100% so when we say "does not exist".. we don't mean "he definitely, 100% does not exist" but that it is so unlikely/there is no evidence for it that we might aswell assume he doesn't.

 

 

 

Just because there are people who believe it and people who don't does not make it 50/50.

[tryto]

Exactly. I've no problem with people saying "I don't believe in God", because that's a personal opinion that doesn't need justifying to anyone else but you. The same applies to those who believe in God too.

 

 

 

Hell, I'll even go as far to say I wish there was a higher being. I just don't personally believe there is one.

 

 

 

It's when people go about saying, "God does exist", or "God definitely does not exist" that I have a problem. There is no 100% reliable, conclusive evidence for either of those two claims.

 

 

 

 

 

I am a de facto atheist.

 

I'm comfortable with my stance; I consider the probability of a God existing to be so infinitesimally small, it's of no real consequence. I don't feel the need to be agnostic of the possibility of invisible, undetectable pixel fairies hovering around my arms, threatening me with death unless I offer honey up to them. There's a chance they exist, but are you agnostic towards them? I doubt it.

 

You can never have 100% certitude of there being no god(s), but you can get pretty damn close, and that's where I am. In addition, I am completely certain that the Abrahamic God does not exist; his qualities contradict each other, similar to the fact that I am certain that you cannot have a square circle.

 

In matters of anything completely unfalsifiable, you cannot be 100% certain, but what's the point of considering that mermaids are behind you right now, that Carl Sagan has a dragon in his garage, and that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old? There is simply no evidence for any supernatural occurrences or god(s).

[Lenticular_J]

That makes me as bad as them.

 

Just wanted to say that was a bad choice of words. I know you didn't mean it like that, but it was a bad choice.

 

 

 

I did like the rest of that post. The only problem is when "strong atheists" (hur hur, it is manlier) can't decide whether there just isn't any conclusive proof for them or just flat-out say He doesn't exist, then demand us humble believers to throw God into their arms.

 

 

 

Hur hur. I'm humble.

[venomai]

I think it's just a misunderstanding of the term "not believing". If you ask me, in order to "not believe" you would have to make a 100% conscious decision. From the looks of things, I think that's what Saru and Ginger meant too.

 

Belief in god's existence or non-existence does not need to be backed by 100% certainty.

 

 

 

He means that people who think it is an indisputable piece of information are hypocrites because they have no proof for their assertion, yet their main argument is the burden of proof.

 

The burden of proof is a logical fallacy. It is not an argument in support of atheism, and it is especially not an argument in support of strong atheism.

 

 

 

I've no problem with ... those who believe in God ...

 

 

 

It's when people go about saying, "God does exist" ... that I have a problem.

 

'Belief in god' is an implicit assertion that a god does exist. You write as if they are fundamentally different positions.

 

 

 

I just don't personally believe there is one.

 

And I believe (i.e. assert) that god* does not exist, in the same way that many adults believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. It doesn't matter if these beleifs are not backed by 100% certainty, much less 100% reliable and conclusive evidence.

 

 

 

* In this case, I am referring to the same divine being described by various popular religions, often including features such as the afterlife, prayer, creation of the universe/Earth/life, interaction with humans, etc.

 

 

 

The only problem is when "strong atheists" (hur hur, it is manlier) can't decide whether there just isn't any conclusive proof for them or just flat-out say He doesn't exist

 

How about both? i.e. Acknowledges a lack of conclusive proof of his non-existence yet still has an unwavering belief in god's non-existence. :)

[Lenticular_J]

I guess I only see that as one position, whereas I see some of those "strong atheists" try to be both atheist and agnostic. My bad.

[abbydog95]

not this again -.- I h8 these kinds of posts... this is your personal opion, you gunna get flamed either way...

[Zierro]

Belief in god's existence or non-existence does not need to be backed by 100% certainty.

 

 

 

I thought we already established the difference between believing something and claiming that it's an indisputable piece of information? If you're saying that they are the same thing, then how much weight does "God does/doesn't exist" by those standards?

 

 

 

not this again -.- I h8 these kinds of posts... this is your personal opion, you gunna get flamed either way...

 

 

 

I don't see any flaming going on. Just debating our own opinions.

[Lenticular_J]

It's amazing how rapidly one can lose respect for another on the internet.

[venomai]

I thought we already established the difference between believing something and claiming that it's an indisputable piece of information? If you're saying that they are the same thing...

 

Huh? I never said that.

 

 

 

To assert, affirm, or declare -- these all mean roughly the same thing: a positive statement that is held to be true. Saying "I believe in god" implicitly equates to the assertion "god does exist." This, however, does not mean the statement must be 100% certain, nor does it need to be backed by 100% reliable/credible evidence.