Do YOU believe in God?

[malo2]

ok, so theres 63 pages worth of argument, mostly of the athiest doing a good job of proving religion crap, and the religious struggling to keep the athiest from proving it wrong.

 

 

 

Now understand, religion wasnt a fact to begin with, so what the argument should be like, is the religious proving religion right, and the athiest trying to prove it wrong. The way its going now, I dont see why anybody is still hoping to prove religion true.

 

 

 

You're point doesn't make much sense because we're not trying to prove religion right, because we don't have to. You can't prove it right, all we are doing is explaining our faith.

 

 

 

And I'm glad you didn't let your biased point of view affect your analysis of the 63 pages. Coming from my point of view, the religious argument is far from "struggling."

 

when theres an argument going on then theres two people trying to prove themselves right, and over the last few pages, thats what has been going on.

 

 

 

and in my opinion, whne one side only has a few people, that are doing a pretty bad job of providing facts, rather than stories, then theyre struggling. i guess some people see the world struggling in a different way. ohwell.

 

 

 

1) We are not trying to prove each other right or wrong. This discussion is not about proof. Read insane's post above.

 

 

 

2) Just because there are more athiests on this board than religious people, doesn't mean one side is doing better than the other. Once again, read insane's post above.

 

 

 

3) It's only your opinion that the religious side's points are "bad" and that's why your version of "struggling" doesn't work. You can't decide who is doing a better job in a discussion based on which idea you support.

 

 

 

1. when i said the athiest are overpowering the religions in an argument, It was an opinion in general, wethere its a religious forum or not, the argument and evidence dont change. You dont need alot of people to win an argument, its quality that counts not quantity, if religion would have evidence to support itself, one person with an iq above 80 would be enought, even if theres a million people on the otherside. If somethings right, you can prove it right no matter how many opponments u have.

 

 

 

2. you may not be debating over religion, but everyone else is, like i mentioned here, theres more than one person on this thread, so you cant just decide for everybod wether theyre debating or not.

[Astralinre]

ok, so theres 63 pages worth of argument, mostly of the athiest doing a good job of proving religion crap, and the religious struggling to keep the athiest from proving it wrong.

 

 

 

In your point of view :P in my opinion the atheist usually uses science, which is irrelevant to God's existence. Evolution? God could've used it. To say "it makes more sense that it just randomly happened", is merely a matter of opinion. To me, it makes more sense that something caused it to happen the way it did.

 

Do you really thin kscientists just make up the stiff they figure out? the things scientsts claim have been proven to be facts after a long time of research, its not something they just decided to belive in and told the rest of the world to belive, thats religion, not science, science isnt just another religion, they have proof to support their discoveries, religions just have tales and verses that an unnamed author wrote long ago. (ps. see my sig)

 

 

 

Do you realize that your response had nothing to do with his post? He said that science is irrelevant to the existence of God, and you said that science proves the things it claims. Where's the connection? His point was not that science is wrong, but rather that science deals only in the natural, therefore it is irrelevant to God, the supernatural.

 

 

 

 

 

i dont think you really need to worry about those parts very much, you wouldnt really have anything better to say when youre waiting for the other side to offer arguments, sine I see so many arguments posted on the previous page that just arent answered.

 

 

 

If you had actually read the entire 63 pages, as you implied earlier, you would see that most of the questions had been discussed and answered a long time ago.

 

 

 

Now the point of saying that, is simply to ask, why are religions people ever trying to prove themselves right (if they are ofcourse, its not one person for you to decide of, if theyre arguing or not btw, there are alot of people, some argue, some dont) when they dont even know what they belive in, religion is just so corrupted (like its always been in countless ways), that its just amazing that there are people still defending it.

 

 

 

Perhaps they try to prove themselves right out of love? They believe that their religion is the truth, and they care enough about others to make sure that other people know the truth. And if you haven't noticed, every institution than humans are involved in is corrupted, not just religion. It's much more logical to say that humans are inherantly corrupt, rather than that religion is inherantly corrupt.

 

 

 

I dont think the title of the thread really decides what people are going to post, the moment i saw the thread i knew what id see inside, and obviousy, there are 2 sides trying to deside wether religion makes sence or not. Now, in other words of what i was trying to say (man its hard to explain :x): the argument over religion is always so rediculous, because one side is trying prove its self right so hard without any evidnce, whist the opposite side has all the ovidence in the world. Its like an aurmoured man with a large gun, versus a defensless man with nothing, you know what i mean?

 

 

 

What is all this evidence you're talking about? Evidence for what? Evidence against religion? If you're talking about science being able to proove its claims, as you were earlier, I refer you to my first paragraph about how science has nothing to do with God's existence.

[malo2]

ok, so theres 63 pages worth of argument, mostly of the athiest doing a good job of proving religion crap, and the religious struggling to keep the athiest from proving it wrong.

 

 

 

In your point of view :P in my opinion the atheist usually uses science, which is irrelevant to God's existence. Evolution? God could've used it. To say "it makes more sense that it just randomly happened", is merely a matter of opinion. To me, it makes more sense that something caused it to happen the way it did.

 

Do you really thin kscientists just make up the stiff they figure out? the things scientsts claim have been proven to be facts after a long time of research, its not something they just decided to belive in and told the rest of the world to belive, thats religion, not science, science isnt just another religion, they have proof to support their discoveries, religions just have tales and verses that an unnamed author wrote long ago. (ps. see my sig)

 

 

 

Do you realize that your response had nothing to do with his post? He said that science is irrelevant to the existence of God, and you said that science proves the things it claims. Where's the connection? His point was not that science is wrong, but rather that science deals only in the natural, therefore it is irrelevant to God, the supernatural.

 

 

 

 

 

i dont think you really need to worry about those parts very much, you wouldnt really have anything better to say when youre waiting for the other side to offer arguments, sine I see so many arguments posted on the previous page that just arent answered.

 

 

 

If you had actually read the entire 63 pages, as you implied earlier, you would see that most of the questions had been discussed and answered a long time ago.

 

 

 

Now the point of saying that, is simply to ask, why are religions people ever trying to prove themselves right (if they are ofcourse, its not one person for you to decide of, if theyre arguing or not btw, there are alot of people, some argue, some dont) when they dont even know what they belive in, religion is just so corrupted (like its always been in countless ways), that its just amazing that there are people still defending it.

 

 

 

Perhaps they try to prove themselves right out of love? They believe that their religion is the truth, and they care enough about others to make sure that other people know the truth. And if you haven't noticed, every institution than humans are involved in is corrupted, not just religion. It's much more logical to say that humans are inherantly corrupt, rather than that religion is inherantly corrupt.

 

 

 

I dont think the title of the thread really decides what people are going to post, the moment i saw the thread i knew what id see inside, and obviousy, there are 2 sides trying to deside wether religion makes sence or not. Now, in other words of what i was trying to say (man its hard to explain :x): the argument over religion is always so rediculous, because one side is trying prove its self right so hard without any evidnce, whist the opposite side has all the ovidence in the world. Its like an aurmoured man with a large gun, versus a defensless man with nothing, you know what i mean?

 

 

 

What is all this evidence you're talking about? Evidence for what? Evidence against religion? If you're talking about science being able to proove its claims, as you were earlier, I refer you to my first paragraph about how science has nothing to do with God's existence.

 

 

 

ok this argument is so hopless in just going to leave, i doubt you have ever taken more than 5 mins to think about all of what you said, im sorry for not taking the time to explain all of that, but im tired and ive gotta go anyway, cya everyone.

[Astralinre]

ok this argument is so hopless in just going to leave, i doubt you have ever taken more than 5 mins to think about all of what you said, im sorry for not taking the time to explain all of that, but im tired and ive gotta go anyway, cya everyone.

 

 

 

I can't help but wonder about his reading comprehension, if, after reading all 63 pages, he is still making the claim that I've never thought about my beliefs. :P

 

 

 

Besides, how could I possibly refute his argument of "You and religion are stupid!" ?

[pianofrieak2]

ok, so theres 63 pages worth of argument, mostly of the athiest doing a good job of proving religion crap, and the religious struggling to keep the athiest from proving it wrong.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? I actually thought it was always in favor of the religious, with the atheists/agnostics changing the topics continually.

 

 

 

Try reading the past 63 pages and see for yourself.

 

 

 

In your point of view :P in my opinion the atheist usually uses science, which is irrelevant to God's existence. Evolution? God could've used it. To say "it makes more sense that it just randomly happened", is merely a matter of opinion. To me, it makes more sense that something caused it to happen the way it did.

 

 

 

Yes, science is irrelevant to God's existence, but, then again, science would have to point to the existence of God...

 

 

 

Do you really think scientists just make up the stiff they figure out? the things scientsts claim have been proven to be facts after a long time of research, its not something they just decided to belive in and told the rest of the world to belive, thats religion, not science, science isnt just another religion, they have proof to support their discoveries, religions just have tales and verses that an unnamed author wrote long ago. (ps. see my sig)

 

 

 

Scientists make up stuff? Um...yeah. Are you completely ignorant of the many transitionary fossils they "found".

 

 

 

Miller-Urey experiment? Its claim that proteins can be made from nothing? Again, false. But, then again, this was on page 50 or so and you probably haven't seen it.

 

 

 

And by the way, if you're referring to the bible having an unnamed author, it was actually composed over 1500 years with over 40 different authors. :wink:

 

 

 

i dont think you really need to worry about those parts very much, you wouldnt really have anything better to say when youre waiting for the other side to offer arguments, sine I see so many arguments posted on the previous page that just arent answered.

 

 

 

As do I...but for the atheistic side.

 

 

 

If you had actually read the entire 63 pages, as you implied earlier, you would see that most of the questions had been discussed and answered a long time ago.

 

 

 

Thank you for stating the obvious.

 

 

 

Now the point of saying that, is simply to ask, why are religions people ever trying to prove themselves right (if they are ofcourse, its not one person for you to decide of, if theyre arguing or not btw, there are alot of people, some argue, some dont) when they dont even know what they belive in, religion is just so corrupted (like its always been in countless ways), that its just amazing that there are people still defending it.

 

 

 

Perhaps they try to prove themselves right out of love? They believe that their religion is the truth, and they care enough about others to make sure that other people know the truth. And if you haven't noticed, every institution than humans are involved in is corrupted, not just religion. It's much more logical to say that humans are inherantly corrupt, rather than that religion is inherantly corrupt.

 

 

 

Well put, Astra.

 

 

 

I dont think the title of the thread really decides what people are going to post, the moment i saw the thread i knew what id see inside, and obviousy, there are 2 sides trying to deside wether religion makes sence or not. Now, in other words of what i was trying to say (man its hard to explain :x): the argument over religion is always so rediculous, because one side is trying prove its self right so hard without any evidnce, whist the opposite side has all the ovidence in the world. Its like an aurmoured man with a large gun, versus a defensless man with nothing, you know what i mean?

 

 

 

Wow, you REALLY missed the past 64 pages. You sound so strong, and yet if you actually THOUGHT about it, you'd see the theists have much more evidence in their favor. For proof, I say read the past 64 pages.

 

 

 

ok this argument is so hopless in just going to leave, i doubt you have ever taken more than 5 mins to think about all of what you said, im sorry for not taking the time to explain all of that, but im tired and ive gotta go anyway, cya everyone.

 

 

 

OK, now you're treading the dangerous ground of ad-hominem arguments. Instead of addressing our arguments, you merely say we're stupid.

 

 

 

Veeery convincing...

[pianofrieak2]

I'm wondering here...With all this talk of Evolution or Intelligent Design:

 

 

 

Does the Bible say ANYTHING about the Dinosaurs? Earlier humans? Anything? It seems to me that if God were to tell the stories of past events...Adam and Eve, blah blah blah, that he would have said something about the Dinosaurs at least. If the Bible says nothing about them, to me this would mean the Bible was made up. Why? Because the first fossils of Dinosaurs weren't discovered until the early(?) 1800's, I believe. I remember seeing it on the history channel, some guy stumbled accross some bones, they were dug up, and it was a Dinosaur and noone had any idea what the hell it was...Obviously, the 1800's are way after the Bible was written.

 

 

 

I've never read the Bible, so does anyone know? I'm curious, I'm not assuming there is or isn't any mention of them, but it would seem to me that if there is no mention of them that would kinda' fit in with Evolution's theory. I mean the Bible DOES say God created Earth...Most certainly he must have created them too, right?

 

 

 

Anyone know?

 

 

 

To address your question, let me give you some background information. The Bible specifically refers to two dinosours. I really can't remember the second one, but the one I do remember is called "leviathan," an animal similar to the crocodile but much bigger and stronger. It is mentioned many times in Job, referring to God's majestic power in creation. I think it breathes fire and has skin like steel. Here are some verses:

 

 

 

Job 3:8

 

Job 41:1

 

Job 41:1-3

 

Psalm 74:14

 

Psalm 74:13-15

 

Psalm 104:26

 

Psalm 104:25-27

 

Isaiah 27:1

 

 

 

Job 3:3

 

"Obliterate the day I was born. Blank out the night I was conceived! Let it be a black hole in space. May God above forget it ever happened. Erase it from the books! May the day of my birth be buried in deep darkness, shrouded by the fog, swallowed by the night. And the night of my conceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Evilperson]

Do you really thin kscientists just make up the stiff they figure out? the things scientsts claim have been proven to be facts after a long time of research, its not something they just decided to belive in and told the rest of the world to belive, thats religion, not science, science isnt just another religion, they have proof to support their discoveries, religions just have tales and verses that an unnamed author wrote long ago. (ps. see my sig)

 

 

 

I would just like to point out that a lot of what scientists "discover" are still theories and have NOT been fully proved yet, although I do agree they are FAR more convincing than almost everything in the bible.

[Evilperson]

Piano, is that the most indepth of description it gets? That just isn't convincing enough to show me that the bible talks about dinosaurs. I think it is one of those "Fear of the Unknown" things, since back then no one had any idea of what exactly lay beneath the surface of the waters. I mean there are lots of "myths" and what not of things that live beneath the ocean. Describing a fish that is large and has many rows of teeth is like saying, "Hey you, with the face"

[Astralinre]

Piano, I believe the other word you're looking for is "behemoth." :) Though I would like to point out that there are many who contest that those words are not referring to dinosaurs, though it does seem to fit.

[Tigra00]

Piano, is that the most indepth of description it gets? That just isn't convincing enough to show me that the bible talks about dinosaurs. I think it is one of those "Fear of the Unknown" things, since back then no one had any idea of what exactly lay beneath the surface of the waters. I mean there are lots of "myths" and what not of things that live beneath the ocean. Describing a fish that is large and has many rows of teeth is like saying, "Hey you, with the face"

 

 

 

Yea, it doesn't prove it to me either, and I read it with an open mind.

 

 

 

That could be talking about MANY things. The Bible is full of metaphores, so sure, it could be talking about a sea monster, but that's just ONE. And it certainly isn't a dinosaur. What else could it be talking about? Umm, a lot of stuff...An enemy ship? Lots of Metaphores that could make it a ship were used. Satan himself? Certainly God would have no reason to slay a Dinosaur with a sword. The "sea" he lives in could mean he lives in the deepest places of the Earth.

 

 

 

Those are just two things I thought when I was reading it: A ship, or Satan.

 

 

 

My girlfriend seems convinced that God himself killed the Dinosaurs, because they were his first creation and he did not like how they turned out because they were too violent. That seems to make God fallible, but we won't go there. I asked my girlfriend "We as human's are violent too, we shoot eachother, some even eachother like Dinosaurs..." to which she responded "Yea, and we'll have our day those people are destroyed too.." I said "Perhaps, but what did God expect the Dinosaurs to eat if it were not for eachother? And why did he make MORE animals that just...well, eat eachother..." She could not answer with anything but "We'll all have our day when God destroys those people."

 

 

 

You almost want to believe in God, but when it comes down to things like that, for me, I just can't believe it. If God doesn't like me, so be it, he should have made his story even a bit believable at most..."Faith" is no excuse for leaving us ignorant.

[bubba94497]

Piano, is that the most indepth of description it gets? That just isn't convincing enough to show me that the bible talks about dinosaurs. I think it is one of those "Fear of the Unknown" things, since back then no one had any idea of what exactly lay beneath the surface of the waters. I mean there are lots of "myths" and what not of things that live beneath the ocean. Describing a fish that is large and has many rows of teeth is like saying, "Hey you, with the face"

 

 

 

Yea, it doesn't prove it to me either, and I read it with an open mind.

 

 

 

That could be talking about MANY things. The Bible is full of metaphores, so sure, it could be talking about a sea monster, but that's just ONE. And it certainly isn't a dinosaur. What else could it be talking about? Umm, a lot of stuff...An enemy ship? Lots of Metaphores that could make it a ship were used. Satan himself? Certainly God would have no reason to slay a Dinosaur with a sword. The "sea" he lives in could mean he lives in the deepest places of the Earth.

 

 

 

Those are just two things I thought when I was reading it: A ship, or Satan.

 

 

 

My girlfriend seems convinced that God himself killed the Dinosaurs, because they were his first creation and he did not like how they turned out because they were too violent. That seems to make God fallible, but we won't go there. I asked my girlfriend "We as human's are violent too, we shoot eachother, some even eachother like Dinosaurs..." to which she responded "Yea, and we'll have our day those people are destroyed too.." I said "Perhaps, but what did God expect the Dinosaurs to eat if it were not for eachother? And why did he make MORE animals that just...well, eat eachother..." She could not answer with anything but "We'll all have our day when God destroys those people."

 

 

 

You almost want to believe in God, but when it comes down to things like that, for me, I just can't believe it. If God doesn't like me, so be it, he should have made his story even a bit believable at most..."Faith" is no excuse for leaving us ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

ok God did not create animals to eat each other. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit it not only messed up the human race but also nature as well. It also says in the Bible in Romans 8:19-21 that the world will be perfect again one day.

[Tigra00]

So lion's and tiger's and bear's (OH MY!) couldn't exsist because they would starve? They are meat eaters, after all.

 

 

 

You could argue that they were intended, and once were plant eating creatures, except for the fact that they are ill-equipped to eat grass and plants. Their teeth and throat structures do not allow it to be practicle. They couldn't digest it, either. The closest thing I can give you for an example is a dog...Dog's eat grass and they throw up. Why do they throw it up? Some people say they eat it to make themselves throw up, but that would be using medicine...Dog's are not THAT intelligent (so they say). I'd say they eat it because they like the taste of it or something on it, and they throw up because they can't digest it. My dog also throws up when he eats something else he can't digest...Plastic, for example. Yes, my dog is dumb, but that's besides the point.

 

 

 

I'll stick to evolution, I think. It may not be proven, but at least it isn't filled with technicality's, lies, greed and ignorance (intended ignorance, at that).

[bubba94497]

Why would u believe evolution after knowing it hasnt been proven but say u dont believe in the Bible bc it has no proof? If u would take the time to actually read the Bible u would understand more. You have to want to believe to actually do it. Why even take the chance of going to hell by not believing the Bible is true and not accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

[Mercifull]

Maybe because in my belief there is NO chance of hell even existing.

[____]

Maybe because in my belief there is NO chance of hell even existing.

Don't forget that if you want to come to a logical conclusion, religion doesn't win ;)

[bubba94497]

Religion will win in the end when it really matters.

[____]

Religion will win in the end when it really matters.

Problem with that call, is that religion matters only to those who care about it.

[bubba94497]

You act like if u dont believe something is gonna happen it wont. The end of the world will come and Jesus will come back and get all the Christians and as for the rest well u know what will happen. The Bible says that clearly.

[Necromagus]

Yes, and the Qur'an says something else, so does the Zend Avesta, and so do the Eddas. Just because it's written down doesn't mean it's true. If you want to prove the existence of a god, you'll have to come up with something better than "it's written down in this book so it's true".

[Mercifull]

You act like if u dont believe something is gonna happen it wont. The end of the world will come and Jesus will come back and get all the Christians and as for the rest well u know what will happen. The Bible says that clearly.

The bible says a lot of things. Either you take the bible 100% as literal or you agree that at least parts of it are not true. Which do you agree with?

 

I dont really want to lower myself to posting quotes from the bible because i will get accused of mis-interpreting things but i mean honestly.. how else can this be interpreted? Here is an example at random...

 

The man who commits adultery with another manÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighborÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

 

If you agree with that then fair enough, ill accept your argument. But if you acknowledge that this should not happen then you acknowledge that the bible is not 100% fact

 

 

 

Maybe when you bother posting an actual constructed argument rather than "the bible says it so it must be true" i might answer more fully.

[Tigra00]

My eyes still burn from that cult-like lashing he gave me after my post. Rather than address my points, he says "Why not accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?!" I swear to God I felt like I was being sucked into a cult for a second.

 

 

 

That [cabbage] is CREEPY. NEVER SAY IT AGAIN.

[Tigra00]

Why would u believe evolution after knowing it hasnt been proven but say u dont believe in the Bible bc it has no proof? If u would take the time to actually read the Bible u would understand more. You have to want to believe to actually do it. Why even take the chance of going to hell by not believing the Bible is true and not accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

 

 

 

And to answer your question; Evolution can be proved, if you want to get technical, it pretty much has been. It's an extremely widely accepted "theory". The only people who don't accept it? Religious people. Even if it wasn't proven, at least there are still ways to prove it. Name me one way you could even BEGIN to prove the Bible and I will convert.

[Evilperson]

 

You could argue that they were intended, and once were plant eating creatures, except for the fact that they are ill-equipped to eat grass and plants. Their teeth and throat structures do not allow it to be practicle. They couldn't digest it, either. The closest thing I can give you for an example is a dog...Dog's eat grass and they throw up. Why do they throw it up? Some people say they eat it to make themselves throw up, but that would be using medicine...Dog's are not THAT intelligent (so they say). I'd say they eat it because they like the taste of it or something on it, and they throw up because they can't digest it. My dog also throws up when he eats something else he can't digest...Plastic, for example. Yes, my dog is dumb, but that's besides the point.

 

 

 

Actually, that is quite true that dogs and cats eat grass if they have an upset stomach so they can regurgitate it and relieve themselves of the discomfort. I would call it using medicine. Its more like if the dog thinks, "My back is itching, I know the tree will make it go away", the grass is the same concept. It doesn't know why or how it works, it just accepts it as a fact.

[Tigra00]

 

You could argue that they were intended, and once were plant eating creatures, except for the fact that they are ill-equipped to eat grass and plants. Their teeth and throat structures do not allow it to be practicle. They couldn't digest it, either. The closest thing I can give you for an example is a dog...Dog's eat grass and they throw up. Why do they throw it up? Some people say they eat it to make themselves throw up, but that would be using medicine...Dog's are not THAT intelligent (so they say). I'd say they eat it because they like the taste of it or something on it, and they throw up because they can't digest it. My dog also throws up when he eats something else he can't digest...Plastic, for example. Yes, my dog is dumb, but that's besides the point.

 

 

 

Actually, that is quite true that dogs and cats eat grass if they have an upset stomach so they can regurgitate it and relieve themselves of the discomfort. I would call it using medicine. Its more like if the dog thinks, "My back is itching, I know the tree will make it go away", the grass is the same concept. It doesn't know why or how it works, it just accepts it as a fact.

 

 

 

I see it that way too, but scientists do not apparently. Apparently, they think that is using medicine, and animal's aren't smart enough to do that.

[Fadfdfd]

Yes I do.. I am 50% Jewish and 50% Catholic.. although my catholic side isn't very religion.

 

 

 

Although I am very religious on my jewish side. I enjoy reading hebrew and I get along with our small congregation. so it's fun.