Quote 4: Refer to quote 2, also your existence in this universe is extremely likely due to the massive scale of the universe and what was said in quote 2.
I like this. I'm definitely going to tell this to people in the future.
I was raised a Catholic and I'm also a scientist so I've got my foot in both camps. As far as the bible and God are concerned, I see them as a 'tool' for the means of conveying how to live a certain life style.
I wish you would stop repeating that fallacy as though it hadn't been overturned more than once in this very thread. The theory of evolution has stood up to scientific scrutiny, testing, observation, and empirical evidence. It is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth. If it were to be replaced by a superior theory at some point in the future, then the scientific community would do away with it. The fact that it has stood the rigors of scientific tests over time (for more than a century) should tell you something of it's validity.
I think we should just give up. People who do not want to know what a theory is, will never know what a theory is.
To quote Farnsworth, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I think saying religious texts are fairy tales is just a little disrespectful. Although they do half involve questionable things that could be compared to mythology, as Umpa touched on they do provide some historical insight and some cultural insight on how things were back then.
While I severely disagree with the idea that any of the three big religions could have historical information in them, I do concede that they most definitely have cultural insight in them, and as such could be used in a way to learn more about the people of that time era.
Yeah I was just saying I don't know who started using that word but Fairy Tale and Myth are pretty different in my opinion.
It may have been me who started using Fairy Tale. I wasn't aware it would stir such anger. (Believe me, if I wanted to stir anger, I'd have much better ways. (That's a joke, by the way...) )
What i find interesting is why people just believe in what science tells them.
The main difference in believing religion and understanding science is that while religion will give you a book or a poem or pass stories from generation to generation, science gives you the information, the studies, the statistics, and tells you how it got where it got, allowing you to double and triple check it if you wish.
Science is not perfect, but it's the closest we have.
You choose to be effected. You say you are gay, how does someone's belief stop you from loving someone of the same sex? They don't, unless you let them. Those people are wrong to pass judgement, but it ultimately falls on you to decide to be insulted by their beliefs.
My friend is gay. She was in the military. She was kicked out, and she's not allowed to get married.
She is effected, wouldn't you agree? Or is she not worthy? I don't think she's allowing somebody else to effect her, they are doing so on their own.
How does one distinguish between parts of the Bible are factual/literal and those that are symbolic/metaphoric?
You cannot distinguish which parts are factual and which parts are metaphorical. That's why it's a good argument. You can say this part is factual until science proves that it's not then turn around and say its metaphorical.
Religion has done it before, and they will do it again.
(No offense intended in pointing out this historically accurate assessment of religion.)
Like I said I just choose to believe in a being like you choose NOT to.
It seems like at the base level the more logic minded people will choose atheism and the more creative minded will choose a creator of some sort.
Well, Atheists don't believe in anything. Hence why we are atheists. Not theistic. Not believing.
As for logic vs creative minds, I disagree. I have seen plenty of very intelligent people who believed in a god of some sort. (Maybe not the Christian god, but a god none the less.) In fact, the Muslim world was, for a few centuries, the epicenter of science and learning.
As for creative people, I dunno, some people choose atheism because it "feels" right. (Sounds wierd, but it's true.)
So here's the philosophical challenge: "What God?"
And I respond with, "Whichever god you happen to believe in."
The immediate problem I see with this argument is that you can ask me to prove Harry Potter exists and as long as I have a book referencing him (His book series) I do not have to prove he exists in some fashion, as long as I have something referencing him, whether it be fictional or nonfictional.
Then again, I could completely misunderstand your entire post. And if that's the case, I apologize.
I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to reply anyway.
I am willing to debate any definition of god. Some definitions, like the definition that Albert Einstein used, could be considered true, but would not be considered "god" by most religious people. Other definitions, such as those used by people like Ted Haggard and Pope Benedict would be considered false by people like Albert Einstein. Different versions of the word "god" exist, and must be handled differently, but I, personally, am willing to speak on any of them, if you are willing to as well.
One more thing, to nobody in particular, this thread goes way too fast.
It has been three days and it's already got 22 pages. Lol. I still haven't read the first 17 pages. x.x Lol.
Why does anyone need an explanation for any of this? You will believe what you want because you are given free will to do so. Which by the way was given to all of us by God the creator of all things. I choose to believe in God. You choose not to believe in God. There is no inbetween, you either believe or you do not. Now believe that your choice is correct and leave the rest of the world to die in misery as there is nothign you can to save them.
I am not a good christian as I do not have the patience to save people from eternal damnation which is a task commanded to all that believe by God himself. I will have failed as a chiristian and may one day join all those that turn from God in the eternal burning blazes of hell.
Why does anyone need an explanation for any of this? You will believe what you want because you are given free will to do so. Which by the way was given to all of us by God the creator of all things. I choose to believe in God. You choose not to believe in God. There is no inbetween, you either believe or you do not. Now believe that your choice is correct and leave the rest of the world to die in misery as there is nothign you can to save them.
I am not a good christian as I do not have the patience to save people from eternal damnation which is a task commanded to all that believe by God himself. I will have failed as a chiristian and may one day join all those that turn from God in the eternal burning blazes of hell.
It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.
It boils down to the fact that if god uses/used science to govern/create the universe, you simply cannot prove that he exists without discovering indisputable metaphysical evidence. However, on the other side of the coin... being that science could very well have been created by god, athiests CANNOT disprove his/its existence either.
@Prole- I'm sorry dude but this is all just far too predictable for me to hang around. Your nature, unfortunately is similar to any other atheist who wants to argue on the interwebs. There is literally nothing I could say that you wouldn't have an answer for despite the fact that we don't know anything. It's not a bad thing, it's just predictable. I know exactly how you'll respond every time I make a claim of any sort. I say something supporting the existence of an afterlife and you refute it by first showing me the flaws in my thought process and then tell me how science says otherwise. Or if I say something testifying to the brilliant logic of science and how it's all we have and we can know nothing else, then you greet it with praise and agreement. Then 10 other atheists join in on the conversation, agree, and repeat the same shit. Then a christian comes in and tries to tell you what he believes and then the arrogant atheist comes in and trolls and gets his post removed. And the cycle just goes on and on and on and on and on.
I'm not here to win the argument grand title belt. Which is an issue because this thread is structured for you to welcome in someone who believes something and then you proceed to tell them that nothing they believe makes any sense and they should listen to you instead. I've been involved in far too many of the SAME EXACT THREADS to want to argue about it anymore. At this point I'm just looking for decent conversation and different perspective. Not the same "I HAVE FAITH" "I HAVE EVIDENCE" thread.
In response to this I expect you to welcome me back in the conversation and tell me that I've got it all wrong and you're here to have a discussion the same way I am, Nekro to tell me I'm trolling, and Linkx to agree and say thats just how those idiots are. And then maybe Dae Dae will chime in to try and continue discussion and get it back on track before it gets closed 2 to 5 pages later.
EVERYONE read what Sabvre just wrote. We're right back to the very beginning of this discussion. Is this really what you want? If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same results. I am now going to use my better judgement to finally take myself out of this discussion because I already know the end to this story, and it's no fun when you know what's going to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is.
I never tackled that question because I never had to assume there was anything to call god. But, I know the prevaling opinions about the word, so I titled the thread as such to attract people who did have such opinions. You should be asking them, not me. Unless you have missed the full 20+ pages of my posting, you'll realize I haven't got a belief at all, much less a belief of the name "god,"
Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is.
I never tackled that question because I never had to assume there was anything to call god. But, I know the prevaling opinions about the word, so I titled the thread as such to attract people who did have such opinions. You should be asking them, not me. Unless you have missed the full 20+ pages of my posting, you'll realize I haven't got a belief at all, much less a belief of the name "god,"
@ proletaria: Do you believe that the findings of science are true? I just want a yes or no answer and then you may follow it up with any other information that you feel is useful. Thank you for your time.
Also with the morally correct ones I guess you just have to read and see.
I take the same approach to lierature. I read it and I see what meshes with my human values. Again, I don't see the value of the bible in particular here. If you read Shakespear you could find many allegories of living an ethical life vs. an unethical life.
Then sure why not be taken literally but it has to stay within the boundaries set forth by science to me, i.e newtons laws and such. So I guess I have two cutoffs first it must be morally correct to me then it has to pass science before I can say I believe in it to be literal.
Well, literal intrepretation conflicts heavily with science. I don't really understand where the cooperation is between those views. You either hold to the evident scientific understanding we have, or you believe that the bible is literal and that science is essentially, the devil, trying to fool you. If there is a middle-ground, i've never heard it in terms that still admitted enough religious leaning to term "christian," rather than just "deist."
@ proletaria: Do you believe that the findings of science are true? I just want a yes or no answer and then you may follow it up with any other information that you feel is useful. Thank you for your time.
Glad to see you haven't bothered to read anything I posted for you last night. As I said, neither I, nor anyone else believe in science. Science provides evidence for it's explanations of the universe. Beliefs require no evidence.
I was raised a Catholic and I'm also a scientist so I've got my foot in both camps. As far as the bible and God are concerned, I see them as a 'tool' for the means of conveying how to live a certain life style.
What is the biblical "tool," and how do you justify it being able to do anything? One tool, science, evidently works to explain a lot in our universe. The other tool, belief, is without evidence, and makes even more far-reaching claims about the nature of the universe and how we should live in it. What makes that life style so good you're willing to render your scientific mind null and void to use the other tool?
@ proletaria: Do you believe that the findings of science are true? I just want a yes or no answer and then you may follow it up with any other information that you feel is useful. Thank you for your time.
Glad to see you haven't bothered to read anything I posted for you last night. As I said, neither I, nor anyone else believe in science. Science provides evidence for it's explanations of the universe. Beliefs require no evidence.
So science itself just stands alone outside of your understanding of things and it does nto interact or affect you in any way? What do you think of science? Is it correct? Is it wrong? Is it something that was created to answer questions that noone had an answer to?
Do you see the findings of science to be true? That is a simple question that you seem to refuse to answer.
I'm not here to win the argument grand title belt. Which is an issue because this thread is structured for you to welcome in someone who believes something and then you proceed to tell them that nothing they believe makes any sense and they should listen to you instead. I've been involved in far too many of the SAME EXACT THREADS to want to argue about it anymore. At this point I'm just looking for decent conversation and different perspective. Not the same "I HAVE FAITH" "I HAVE EVIDENCE" thread.
Stop being a troll. This is abject dishonesty Umpa. I have informed everyone of the status of their evidence and I have allowed anyone saying they have a belief to explain that (without a need for evidence, since the two are independant of one another). At no point did I argue with anyone who wasn't mincing their words, or purposefully using a bad definition of one of my words. You've done both on more than one occasion.
In response to this I expect you to welcome me back in the conversation and tell me that I've got it all wrong and you're here to have a discussion the same way I am, Nekro to tell me I'm trolling, and Linkx to agree and say thats just how those idiots are. And then maybe Dae Dae will chime in to try and continue discussion and get it back on track before it gets closed 2 to 5 pages later.
Why are you callin them idiots? What did they do to deserve that? Are you so hostile to diffirent points of view that you cannot even manage to stay civil?
It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.
Incorrect. We don't ask anyone to believe anything. No preaching necessary. All we ask is that you use the same rational judgement every day of the week instead of just six days a week. I think a liberal minded religious person could manage this aswell, so we don't even need you to deconvert. How convinient, eh?
You guys say we should convert or be condemned, killed, or will at least rot in hell when we die. All we ask is that you use your brain for more than a head-warmer, no need to change a thing else. Who is making more reasonable requests?
It boils down to the fact that if god uses/used science to govern/create the universe, you simply cannot prove that he exists without discovering indisputable metaphysical evidence. However, on the other side of the coin... being that science could very well have been created by god, athiests CANNOT disprove his/its existence either.
It boils down to the fact ther we can't establish that there is a creator of the universe. You're assuming god does exists and that we have to disprove you. That's incorrect. We're saying that we DON'T KNOW either way and can't assume. You are saying you KNOW without evdience, making an assumption. By definition: you're wrong until you prove otherwise with evidence.
So science itself just stands alone outside of your understanding of things and it does nto interact or affect you in any way? What do you think of science? Is it correct? Is it wrong? Is it something that was created to answer questions that noone had an answer to?
Do you see the findings of science to be true? That is a simple question that you seem to refuse to answer.
Science is a broad method of gaining knowledge through evidence, oberservation, testing, and prediction accuracy. It has worked, without fail, replacing it's previous theories, building up new ones, and covering more and more knowledge of our universe every single day since the rennessance period. The fact science works is, literally, a fact. We have watched it work for centuries. We can observe it working still.
Nothing is given absolute truth by science, but the findings of science have a level of certainty, based on how much evidence, observation, testing, and prediction we can do that is FAR in excess of a belief (which has no evidence, which means it is almost 100% uncertain until founded in some kind of evidence).
Like i said, u dunno how many pages ago, this should of been in off topic.
you cannot have an intelligent, fact based debate on the existence of god, because there is no concrete physical evidence. You believe simply because you do. Either because you were brought into the system at a young age and it's all you've known, or you chose to start believing because of some event later in your journey in life.
All this thread was going to accomplish was a lot of pissed off people, I called it like 10 pages ago.
Everything Ump said is true.
You cannot prove with observable empirical/objective based evidence that god exist, therefor you cannot prove that god exists, people choose to believe in god, and they have faith.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.
Incorrect. We don't ask anyone to believe anything. No preaching necessary. All we ask is that you use the same rational judgement every day of the week instead of just six days a week. I think a liberal minded religious person could manage this aswell, so we don't even need you to deconvert. How convinient, eh?
You guys say we should convert or be condemned, killed, or will at least rot in hell when we die. All we ask is that you use your brain for more than a head-warmer, no need to change a thing else. Who is making more reasonable requests?
Sadly you can not speak for all atheists as I can not speak for all Christians, so there are idiots on both sides and aggressive speech will come from both sides. Perhaps you are the true atheist as you may or may not believe think of yourself. You are a truly objective person that only trusts cold hard statistical fact and emotions are not required for this issue.
Also I do not condemn anyone to hell as I have no power over anyone. I am just stating my beliefs and am jsut as curious as to what you put your trust in.
Sadly you can not speak for all atheists as I can not speak for all Christians, so there are idiots on both sides and aggressive speech will come from both sides. Perhaps you are the true atheist as you may or may not believe think of yourself. You are a truly objective person that only trusts cold hard statistical fact and emotions are not required for this issue.
Also I do not condemn anyone to hell as I have no power over anyone. I am just stating my beliefs and am jsut as curious as to what you put your trust in.
I speak for any atheist who is not making an assumption where she/he cannot. As far as I know, that described every atheist at the last convention I went to, all of my atheist colleagues at the university here, and most of my family and friends who are atheist. Not everything in the athiest word is cold hard fact, as you're inferring, though. making atheism look like a colorless grey stone against the rainbow is nothing new, but it's certainly not true. As I mentioned before, there are more and varied opnions under the umbrella of atheism than any world religion preceisely because we do not require any belief of any kind. We have everyone from NRA-libertarians to PETA-liberals and everything in between.
Like i said, u dunno how many pages ago, this should of been in off topic.
you cannot have an intelligent, fact based debate on the existence of god, because there is no concrete physical evidence. You believe simply because you do. Either because you were brought into the system at a young age and it's all you've known, or you chose to start believing because of some event later in your journey in life.
All this thread was going to accomplish was a lot of pissed off people, I called it like 10 pages ago.
Everything Ump said is true.
You cannot prove with observable empirical/objective based evidence that god exist, therefor you cannot prove that god exists, people choose to believe in god, and they have faith.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
Also concrete proof of God's existance would defeat the purpose of choosing God. If you do not trust of believe in God then that is the choice you made. Free will is a gift and a curse.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
Can they at least be honest about why they have their faith then?
Because my God is an awesome God and he reigns in heaven watching over our souls and wishing nothign but the best for us. He also wishes you one day come home and be by his side. He loves each and every one of us unconditionally, which is something we are incapable and undeserving of. If not for his mercy we would have been lost long ago.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
Can they at least be honest about why they have their faith then?
That is counter-productive to them following their religious belief, so no, not really.
Some religions go to extremes, look at shamanism. Native American cultures that go on vision quests. Where they starve themselves, or deprive themselves of sensory data, or take Peyote to talk to spirits, which is essentially a hallucination in a waking dream.
Can you talk them out of believing and having faith in the spirits when, in their eyes they have already had a wicked session with the spirits? Even though you explain to them about hallucinations and how dreams work? Nope. Their entire culture and way of life is based around the belief in spirits and nature.
Can you prove their spirits dont exist? Yes. Does someone who truly has faith care? Nope.
When you truly have faith in your religion, Evidence/Logic < Faith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
Because my God is an awesome God and he reigns in heaven watching over our souls and wishing nothign but the best for us. He also wishes you one day come home and be by his side. He loves each and every one of us unconditionally, which is something we are incapable and undeserving of. If not for his mercy we would have been lost long ago.
You believe in it because without it you wouldn't feel watched over or have a soul and these things are very important to you? It sounds to me like you're quite afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god. Would that be fair to say? (Not being provocative, i'd just like to know)
Last post: I was not calling anyone an idiot. I was predicting Linkx would. More than anything, it was a reference to threads we've had in the past that Linkx has been apart of. And that's not saying anything about his character. I simply know how he feels on the subject lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I like this. I'm definitely going to tell this to people in the future.
I was raised a Catholic and I'm also a scientist so I've got my foot in both camps. As far as the bible and God are concerned, I see them as a 'tool' for the means of conveying how to live a certain life style.
You can edit my posts as you wish, as you are a moderator, but these two sentences show me your position, and I am deeply disappointed.
I think we should just give up. People who do not want to know what a theory is, will never know what a theory is.
To quote Farnsworth, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
While I severely disagree with the idea that any of the three big religions could have historical information in them, I do concede that they most definitely have cultural insight in them, and as such could be used in a way to learn more about the people of that time era.
It may have been me who started using Fairy Tale. I wasn't aware it would stir such anger. (Believe me, if I wanted to stir anger, I'd have much better ways. (That's a joke, by the way...) )
I just wanna point out that in a large portion of America, if you are black, gay, or atheist, you are scum and will be persecuted.
Just wanted to throw that out there with your feel good post. No offense.
I'll respond to you! Hi Daemaro! How's the weather!? (This thread needs more happies and less sads. :P)
The main difference in believing religion and understanding science is that while religion will give you a book or a poem or pass stories from generation to generation, science gives you the information, the studies, the statistics, and tells you how it got where it got, allowing you to double and triple check it if you wish.
Science is not perfect, but it's the closest we have.
My friend is gay. She was in the military. She was kicked out, and she's not allowed to get married.
She is effected, wouldn't you agree? Or is she not worthy? I don't think she's allowing somebody else to effect her, they are doing so on their own.
You cannot distinguish which parts are factual and which parts are metaphorical. That's why it's a good argument. You can say this part is factual until science proves that it's not then turn around and say its metaphorical.
Religion has done it before, and they will do it again.
(No offense intended in pointing out this historically accurate assessment of religion.)
Well, Atheists don't believe in anything. Hence why we are atheists. Not theistic. Not believing.
As for logic vs creative minds, I disagree. I have seen plenty of very intelligent people who believed in a god of some sort. (Maybe not the Christian god, but a god none the less.) In fact, the Muslim world was, for a few centuries, the epicenter of science and learning.
As for creative people, I dunno, some people choose atheism because it "feels" right. (Sounds wierd, but it's true.)
And I respond with, "Whichever god you happen to believe in."
The immediate problem I see with this argument is that you can ask me to prove Harry Potter exists and as long as I have a book referencing him (His book series) I do not have to prove he exists in some fashion, as long as I have something referencing him, whether it be fictional or nonfictional.
Then again, I could completely misunderstand your entire post. And if that's the case, I apologize.
I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to reply anyway.
I am willing to debate any definition of god. Some definitions, like the definition that Albert Einstein used, could be considered true, but would not be considered "god" by most religious people. Other definitions, such as those used by people like Ted Haggard and Pope Benedict would be considered false by people like Albert Einstein. Different versions of the word "god" exist, and must be handled differently, but I, personally, am willing to speak on any of them, if you are willing to as well.
One more thing, to nobody in particular, this thread goes way too fast.
It has been three days and it's already got 22 pages. Lol. I still haven't read the first 17 pages. x.x Lol.
I am not a good christian as I do not have the patience to save people from eternal damnation which is a task commanded to all that believe by God himself. I will have failed as a chiristian and may one day join all those that turn from God in the eternal burning blazes of hell.
It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.
It boils down to the fact that if god uses/used science to govern/create the universe, you simply cannot prove that he exists without discovering indisputable metaphysical evidence. However, on the other side of the coin... being that science could very well have been created by god, athiests CANNOT disprove his/its existence either.
I'm not here to win the argument grand title belt. Which is an issue because this thread is structured for you to welcome in someone who believes something and then you proceed to tell them that nothing they believe makes any sense and they should listen to you instead. I've been involved in far too many of the SAME EXACT THREADS to want to argue about it anymore. At this point I'm just looking for decent conversation and different perspective. Not the same "I HAVE FAITH" "I HAVE EVIDENCE" thread.
In response to this I expect you to welcome me back in the conversation and tell me that I've got it all wrong and you're here to have a discussion the same way I am, Nekro to tell me I'm trolling, and Linkx to agree and say thats just how those idiots are. And then maybe Dae Dae will chime in to try and continue discussion and get it back on track before it gets closed 2 to 5 pages later.
EVERYONE read what Sabvre just wrote. We're right back to the very beginning of this discussion. Is this really what you want? If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same results. I am now going to use my better judgement to finally take myself out of this discussion because I already know the end to this story, and it's no fun when you know what's going to happen.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I never tackled that question because I never had to assume there was anything to call god. But, I know the prevaling opinions about the word, so I titled the thread as such to attract people who did have such opinions. You should be asking them, not me. Unless you have missed the full 20+ pages of my posting, you'll realize I haven't got a belief at all, much less a belief of the name "god,"
@ proletaria: Do you believe that the findings of science are true? I just want a yes or no answer and then you may follow it up with any other information that you feel is useful. Thank you for your time.
Then you really don't need god, do you?
That eradicates the premise of the entire book. Now i'm really struggling to understand why you believe anything about this.
I take the same approach to lierature. I read it and I see what meshes with my human values. Again, I don't see the value of the bible in particular here. If you read Shakespear you could find many allegories of living an ethical life vs. an unethical life.
Well, literal intrepretation conflicts heavily with science. I don't really understand where the cooperation is between those views. You either hold to the evident scientific understanding we have, or you believe that the bible is literal and that science is essentially, the devil, trying to fool you. If there is a middle-ground, i've never heard it in terms that still admitted enough religious leaning to term "christian," rather than just "deist."
Glad to see you haven't bothered to read anything I posted for you last night. As I said, neither I, nor anyone else believe in science. Science provides evidence for it's explanations of the universe. Beliefs require no evidence.
What is the biblical "tool," and how do you justify it being able to do anything? One tool, science, evidently works to explain a lot in our universe. The other tool, belief, is without evidence, and makes even more far-reaching claims about the nature of the universe and how we should live in it. What makes that life style so good you're willing to render your scientific mind null and void to use the other tool?
So science itself just stands alone outside of your understanding of things and it does nto interact or affect you in any way? What do you think of science? Is it correct? Is it wrong? Is it something that was created to answer questions that noone had an answer to?
Do you see the findings of science to be true? That is a simple question that you seem to refuse to answer.
Stop being a troll. This is abject dishonesty Umpa. I have informed everyone of the status of their evidence and I have allowed anyone saying they have a belief to explain that (without a need for evidence, since the two are independant of one another). At no point did I argue with anyone who wasn't mincing their words, or purposefully using a bad definition of one of my words. You've done both on more than one occasion.
Why are you callin them idiots? What did they do to deserve that? Are you so hostile to diffirent points of view that you cannot even manage to stay civil?
Incorrect. We don't ask anyone to believe anything. No preaching necessary. All we ask is that you use the same rational judgement every day of the week instead of just six days a week. I think a liberal minded religious person could manage this aswell, so we don't even need you to deconvert. How convinient, eh?
You guys say we should convert or be condemned, killed, or will at least rot in hell when we die. All we ask is that you use your brain for more than a head-warmer, no need to change a thing else. Who is making more reasonable requests?
It boils down to the fact ther we can't establish that there is a creator of the universe. You're assuming god does exists and that we have to disprove you. That's incorrect. We're saying that we DON'T KNOW either way and can't assume. You are saying you KNOW without evdience, making an assumption. By definition: you're wrong until you prove otherwise with evidence.
Science is a broad method of gaining knowledge through evidence, oberservation, testing, and prediction accuracy. It has worked, without fail, replacing it's previous theories, building up new ones, and covering more and more knowledge of our universe every single day since the rennessance period. The fact science works is, literally, a fact. We have watched it work for centuries. We can observe it working still.
Nothing is given absolute truth by science, but the findings of science have a level of certainty, based on how much evidence, observation, testing, and prediction we can do that is FAR in excess of a belief (which has no evidence, which means it is almost 100% uncertain until founded in some kind of evidence).
you cannot have an intelligent, fact based debate on the existence of god, because there is no concrete physical evidence. You believe simply because you do. Either because you were brought into the system at a young age and it's all you've known, or you chose to start believing because of some event later in your journey in life.
All this thread was going to accomplish was a lot of pissed off people, I called it like 10 pages ago.
Everything Ump said is true.
You cannot prove with observable empirical/objective based evidence that god exist, therefor you cannot prove that god exists, people choose to believe in god, and they have faith.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
Sadly you can not speak for all atheists as I can not speak for all Christians, so there are idiots on both sides and aggressive speech will come from both sides. Perhaps you are the true atheist as you may or may not
believethink of yourself. You are a truly objective person that only trusts cold hard statistical fact and emotions are not required for this issue.Also I do not condemn anyone to hell as I have no power over anyone. I am just stating my beliefs and am jsut as curious as to what you put your trust in.
Can they at least be honest about why they have their faith then?
I speak for any atheist who is not making an assumption where she/he cannot. As far as I know, that described every atheist at the last convention I went to, all of my atheist colleagues at the university here, and most of my family and friends who are atheist. Not everything in the athiest word is cold hard fact, as you're inferring, though. making atheism look like a colorless grey stone against the rainbow is nothing new, but it's certainly not true. As I mentioned before, there are more and varied opnions under the umbrella of atheism than any world religion preceisely because we do not require any belief of any kind. We have everyone from NRA-libertarians to PETA-liberals and everything in between.
Also concrete proof of God's existance would defeat the purpose of choosing God. If you do not trust of believe in God then that is the choice you made. Free will is a gift and a curse.
Because my God is an awesome God and he reigns in heaven watching over our souls and wishing nothign but the best for us. He also wishes you one day come home and be by his side. He loves each and every one of us unconditionally, which is something we are incapable and undeserving of. If not for his mercy we would have been lost long ago.
That is counter-productive to them following their religious belief, so no, not really.
Some religions go to extremes, look at shamanism. Native American cultures that go on vision quests. Where they starve themselves, or deprive themselves of sensory data, or take Peyote to talk to spirits, which is essentially a hallucination in a waking dream.
Can you talk them out of believing and having faith in the spirits when, in their eyes they have already had a wicked session with the spirits? Even though you explain to them about hallucinations and how dreams work? Nope. Their entire culture and way of life is based around the belief in spirits and nature.
Can you prove their spirits dont exist? Yes. Does someone who truly has faith care? Nope.
When you truly have faith in your religion, Evidence/Logic < Faith.
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
You believe in it because without it you wouldn't feel watched over or have a soul and these things are very important to you? It sounds to me like you're quite afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god. Would that be fair to say? (Not being provocative, i'd just like to know)
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged