Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,489 comments
- 1,155,076 views
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,822
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The amount of people who do or do not believe in something has no bearing at all in its existence, volume numbers do not cause something to suddenly spontaneously exist.
You would like more examples (not that the ones I gave have anything wrong with them - the exact same degree of proof exists for them and they are believed in by a significant number of people), fine pick any deity you wish the all have significant numbers of followers and those volume of followers no more proves they exist than the number of Christians/Jews/Muslims prove God exists.
I have a clue how this works 100% and now I'm popping my moderation hat on.
This is not my standard, its never been my standard and if you state it is again you will be issued a temporary ban from GT Planet.
Now on-topic all you have done again is illustrate just how unfamiliar you are with scientific methodology.
As has been said if it exists then its to do with science.
You not liking that or disagreeing with it doesn't change that I'm afraid.
I get out more than often enough and the personal digs stop now as your conduct is crossing the line into that which will see action taken very soon. No one else is making this a personal issue bar you. Its an approach that will not work well, that I can assure you.
As has been explained science is not responsible for how the natural effects it documents are put into practice.
The benefit ratio I'm more than happy with, particularly as I can't recall the last time the bible came up with an invention that furthered mankind?
Not an assumption on my part at all, rather an accurate statement based upon the evidence available.
You are the one making the assumption they are God's words, a claim you have made many times but been unable to support. Nor have you explained why if it is the words of God that men have been allowed to edit it and remove parts of it completely (still waiting on the reason why the Book of Barnabas was removed).
What doesn't science have to do with my marriage?
As has been explained science covers all that exists and looks to gather knowledge on everything that exists, as such that would certainly include my wife and me.
I think you will find that was evolution. Want to discuss the age of the Earth as it relates to the bible and reality then go for it.
Actually ill-will towards science existed from theists long before the Theory of Evolution,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/famous-persecuted-scientists/
Odd that it always seems to be that way around as well.
Ohh at what point to start. Well first you need a history lesson if you are under the impression that the Jews started the Crusades, as that is about one of the daftest comments I've ever heard in regard to the history of the crusades.
I suggest starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
Its not perfect but it will at least get the you started on the basics.
Now onto the AUP. First please use your shift key, as basic grammar and the use of capital letters is a requirement of membership.
Next drop the antisemitic nonsense, as should you post any more of it your membership at GT Planet will be over.
Last edited:
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
Did that really just happen?
I'm sorry I had to point that out but really?. Anyway I will leave it there because I don't want to derail the thread.Now as you seem convinced that the amount of christians means your god is real. So what exactly about Allah? There are 1.2 billion muslims, so I guess their god is real too. But how would that work, if each one is said to be "the one true god"? Unless of course you are ignoring the amount of followers of other religions and only using the amount of your particular religion as validity of it, or maybe they don't count because your religion has more? Either way you're being very hypocritical.
- 17,865
- 509
SCJ, I'd like it if you could address the post I made quoting yours.
I actually made some points from a less scientific aspect on my issues with God.
As for you attacking science for the atom bomb, you realize a great deal of medical advances have come because of the atomic age? Or you are they type that thinks people shouldn't receive vaccines?
I actually made some points from a less scientific aspect on my issues with God.
As for you attacking science for the atom bomb, you realize a great deal of medical advances have come because of the atomic age? Or you are they type that thinks people shouldn't receive vaccines?
- 1,632
- UK
- YT__TJCGAMING
Okay ... however the beginning of time wasn't 5000 years ago . I hope that you truly don't believe that it is , as this is incredibly incorrect .
No matter what the bible states on the matter 👍
- 249
- Ireland
- firstmivec
Youre saying I assume Hes omniscient, but then youre assuming the Bible doesnt say that.
While none of these descriptive words are found in the Bible (omnipotent and omniscient) they are clearly supported by whats said in the Bible.E.g. Almighty God God of knowledge Perfect in knowledge
Omnipotent - (Matthew 19:26 Job 42:2 Luke 18:27 Luke 1:37 Psalm 147:5 Job 37:23 Revelation 1:8 Genesis 17:1)
God cannot be omnipotent without being omniscient, and selectively use that power (Last 2 posts examples examples) - but here are some scriptures
Omniscient- (Isaiah 46:10 Job 37:16 Job 36:4 Psalm 147:5 1Samuel 2:3 1John 3:19-20 Matthew 10:30 Romans 11:33)
_____________________________________________________________
Whether the Bible is Gods word or mans is another big talking point. For now though Im going to keep it brief.
Related scriptures: (2Peter 1:21 1Thessalonians 2:13 2Timothy 3:16 Jeremiah 1:9 2Peter 1:20-21 1Corinthians 14:37)
(Daniel 12:8-10) Here Daniel didnt understand what he was told to write down. Not until the time of the end will they be known.
Scriptures related to our day: (Matt. 24:7 Matt 24:12,13 Luke 21:25 Matt. 24:12 2Tim 3:1-4 Matt. 24:37-39)
Some of the answers/scriptures below are also related to this subject.
________________________________________________________________
Sometimes theres more than 1 writer (as in this case) writing about the same event, one of them might include details that another has left out. For example the apostle John is mainly writing about Mary and what she did on the day when visiting Jesus tomb. John doesnt say that Mary was the only person at the tomb - he actually acknowledged that there were others with her.
If you read the gospel accounts youll notice the apostles recorded Jesus teachings in the same manner. Even though one writer might write more information than another on certain events, all the accounts are accurate. Reading all the different accounts related to the event might give someone a better understanding. And unlike many myths from thousands of years ago - the Bible links these events with specific people and dates.
The 2 links below go into more detail about the resurrection event.
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/editors-choice/EC1W0305A.pdf
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/editors-choice/EC1W0305B.pdf
If a non-believer of the Bible wants to find what they consider contradictions in the Bible theyll find them. The Bible was written a certain way for a reason. However if it was written in such an obvious way where it spelled everything out and nothing could be questioned, it would leave little doubt in peoples minds and it wouldnt truly reveal what people believe in their heart.
(Hebrews 4:12) For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
(Proverbs 21:2) All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7) "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1 Corinthians 4:5)
This works in conjunction with Gods purpose to have servants who appreciate him and seek His wisdom.
(1John 4:8 -10)5:2, 3) (Deuteronomy 30:11-20)
________________________________________________________________
I could explain them, but Id say the majority posting these Bible contradictions are not primarily (If at all) interested in genuinely finding an answer, so Im not interested in answering.
(Matthew 11:25) Jesus said, I thank you my Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and you have revealed them to infants.
Here Jesus is basically saying we must have the right attitude. Gods wisdom is revealed in the Bible - but without humbleness and a willingness to learn it, one cannot truly acquire accurate knowledge.
Related: (Jeremiah 5:21) (1 Corinthians 1:19) (Isaiah 29:14) (Jeremiah 8:9) (1 Corinthians 3:19) (1 Corinthians 2:13)
(2 Timothy 4:3, 4) For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths.
(Psalm 81:12) So I let them follow their own stubborn desires, living according to their own ideas
Related: (Matthew 13:15 Isaiah 44:18 Acts 28:26 Matthew 13:13)
The reason I first responded to you, is you actually seemed interested in what the Bible had to say about certain matters.
______________________________________________________________
Itd be a big book...
(Proverbs 18:15) The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.(Proverbs 10:14)
(Proverbs 15:14) The mind of a person who has understanding searches for knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on stupidity.
Heres just a brief list of some of the things the Bible mentions that you can see today.
Seasons mentioned in the Bible.
Mountains
(Psalm 104:6, 8) You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains The mountains rose and the valleys sank to the place you appointed for them.
(Psalm 65:6) Which by his strength sets fast the mountains; being girded with power (Amos 4:13 Psalm 148:9)
Stars, Sun, Moon
(Isaiah 40:26) Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out like an army, one after another, calling each by its name. Because of his great power and incomparable strength, not a single one is missing.
(Genesis 1:14-19) And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
(Psalm 8:3) When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, (Psalm 104:19 Psalm 147:4)
(Psalm 19:1) The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.
(Job 26:7) He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.
(1 Corinthians 15:41)The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.
(Jeremiah 33:22) As the stars of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea be measured
Compare: (Job 38:31 Job 9:9 Amos 5:8 Isa 13:10)
The water cycle.
(Ecclesiastes 1:7) All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
(Isaiah 55:10) Rain and snow come down from the sky. They do not return again until they water the earth. (The Suns heat causes moisture to evaporate and return again)
(Job 36:27) "For He draws up the drops of water, They distill rain from the mist, (Job 37:16)
(Job 26:8) "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Shape of the Earth
(Isaiah 40:22) There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.
Other Bible translations say the round earth & the globe of the earth Its like looking at the moon from Earth, we see it as a circle from every angle.
(Ecclesiastes 1:6) The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.
Reproducing
(Genesis 3:15; 22:18) Male and female have the "seed of life" and all creatures produce according to their kind. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25)
Gods Laws on hygiene/preventing disease - 3500 years ago
(Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.
(Deuteronomy 21:22) never leave his dead body hung on a pole overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone whose body is hung on a pole is cursed by God. The land that the LORD your God is giving you must never become unclean. (Numbers 19:11-16)
(Leviticus 13:1-5) Anyone that had or was suspected of having a transmissible disease was isolated (Lev 13:46 Num 19:1-13)
(Lev 11:27,28)32:33) If your garments or vessel came in contact with an animal that had died of itself, they were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed.
(Exodus 22:31) Therefore, do not eat any animal that has been torn up and killed by wild animals. Throw it to the dogs.
(Genesis 9:4) But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
(Leviticus 17:13) ...he must drain its blood and cover it with earth.
(Leviticus 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood
These laws were part of the Mosaic Law which was given to Moses & the Israelites by God.(Deuteronomy 34:9Exodus 20:19)24:3)
Moses was raised by Pharaohs daughter (Exodus 2:1-10)
Moses spoke of Israelites in his day living to 70 or 80 years. (Psalm 90:10)
In contrast to these laws, the medical practices found in the various Egyptian medical papyri of Mosses day, were largely ineffective or dangerous and many were based on magical formulas and spells. Some of their cures were totally opposite to the Mosaic Law e.g. using human and animal waste as medicine.
Mental health
(Proverbs 14:30) A peaceful heart leads to a healthy body; jealousy is like cancer in the bones.
(Proverbs 17:22) A joyful heart is good medicine, but depression drains one's strength
(Proverbs 16:24) Kind words are like honey - sweet to the soul and healthy for the body.
We could go on... and on... about more different issues, but I just wanted to show you what Bible has to say on some important questions we might have.
Ill leave it at that.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,822
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
While some of the Egyptian medical practices were based on magic, etc. Its very misleading to state that Egyptian medical practice was largely ineffective or dangerous.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_medicine
...as its generally considered advanced for its time.
Its not difficult to find sections of the bible that are examples of a structured way of life, but as to some its the word of God this cherry picking can't be right. If it is indeed the word of God then the whole thing must be valid. Which would include slavery, forced marriage, animal sacrifice and cursing fig trees.
- 1,632
- UK
- YT__TJCGAMING
Responses in bold .
- 7,639
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
These fall into two categories. Things everyone knew, or too vague to mean anything. Humans had been around for a few thousand years prior to the Bible. During that time, they gained knowledge, which accounts for medicine, weather, etc.
However, they were unable to truly come to correct conclusions without the scientific method. Hence, the parts on space containing a lot of incorrect info and the round Earth phrase showing no indication that they knew the Earth was a sphere.
Let's not forgot they also thought that some food was inherently bad, that gates in the sky held back the rain, and there was a world under the Earth (seems unlikely they thought it was a sphere).
- 1,632
- UK
- YT__TJCGAMING
All of this ^^
Plus a little non-fictional history of us . Take note fellow GTP'er
, you'll like this 👍
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
'' As early as 12,000 years ago, humans began to practice sedentary agriculture, domesticating plants and animals which allowed for the growth of civilization. Humans subsequently established various forms of government, religion, and culture around the world, unifying people within a region and leading to the development of states and empires. ''
'' ( Humans ) originated in Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioural modernity around 50,000 years ago . ''
The first human ancestor to use stone tools 👍
And he never needed a God or a bible to show him how , clever huh ?!
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
Well, seeing as we are back on the topic of contradictions in the bible, I suppose I should post this again:
If you say these aren't contradictions, well, I just don't even know.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
What a disgusting attitude to have. The fact that you hold this hatred, without an iota of reason or self-awareness, is an insult to the religion you believe in.
I don't like the actions of the state of Israel due to their treatment of the people of Palestine. There are many Jews who feel the same way too, from Alexei Saile to Gerard Kaufmann, to Antony Lowenstein and Noam Chomsky and on and on...
The way that you dislike "the jews" due to the actions of the US and Israel is symptomatic of your own ignorance on the subject. The reverse of what you believe is that others, with just as much logic as you have shown, can "hate the christians" due to the actions of Anders Breivik and George W. Bush.
Schwartz
Premium
- 4,315
- Bellingham, WA
- Schwartz38
Let me just start by saying this. I am not one to be offended easily. I normally don't care what people think.
But when people say things like this, that is what gets me aggravated, especially since I am Jewish by ethnicity. You tell me why in hell you cannot accept or respect Jews. They are just a people, just like Muslims, just like Christians.
How can one call himself a Christian yet have blatantly racist viewpoints?
gerardnl0
You're ridiculous.
No, the US is leading the US into a war.
Last edited:
- 29,458
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Correct.
As has already been pointed out, you've got the age of the universe wrong. Massively.
While it may not matter what you believe the age of the universe to be, it does matter if you make wildly inaccurate statements as if they are facts.
At the very least, you ought to realise that what you believe and what is actually true might be two different things. If you really believe the universe is a mere few thousand years old, then you have an excellent example right there. If you believe this because that's what you've been told, then that is unfortunate - but it's not something that cannot be rectified. But, if you continue to believe this despite a full consideration of the evidence, then you've got a serious problem. Being in error because you've been misled is unfortunate, but being in error through wilful ignorance is not worthy of sympathy or respect. Of course, I trust (and hope) that you are of the former variety, and as such I hope that you are atleast willing to consider the possibility that you are in error on this matter.
- 432
- VIC
- torm1
Obvious is obvious until others notice that it passes without question and start to believe it's a normal and valid position. I'm not arguing against your notion that it's "born of stupidity". I agree with you--except that "ignorance" is the word I would have used. We should NOT ignore such venomous hatred though. It should be highlighted and ridiculed, to all and sundry, as the ignorant nonsense it is.
Last edited:
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
No, this is what I said: "No where does it say that God chose not to know, not in the verses quoted by you at least.".
OK, than that's clear now. But I would have preferred a non-omnipotent/non-omniscient god, because now he is evil the way I see it, for allowing all the bad things to happen to the world (earth quakes, famine, etc. I'm not talking about man-made disasters like war and global warming). However, a non-omnipotent/non-omniscient god would not be much of a god, would he now?
It's OK to me when more than one writer addresses the same subject and focus on various details, but not when the details conflict. Like the number of angels present in the tomb and whether they ware sitting on either end of the stone slab or standing.
That's just bullocks, sorry.
The answer to what? I'm looking for truth and when I see contradictions in a story, then I doubt that that source contains the the Truth. In case of the Bible, I have serious doubts that the authors were inspired by a god and these contradictions only strengthen that doubt. So please, don't put your head in the sand and at least give it a thought.
I am interested, very interested, because I like to learn how people lived and thought in those days and how religion influences our minds.
Sometimes size does not matter I would think. How can there be room for addressing one subject in more than one verse (like the resurrection story), but not for a mention of Australia and the America's? Do you truly think that people would not be able to comprehend the notion that there is land yet to be discovered?
One note on 'the stars': Yes the Bible mentions them, but fails miserably to point out that many of those stars are not stars at all, but entire galaxies.
Last edited:
- 29,458
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It gets worse...
... this geocentric view of space is hopelessly out of step with reality as we now understand it. 2000 years ago it wasn't, and it was perhaps a fair assumption to make that the Sun, moon and stars were 'placed' around the Earth for our benefit. But, the very concept of what daytime and nighttime actually are (i.e. the result of the Earth's rotation) and the fact that these words have no meaning elsewhere (e.g. in space) is something that was clearly not anticipated by the authors of the Bible. They cannot be blamed for that - and the Bible is not a science textbook, after all - but it does mean that the Bible contains woefully inadequate descriptions of some pretty basic stuff, and as such, it cannot be used as if it is an accurate descriptor of the Cosmos.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Sorry for lack of words, been away for a few days.
Righty, where to start...
The above. dylansan's question is very valid from my perspective. I don't dismiss the idea of God just for the heck of it, I dismiss it because I've already given it consideration.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I've been baptised. I was educated at both primary and secondary level in Catholic schools. I've read chunks of the bible, OT and NT, though never all the way through. I've done innumerable lessons about aspects of the bible, aspects of Christianity, other religions, God, Jesus, disciples, religious issues, everything else. I've seen and acted in more nativity and easter plays than I care to remember and sang more hymns over the years than I can count. I've had plenty of exposure to the religion and to concepts of God.
And yet, it's never grabbed me. Even as an impressionable child, when concepts like religion - and, I make this comparison in a kind way, rather than for any other effect, but Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and anything else - are most likely to influence and indeed, be believed.
Does this make me some sort of godless heathen to have been given the chance to believe, yet dismissed it at the innocent age of six or seven when even then it didn't all seem to add up? Perhaps some people just aren't wired to believe these stories. Perhaps, even for a kid given the options I was given, they just don't stand up to scrutiny.
I don't even see faith as a difficult concept, either.
For one, the bible is essentially written to make things simple to relate to. The parables, for example. Nice stories, they tell a message. Jesus was obviously a good raconteur. A bit like a bearded, sandle-wearing Professor Brian Cox, in his ability to break down complicated subjects like greed and relationships into bite-size stories for his disciples to digest.
And yet, there are still thousands of god-fearing sects who are quite happy to misinterpret (according to those who think they're interpreting it correctly, that is) things written in their holy text of choice. Take something staggeringly simple, and twist it to their own ends. We've seen it enough in this thread, in fact.
In fact, it's even simpler than that. It's simple enough that you can quite easily fake faith. Hilariously easily. I could pretend tomorrow that I was a born-again Christian and at least for those who didn't really know me, they'd be none the wiser. Did I pretend to be a good Christian at school to make certain subjects, or going to mass, easier? Sure as hell did. So simple even a kid who's less than a decade old can be pretty convincing.
Still, maybe there's something more in store for me? Maybe god has some bigger plan. Maybe all the good I do for my friends, or the money I give to charity, or holding doors open for old ladies, or treating people of faith, of different skin colours, sexualities and genders as an equal, or...
...not insulting people I'm having a discussion with, or my natural leanings towards environmental responsibility (on this planet God has supposedly given us)... maybe that's all an indication that I'm just another of God's do-gooding minions anyway, I simply skip out the church and praying parts.
So what is it? Am I a bad person? A bad Christian? Are some people simply not cut out for "faith", even if they're well-meaning in other ways?
What if I simply can't believe, even if I want to? Or do I have to remove my brain in order to make sense of something that makes not a jot of sense?
Wowzer.
Racism and poor grammar aside, I think you really need to re-read history if you think that religion hasn't been responsible for quite a healthy number of wars throughout the last several thousand years of history.
Ironically, your antisemitism played a rather prominent part in a relatively recent war, by human civilisation standards.
I'd mention Christian Identity if I didn't think you were already familiar with it, judging by your views. But it's only a short hop from that supposedly religious group to some fairly dangerous sects. Religion on its own may not kill but people killing in the name of God certainly isn't a new thing.
Please don't. I know you mean well but look at this logically. The people who agree with you don't need to see it over and over, and the people who disagree with you are never going to watch the video anyway. We don't need to see it a dozen times.
Righty, where to start...
The above. dylansan's question is very valid from my perspective. I don't dismiss the idea of God just for the heck of it, I dismiss it because I've already given it consideration.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I've been baptised. I was educated at both primary and secondary level in Catholic schools. I've read chunks of the bible, OT and NT, though never all the way through. I've done innumerable lessons about aspects of the bible, aspects of Christianity, other religions, God, Jesus, disciples, religious issues, everything else. I've seen and acted in more nativity and easter plays than I care to remember and sang more hymns over the years than I can count. I've had plenty of exposure to the religion and to concepts of God.
And yet, it's never grabbed me. Even as an impressionable child, when concepts like religion - and, I make this comparison in a kind way, rather than for any other effect, but Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and anything else - are most likely to influence and indeed, be believed.
Does this make me some sort of godless heathen to have been given the chance to believe, yet dismissed it at the innocent age of six or seven when even then it didn't all seem to add up? Perhaps some people just aren't wired to believe these stories. Perhaps, even for a kid given the options I was given, they just don't stand up to scrutiny.
I don't even see faith as a difficult concept, either.
For one, the bible is essentially written to make things simple to relate to. The parables, for example. Nice stories, they tell a message. Jesus was obviously a good raconteur. A bit like a bearded, sandle-wearing Professor Brian Cox, in his ability to break down complicated subjects like greed and relationships into bite-size stories for his disciples to digest.
And yet, there are still thousands of god-fearing sects who are quite happy to misinterpret (according to those who think they're interpreting it correctly, that is) things written in their holy text of choice. Take something staggeringly simple, and twist it to their own ends. We've seen it enough in this thread, in fact.
In fact, it's even simpler than that. It's simple enough that you can quite easily fake faith. Hilariously easily. I could pretend tomorrow that I was a born-again Christian and at least for those who didn't really know me, they'd be none the wiser. Did I pretend to be a good Christian at school to make certain subjects, or going to mass, easier? Sure as hell did. So simple even a kid who's less than a decade old can be pretty convincing.
Still, maybe there's something more in store for me? Maybe god has some bigger plan. Maybe all the good I do for my friends, or the money I give to charity, or holding doors open for old ladies, or treating people of faith, of different skin colours, sexualities and genders as an equal, or...
...not insulting people I'm having a discussion with, or my natural leanings towards environmental responsibility (on this planet God has supposedly given us)... maybe that's all an indication that I'm just another of God's do-gooding minions anyway, I simply skip out the church and praying parts.
So what is it? Am I a bad person? A bad Christian? Are some people simply not cut out for "faith", even if they're well-meaning in other ways?
What if I simply can't believe, even if I want to? Or do I have to remove my brain in order to make sense of something that makes not a jot of sense?
Wowzer.
Racism and poor grammar aside, I think you really need to re-read history if you think that religion hasn't been responsible for quite a healthy number of wars throughout the last several thousand years of history.
Ironically, your antisemitism played a rather prominent part in a relatively recent war, by human civilisation standards.
I'd mention Christian Identity if I didn't think you were already familiar with it, judging by your views. But it's only a short hop from that supposedly religious group to some fairly dangerous sects. Religion on its own may not kill but people killing in the name of God certainly isn't a new thing.
Please don't. I know you mean well but look at this logically. The people who agree with you don't need to see it over and over, and the people who disagree with you are never going to watch the video anyway. We don't need to see it a dozen times.
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Famine
Famine, I think that it would be beneficial if you gave a detailed overview of your view of epistemology.
You've said that science is all available knowledge, and all available knowledge is science. Could you please clarify what you mean by this?
An interesting topic of debate that has been going on for a while is consciousness. We can't observe and test consciousness like other concepts because in order to do so we would be using the exact thing we are studying to describe itself. So how can we trust that our cognitive faculties are reliable if we have no means of testing them to be so? It seems like we have no justified way to verify the very thing from which all our reasoning power comes from.
This leads me to conclude that we must first have faith to reason. As perplexing as it sounds, without belief we have no warrant for accepting anything we may otherwise provide proof for.
There are lots of properly basic beliefs that we naturally have, such as the belief in the reality of the past, the existence of other conscious minds, the reality of 'good' and 'evil' acts and finally the belief that our cognitive faculties can deliver us reliable accounts of truths (as I have discussed above).
Famine
So when is belief warranted. What is a 'proof'?
Can non-falsifiable things be given evidence for via a-priori reasoning? Or has all that countless hours spent thinking about the philosophy of metaphysics and ethics been futile?
- 7,639
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
You've tried this before. We don't have faith in our senses, we have observations of them working and not working over time which allows us to decide what to take as true and what to reject.
This doesn't mean that the entirety of the world that we take in through our senses is correct, but the only world that we should be concerned about is the one we can observe, for obvious reasons.
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
Read the post, thats not what I said.
High volume numbers would be consistent with real existence.
Just as no or miniscule numbers are more indicative of non-existence.
That's a fact of general comparison.
Actual validity, can exist in either case.
Perhaps you have failed to realize your unbelief in the existence of something has absolutely no bearing on it's existence as well.
Look, this pulling rank thing, is wearing thin, particularly when legitimate holes are established in your reasoning.
You have clearly indicated your stance is: 0 probability = 0 existence or impossible.
So when in the case of the atom, did it go from 0 probability to above 0.
Here is one of your quotes:
Typically, you have just contradicted yourself, again.
Your statement is based on your belief, and consequent restricted objectivity, that science is infallable and capable of establishing the existence of anything that exists.
Here is your quote, from the first statement of this post:
"believe in something has no bearing at all in its existence,"
I have established clearly and repeatedly, that in matters of spirituality, science is completely incapable of establishing existence.
Since the method prescribed for validation in spirituality, is personal faith.
As you have stated, that is not acceptable as part of scientific method.
Right back at you.
Very convenient.
It was called, Christianity.
Check the historical record, it was present with most of the advancement.
Albeit, admittedly, at odds, at times.
Which evidence, spiritual or physical?
The edited edition, present now, came by way of canonization, based on the following criteria:
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
The book of Barnabas, was judged to be lacking in one or more of the above standards for inclusion.
Like you said earlier, like or dislike it doesn't matter.
The book of Barnabas is still viewable if one wishes to do so.
Unbelievable.
Nevermind.
As said above, contenton between the clergy and science is a matter of historical record.
Evolution as said, to my knowledge, is the first open attempt to discredit prior, acceptable by most, Biblical doctrine.
- 87,907
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's funny when he says:
Little wonder he doesn't seem to understand what "evidence" is.
while quoting
as his evidence.Scaff
Little wonder he doesn't seem to understand what "evidence" is.
SuperCobraJet your about the most closed minded person ive ever seen 
no offence.
Also, do you honestly believe the world (and universe?) Is 5000 years old? How do you personally decide truth in this world? Solely the bible? You believed the person that told you how the internet or your car works right? Im not sure how this works, but it could be YOU that has faith in science and not actually the scientists lol.
I would be quite offended to be told to "get out more often" by such a person.
no offence.Also, do you honestly believe the world (and universe?) Is 5000 years old? How do you personally decide truth in this world? Solely the bible? You believed the person that told you how the internet or your car works right? Im not sure how this works, but it could be YOU that has faith in science and not actually the scientists lol.
I would be quite offended to be told to "get out more often" by such a person.
- 30,067
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
SCJ, do you think that science only means chemistry vials and men with ray-bans in lab coats?
The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge. The word science means knowledge and all knowledge falls under the jurisdiction of science. This does not necessarily mean that all knowledge is lab experiments and sodium hydroxide. There is more to science than chemistry and physics. A lot more.
The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, which literally means knowledge. The word science means knowledge and all knowledge falls under the jurisdiction of science. This does not necessarily mean that all knowledge is lab experiments and sodium hydroxide. There is more to science than chemistry and physics. A lot more.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
SuperCobraJet - any thoughts on my previous post? It's not about probability, so you can take a break from that particular line of discussion.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,822
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Here's something to think about while you take a few days off from GT Planet....
The probability of rolling a seven on a six sided die is 0, does that mean that seven doesn't exist?
Seven exists despite the probability of it being rolled on a six sided die is zero because probability is not a standard of evidence.
You're continued attempt to present this view as mine is over, you get a two day temp ban and should you continue to post in a misleading manner on your return it will be a permanent one.
Oh and for your return:
Which has what to do with proving God exists?
Not a damn thing.
Which is exactly why some proof to a scientific standard is required.
My statement is not based on belief at all, you seriously have to stop assigning view points to people simply to try and bolster your own position. If your argument can't stand on its own then is deserves to fall.
No you have not established this at all. All you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and repeat 'magic doesn't need proof' over and over again.
You opened this door by making a claim that you could supply proof of God (oddly every other Christian in the thread is quite happy to acknowledge its a belief and can't be proven), as such simply saying 'magic' is not going to be accepted.
No not right back at me. I've proved independently verifiable sources for everything I've stated. Your claimed your own opinion is verification enough and not supplied a single independent source (the Bible is not one - you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible).
You opened the door of proof, now either provide it or acknowledge that its faith not proof.
So Christianity can make a claim for the advancements it rejected (and often murdered) the authors of?
How exactly does that work?
Simply being around at the time doesn't count, otherwise ever religion has an equally valid claim.
Irrelevant if its in the universe then its the same, you have not been able to provide a single piece of evidence that the bible is the word of God other than people claiming it to be (and that's neither evidence or proof).
So God either got it wrong, parts of the Bible were fake (in which case how do we know that's not still the case) or man gets to overide God based on whatever geo-political motives are at work at the time.
Or (right out of left field this one) God didn't write it, men did.
You asked the question, don't get uppity when you don't like the answer.
No it wasn't. You quite clearly didn't bother to read the provided link.
Galileo managed that a good 350 years before Darwin published a thing and some are still odd enough to say he's wrong.
However neither of them set out to 'discredit' biblical doctrine, they simply published theories (based on evidence to a scientific standard), the Church took it as a direct attack. That religion is so closed as to not accept new evidence is not the fault of science.
It is however odd that the clergy get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible god did and didn't write based upon nothing but speculation, but show any hard evidence that contradicts it and you risk open attack and in the past death.
Last edited:
Similar threads
