Do you believe in God?

[W3H5]

Sir the unicorn community is angered by your mixing up of a Pegasus with the Unicorn.

Sorry, I meant a pony with a horn!

 

[niky]

Sorry, I meant a pony with a horn!

That's debatable. Horses aren't cloven-hooved... Unicorns are. There are other differences, too, though they escape me at the moment...

 

[Moot]

They have to be white too, unicorns are not allowed to be black or brown.
So if I found a light tan horned and winged horse, which I would dub the Pegicorn, people would just shrug and say big deal. It's not a fabled creature.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I would say that the discussion here has become spirited, and that's nice and all. Then I remembered, you guys don't have spirits to begin with so I'll just say it has become lively and funny

Signed: A spirited believer in the existence of God

 

[Dan_]

So we should do Unicorns in court, next?

Unicorns can teleport, they would never be caught to be put under court.

@Hun : Clever.
In fact, the concept of spirit spawns dozens of religions, many local beliefs like spiritsm and umbanda (at least, our local representations of such beliefs) are based on entities and spirits and their mission on earth. Point is, ruling out christhianism and the holy spirit doesn't mean people don't believe in a spirit, they just don't agree with the catholic point of view on the subject.

 

[TT3AZ]

Well, would you exist, if it werent from god? I like to se you make galaxys and planets by your own. But you cant, because you dont have that power. Easy....

 

[Dan_]

Ok, and where is the undeniable evidence that proves God as the creator of all galaxies? Such evidence doesn't exist, as there isn't enough scientific basis to rule out God as creator of the universe.

Even if the bible was a trustworthy source(and I don't think it is), it's way too interpretative to lead to a rational conclusion.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well, would you exist, if it werent from god? I like to se you make galaxys and planets by your own. But you cant, because you dont have that power. Easy....

And what is that statement supposed to prove?

We can't create galaxies and planets, therfore there must be a god? Did you really think that argument through?

 

[Moot]

Well, would you exist, if it werent from god? I like to se you make galaxys and planets by your own. But you cant, because you dont have that power. Easy....

Not at present, it might be very easy to create a whole universe using Microsoft Windows 1080 in the future.
And don't think only a Windows version would crash and freeze all the time, I expect our model does too, it's just we keep existing in the version that doesn't crash, every nano second it switches to the one that is running perfectly. Perhaps.

 

[Tic Tach]

We can't create galaxies and planets, therfore there must be a god? Did you really think that argument through?

I think that reminds me of these words from others:



Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. (Richard Dawkins)


Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. (Bertrand Russell)


Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about; and those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned so much lunacy and destruction. (Bill Maher)

 

[barryl85]

My metaphor using court of law was a mere pointing of elbows that everything in this day and age requires proof or you are deemed a liar or crazy or guilty.

I mean the word gullable really springs to mind - from easy examples like the guy who claimed he had played forza 4 as he worked for microsoft - yeah it took two posts for someone to say - "picture proof or it didnt happen".

Now if you were gullable enough to believe him them that would have been fine but the right thing to do was ask for proof, its become a way of modern life to not be naive to ask the right questions- i mean we could all be walking around telling false tales otherwise.

I used court of law as the best chosen example because that is a place of innocence or guilt, evidence is the deciding factor in what is right or wrong proven or unproven and i cant see that ever changing.

So if we use such a stringent system for everyday problems / occurences / judgement then why is it that we require no evidence what so ever to rule out gods existence.

Many people who believe in things like ghosts / ufo's / spirits (non alcoholic of course) / monsters etc........ are deemed crazy by many - but not those who believe in god.

 

[W3H5]

I think
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. (Richard Dawkins)

Dawkins has a lot to say about what he considers 'God', really what he does in most of his work is criticise organised religion and what man uses 'God' for. He really doesn't go so far as to disprove existence, although he tries, his gripe seems more with religion.

 

[dylansan]

Wait, if God didn't create the universe, we had to? What?

I'm of the opinion that existence just always has been and always will be. It didn't have to be created by anyone. Not to mention if there had to be a God to create the universe, there had to be something to create God. He created himself, you say? Or he just always existed? Well why couldn't the universe have done the same thing, without God?

 

[Tic Tach]

He really doesn't go so far as to disprove existence

When there is no evidence for something, is one required to "disprove" it? No. One does not have to prove a negative. One should assume a negative.

As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence." And one's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Dawkins has a lot to say about what he considers 'God', really what he does in most of his work is criticise organised religion and what man uses 'God' for. He really doesn't go so far as to disprove existence, although he tries, his gripe seems more with religion.

I don't think I've heard Dawkins try to disprove God as such. The impression I've got (granted I haven't seen that much of him) is that he's got a problem with the more extreme parts of religion, fundamentalism, and the disregard of science and facts due to faith. Which is something I support him in.

Wait, if God didn't create the universe, we had to? What?

I'm of the opinion that existence just always has been and always will be. It didn't have to be created by anyone. Not to mention if there had to be a God to create the universe, there had to be something to create God. He created himself, you say? Or he just always existed? Well why couldn't the universe have done the same thing, without God?

^This.

One thing that irks me is how an eternal universe seems completely preposterous, redicolous and utterly unfathomable even as a concept to religous people but the idea that god is eternal is as obvious and natural as the sky is blue. Often not even aknowlegding the fact that it's the exact same argument, although differrent sides.

Major generalization I know, and I by no means claim that all religous are like this, but many, many are.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I'm of the opinion that existence just always has been and always will be

Prove it.

 

[Villain]

How can one have a debate about something who's idea doesn't exist. Next up on the debate list.....'Nothing'. See my point?

Yes, we all agree there is such a thing as a concept of a divine power. Debating the existence of unicorns won't make it so that there are suddenly herds of them running around in the wild.

Can we move back to the discussion now?

 

[Sam48]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...om-911-museum/2011/08/01/gIQAgvATnI_blog.html

So would a libertarian atheist, as most of you are, be okay with the cross shaped beam in a government funded museum?

Specifically this one:

 

[Tic Tach]

It's amazing how a primitive tool of torture can be viewed as something good. This shows how most people just don't think, and simply jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling along their particular point in time. Christianity still practices virtual cannibalism by eating their god's body and drinking his blood during their rituals. They also venerate his execution by placing its depiction in a prominent position in their sanctuaries. Worshipers even go so far as to wear a miniature of the murder weapon as a necklace. Then, they have the temerity to complain about the violence depicted on television.

 

[dylansan]

At first didn't they want to keep it displayed at ground zero? I would certainly have a problem with that. If it's intended as a monument or memorial to the victims, it must be surrounded by the religious symbols of ALL the people that died, not just the christians. But if you think about it it would make more sense to put up flags of the country of origin of each person, not religious symbols.

As far as a museum piece, I don't have as much of a problem with that. It can be considered historic because the firemen found it in the wreckage and put it up while they were searching for people (If I have my facts straight). My problem is with the firemen who thought seeing a cross shaped piece of wreckage was meaningful in some way, as if there was a chance there wouldn't be one in a building constructed in that way. What did they think they would find, a star of David? The fact that they displayed that at all is disrespectful to me simply because they made no attempt to put up any other kind of symbols or anything. Not to say the firemen were bad; they were of course great people who deserve much praise for what they did, but when it comes to the cross I think they made the wrong decision.

If they put it in the museum it better only be historic facts, nothing about how "the divine hand of God allowed them to find people" or anything.

 

[W3H5]

It's amazing how a primitive tool of torture can be viewed as something good. This shows how most people just don't think, and simply jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling along their particular point in time. Christianity still practices virtual cannibalism by eating their god's body and drinking his blood during their rituals. They also venerate his execution by placing its depiction in a prominent position in their sanctuaries. Worshipers even go so far as to wear a miniature of the murder weapon as a necklace. Then, they have the temerity to complain about the violence depicted on television.

Don't really know what to make of that statement.

That 'bandwagon' seems to be one of the largest beliefs of modern time, calling it such just shows ignorance. These matters must be discussed tactfully.

The ritual of Communion is not a practice of any kind of cannibalism, just some thing that adapted from what was written in the Bible about Christ's display of affection for Man.*

You claim "Most people just don't think". How about if you, yourself, was brought up in a place where black is white and white is black. Would you say that I don't think for calling black black? It's one thing to question one's belief with constructive posts, but to accuse followers of a belief of being charged with something that doesn't apply to the majority is stereotyping.

*I'm not religions as I've stated many times so my defence is not for the sake of Christ followers.

It's a shame that ignorant, arrogant, uneducated people provide a view that is offensive and simply non-constructive to the matter in hand.

 

[Sam48]

It's amazing how a primitive tool of torture can be viewed as something good. This shows how most people just don't think, and simply jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling along their particular point in time. Christianity still practices virtual cannibalism by eating their god's body and drinking his blood during their rituals. They also venerate his execution by placing its depiction in a prominent position in their sanctuaries. Worshipers even go so far as to wear a miniature of the murder weapon as a necklace. Then, they have the temerity to complain about the violence depicted on television.

Yes, that's completely relevant and very much helps contribute to the article I posted.

Honestly, I really don't care for your opinion on what you think a cross means to you. I asked about what you think regarding the fact that they are putting it on display as a piece in the 9/11 memorial.

If they put it in the museum it better only be historic facts, nothing about how "the divine hand of God allowed them to find people" or anything.

But if you're an atheist why do you even care what it states below the artifact?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Are we back to Christianism here? ok, let's play

It's amazing how a primitive tool of torture can be viewed as something good.

Is that a quote from Nero ? I'm amazed how, 21 centuries later, christian haters still don't even try to think while at the same time they accuse christians (or believers in God) of not thinking.

Well, Nero was mad, but also an emperor, so he didn't need to think much. I guess, Tic Tach, you need to try harder.

Anyway, a simple reply to your amazement, won't waste more than a few sinapsys on you here: As a symbol of self-sacrifice for love. It's not about the "tool torture", it is about who's body died in there. Self-evident, no?

This shows how most people just don't think, and simply jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling along their particular point in time.

You're 100% correct here. Guess why.

Christianity still practices virtual cannibalism by eating their god's body and drinking his blood during their rituals.

LOL again. Let me explain this to you, no need for Youtube links, no need for Amazon links, I'll do it myself:

- Jews used to have a special religious festivity where they used to eat what we ould call a "sacrificial lamb", honouring, and thanking, God for whatever they felt was due (not being a jew myself, and not particularly interested in jewish tradition, I assume I don't know much about it, apart from the concept of a "sacrificial lamb").

- Jesus Christ, himself a jew and addressing to jews, at the last supper, teached/explained his own followers a couple of things. One of those was that HE was the sacrificial lamb now, no need to keep offering animals to GOD. So, by taking part in a shared meal, held in HIS name, HIS sacrifice would remain present among christians. And by sharing and eating/drinking the sacred bread and wine (to be sacred by priests in his name, repeating what he said in THAT all-important meal), all his followers would remain "in touch" (spiritually, duh ... ) with him.

^^^^^^ Virtual cannibalism?

They also venerate his execution by placing its depiction in a prominent position in their sanctuaries. Worshipers even go so far as to wear a miniature of the murder weapon as a necklace. Then, they have the temerity to complain about the violence depicted on television.

I'm speechless here ... anyway, I guess all this jibberish has been answered and/or explained.

 

[W3H5]

Honestly, I really don't care for your opinion on what you think a cross means to you. I asked about what you think regarding the fact that they are putting it on display as a piece in the 9/11 memorial.

This....

But if you think about it it would make more sense to put up flags of the country of origin of each person, not religious symbols.

Fact of the matter is America is a predominantly Christian country where God is relevant to politics. 'In God we trust' is written on the bank notes and "God bless America" is a common statement by Presidents and officials. Why not 'God bless the world'? Do you think an Islamic presidential candidate would become elected?

In Britain it is usually irrelevant what religion the PM follows unless it's some kind of cult. One will never hear "God bless Britain" from an English PM, nor would a cross be erected by a government official at the site of a major tragedy where lives were lost.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I don't know America that much, but Portugal is a predominantly Catholic country and we don't care a bit about what religion (if any) our political leaders follow. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, whatever ... the political agenda does not mix with religion and that's how it should be (check Duke's avatar, I'm a christian but also 100% a believer in a full separation).

 

[arora]

Is that a quote from Nero ? I'm amazed how, 21 centuries later, Christian haters still don't even try to think while at the same time they accuse Christians (or believers in God) of not thinking.

for the most part Tic Tach simply posts other peoples material from atheist web sites like this one.(bullet 14 verbatim)

http://www.rebas.se/writings/atheistquotes.shtml

Not very thoughtful...... jumping on some ones wagon......?

Maybe we should have a 'religion' thread.

the political agenda does not mix with religion and that's how it should be

Separation of church and state is a large topic for conversation, I think the majority of the U.S. agree with the concept but there are always legal battles over it here. As for voting political leaders into office, the idea is representation by someone having moral values and character similar to yours. Of all our past presidents, Jefferson was a deist and these could be argued to having no faith or church affiliation; Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Harrison. The rest Christian afaik.

 

[Sam48]

As for voting political leaders into office, the idea is representation by someone having moral values and character similar to yours.

Or the same skin color for that matter, but I'm going off-topic now.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Separation of church and state is a large topic for conversation, I think the majority of the U.S. agree with the concept but there are always legal battles over it here. As for voting political leaders into office, the idea is representation by someone having moral values and character similar to yours. Of all our past presidents, Jefferson was a deist and these could be argued to having no faith or church affiliation; Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Harrison. The rest Christian afaik.

Not completely off-topic, I'd say that in my country the belief in God by our Presidents is a non-issue. For you to have an idea, here is the list since 1976 (presidents)

- 1976 --- 1986 - Catholic
- 1986 - 1996 - Atheist
- 1996 - 2006 - Atheist
- 2006 - .... (still in office) - Catholic

Of course the belief in God and religion, etc. are issues that the society debates. BUT .... I never witnessed, even when die-hard marxists are involved, the kind of aggressiveness from the atheist side versus the "theist" side that I see, far too often, being displayed in this thread.

Maybe it's because this is the internetz and we all know about how fierce discussions tend to become in this environment. Sociologicaly it is quite interesting, and I sure have fun here, especially when theists like me are called retarded or dim-witted or "bandwagoners"


PS - Btw, many years ago, immediately after finishing law school I worked in the portuguese Parliament, doing work for a christian-democratic (conservative) party. The Parliamentary leader (MP) I worked for was born in former portuguese India and therefore not only he was an Indian, but he also was a Hindu (not a very religious one, but he said he was ). My first boss, I ate a lot of curry thanks to him.

PPS - Portuguese GTPers know who I'm talking about

 

[Omnis]

It's amazing how a primitive tool of torture can be viewed as something good. This shows how most people just don't think, and simply jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling along their particular point in time. Christianity still practices virtual cannibalism by eating their god's body and drinking his blood during their rituals. They also venerate his execution by placing its depiction in a prominent position in their sanctuaries. Worshipers even go so far as to wear a miniature of the murder weapon as a necklace. Then, they have the temerity to complain about the violence depicted on television.

You really are completely oblivious.

 

[Tic Tach]

Oblivious to what?