Do you believe in God?

[Sach]

It wouldn't evolve into a rock, it would become dispersed sediment.

 

[HP]

Although you could even pick someone finding a dollar on the footpath and believing their god led them to find it.

People use this ol' chestnut on the reg & it's bloody annoying! I've heard people pray to & thank a 2000yo dead carpenter for the most mind boggling things, it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I once saw a fervent devil dodger praying for a win for his sports team!? Because if there was a god he'd be totally divinely intervening in sports... dammit, my sarcastic font won't work

 

[Sach]

If He intervenes in everything, then why not sports? The scripture says, "Ask and you shall receive." It's funny to see people criticizing athletes all the time for prayer during competitions, but it's completely expected. "Do everything with petition and prayer."

 

[CSLACR]

If He intervenes in everything, then why not sports? The scripture says, "Ask and you shall receive." It's funny to see people criticizing athletes all the time for prayer during competitions, but it's completely expected. "Do everything with petition and prayer."

But we all know that's hogwash, so why bring it up?

Or do you really need me to explain how it cannot possibly work that way?

 

[jtv90069]

God the biggest game fixer in history? How would he decide who wins between two teams that have equal faithful followers or is that when they tie?

 

[Sach]

But we all know that's hogwash, so why bring it up?

Or do you really need me to explain how it cannot possibly work that way?

I'd love to be enlightened by your superior logic. Shoot.

God the biggest game fixer in history? How would he decide who wins between two teams that have equal faithful followers or is that when they tie?

I said intervenes, not decides the outcome for an individual. The word "omnipresent' comes to mind.

 

[niky]

I'd like to know how there is higher then a zero probability of this.

To my limited knowledge in this subject, the particles that spontaneously generate are of a single type,(at a time) whereas an F1 car is made up of many different things.
So assuming I'm correct, that particles don't generate spontaneously into things made up of all kinds of different materials, it would not be possible for any particles group to spontaneously turn into an F1 car. (made of metals, rubber, etc)

It's probably a few orders more improbable than all the air in a Space Shuttle spontaneously decidiing to concentrate on one side of the cockpit, killing off whoever's on the other side. But theoretically, it's simple. Have all the virtual particles needed to create the car spontaneously occur at the same time, which would give you one F1 car and one anti-F1car occuring in the same place. Of course, the time scale between appearance and annihilation may not be long enough for the particles to combine into atoms... but...

Also, I did not say this (from your previous post). I believe it was TankAss?

I thought I was responding to (and quoting) him. Let me fix that.

 

[Sach]

No problem.



Now, I have very important matters to attend to... *cough* FIFA'12.

 

[CSLACR]

I'd love to be enlightened by your superior logic. Shoot.

Two people of equal faith and following ask for conflicting things. Both have asked, yet both cannot recieve, only one.
Superior logic, on a silver platter.

I guess it's similar to the God-theory-ending question, "If God is all powerful, can he build a rock so big that he cannot move it?"

 

[dylansan]

I can't believe people are arguing about things that can or can't happen in our physical universe, but apparently a being the exists completely outside of all laws of physics and violates all we know about causality is completely possible.

 

[CSLACR]

Isn't that how it works?

Same exact people might even ask you for "proof" of every single thing you say in another thread next to it.

And no, the Bible very clearly states God is in "the heavens". So if the Bible is true, we can surely find him. Of course the men making the Bible had no concept of flight, so of course they said he lived in the sky. We couldn't go there, it worked back then.

 

[Sach]

Two people of equal faith and following ask for conflicting things. Both have asked, yet both cannot recieve, only one.
Superior logic, on a silver platter.

I guess it's similar to the God-theory-ending question, "If God is all powerful, can he build a rock so big that he cannot move it?"

Why can only one receive? You haven't proven a single thing... what logic have you shown?


And secondly, that latter part makes absolutely no sense. If He's God, you aren't even asking that question.


I'm convinced you posted all this stuff tonight after a few drinks.

 

[Sach]

Isn't that how it works?

Same exact people might even ask you for "proof" of every single thing you say in another thread next to it.

And no, the Bible very clearly states God is in "the heavens". So if the Bible is true, we can surely find him. Of course the men making the Bible had no concept of flight, so of course they said he lived in the sky. We couldn't go there, it worked back then.

How many times do I have to say this? You are talking in ignorance. You have repeatedly proven that do not know what scripture says. Your thinking concerning biblical scripture is utterly uninformed.


Example: "The heavens"... "We can find him"... Why? Because he is in the heavens? What is your definition of "the heavens" then?


*sorry for dp again...

 

[homeforsummer]

In an uncaring Universe, man would have no 'purpose'. Purpose for man suggests the intentionality of a creator.

Wait... since when has man had a purpose? Given that people still search for the "meaning of life", we can't know man's purpose already, so who is to say there is one?

This being the case (i.e, we don't know man's purpose) it cannot suggest the intentionality of a creator.

@ TankAss - I've responded to your points in the creation/evolution thread, rather than here. It's vaguely more appropriate there than it is here.

 

[Sach]

Wait... since when has man had a purpose? Given that people still search for the "meaning of life", we can't know man's purpose already, so who is to say there is one?

This being the case (i.e, we don't know man's purpose) it cannot suggest the intentionality of a creator.

Niky stated he believes man has a purpose.

 

[niky]

And I've stated that is a personal belief, and that men who have purposes often find themselves at odds with each other because of differences in purpose.

 

[homeforsummer]

Niky stated he believes man has a purpose.

>

And I've stated that is a personal belief, and that men who have purposes often find themselves at odds with each other because of differences in purpose.

Niky is a great chap, but he's not God (at least, as far as we know...), and personal belief does not equal some great cosmic purpose for man.

So as above - with no clearly-defined purpose for man, we cannot use man's purpose to imply the existence of a creator.

 

[Sach]

Niky is a great chap, but he's not God (at least, as far as we know...), and personal belief does not equal some great cosmic purpose for man.

Do you really think that is what I assumed, based on what he said?

 

[homeforsummer]

You said:

In an uncaring Universe, man would have no 'purpose'. Purpose for man suggests the intentionality of a creator.

This suggests you believe that man has a purpose, yes?

I said:

Since when has man had a purpose? Given that people still search for the "meaning of life", we can't know man's purpose already, so who is to say there is one?

This being the case (i.e, we don't know man's purpose) it cannot suggest the intentionality of a creator.

Since I neither need to believe that man has a purpose, nor see any evidence to suggest he does.

We then had this exchange:

Niky stated he believes man has a purpose.

And I've stated that is a personal belief, and that men who have purposes often find themselves at odds with each other because of differences in purpose.

And I explained that Niky's personal belief still doesn't imply that man has an ultimate purpose on this Earth. It's simply a belief.

My point still stands: There's no clearly-defined purpose for man, "man's purpose" cannot be used as evidence to imply a creator. Your quoting of Niky suggests that you think man has a purpose.

I thought it was all fairly simple. If I'm mistaken please feel free to correct me, but you can't use one of Niky's off-the-cuff comments about man having a purpose as a counter argument. You never really answered my previous comment properly, you just said "Niky says man has a purpose".

 

[Liquid]

Since I neither need to believe that man has a purpose, nor see any evidence to suggest he does.

This. I find it odd that many people have ached and agonised over what man's purpose is when there is no suggestion that he has one, or that he needs one or even that we need to know what it is.

It is an interesting question but I fear that the question "What is man's purpose?" is entirely rhetorical. It's interesting and even fun to try to answer, but as I've said before, it's a question I take somewhat light-heartedly because it's a question that does not have an answer, and whether it has an answer or not, it has no ramafications on day-to-day life.

 

[fitftw]

Most people are too scared to think that there is no purpose or goal in life. That is why most people rely on religion as a crutch, a safety net, something to cling to like a baby's bottle. People are infantile. It makes me sick when I drive past a church or mosque or temple and see the parking lot filled with people who would probably kill each other over the slightest incident on the road or in a shopping mall during the busy holidays.

There exists no solution to get everyone on the same page. You could burn down every religious institution and they would just build twice as many. There are two sides to every page. Yin and yang. Good and evil. I truly believe religion is evil. This includes atheism.

There's nothing I can do since you can't change the minds of most people without extreme amounts of money and power.

Does anyone really think we're better off NOT being agnostic? Obviously not since in this poll, "Maybe" is in last place. What a shame. I do believe agnosticism is the smart-man's decision about the existence of god and the other 2 extremes are foolish.

There are coincidences sometimes where even I wonder to myself if what just happened was a coincidence or something more, but I LEAVE IT AT THAT. I don't say "Oh yeah, that was DEFINITELY god doing something there..."

 

[dylansan]

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

One can be both an atheist and agnostic, if he lacks belief in gods but admits that it is possible or that it can never be certain. Most logical people would acknowledge that if reasonable, verifiable evidence were discovered for the existence of god, they would accept that one existed. I have a feeling many of the people who voted "no way" in the poll feel the same way about god as bigfoot - it's totally unlikely and there's no reason to believe he exists, but there's always a chance we'll catch him. It's just that a god is a lot harder to catch.

 

[fitftw]

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

One can be both an atheist and agnostic, if he lacks belief in gods but admits that it is possible or that it can never be certain. Most logical people would acknowledge that if reasonable, verifiable evidence were discovered for the existence of god, they would accept that one existed. I have a feeling many of the people who voted "no way" in the poll feel the same way about god as bigfoot - it's totally unlikely and there's no reason to believe he exists, but there's always a chance we'll catch him. It's just that a god is a lot harder to catch.

Well then they shouldn't have voted No Way, and should have voted Maybe. You see? And atheism is just as terrible as claiming to be religious. Neither side knows for sure, but they choose sides like people do in war. Why not be on the safe side and avoid confrontation by saying you just aren't sure? Since nobody IS sure, except crazy people I would never want to be in the same room alone with.

You can't lack belief in god and admit that is is possible. That would simply be a case of "I am not sure" meaning agnosticism.

I once had Jehova's witnesses come to my house and I told them I am not sure if there's a god and they tried to make me believe there IS a god and I thought that was laughable, but I simply told them what they are trying to do is not going to work on me. Unless you can bring god down to say hello to me, I'll never be sure.

 

[homeforsummer]

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

One can be both an atheist and agnostic, if he lacks belief in gods but admits that it is possible or that it can never be certain. Most logical people would acknowledge that if reasonable, verifiable evidence were discovered for the existence of god, they would accept that one existed. I have a feeling many of the people who voted "no way" in the poll feel the same way about god as bigfoot - it's totally unlikely and there's no reason to believe he exists, but there's always a chance we'll catch him. It's just that a god is a lot harder to catch.

👍

I'd personally class myself as "agnostic atheist". I don't believe a God exists, see no evidence for his existence and live my life on the basis that one doesn't exist, but I'd be happy to acknowledge his existence if he were somehow provable.

I've always seen the outright concept of agnosticism as a sort of wishy-washy, non-committal approach that requires neither faith in God nor knowledge of science, and therefore a pretty weak option. It's essentially for people who are unprepared to make a decision either way.

You can't lack belief in god and admit that is is possible. That would simply be a case of "I am not sure" meaning agnosticism.

Not true.

I'm an atheist as far as the concept of Unicorns go, I do not believe them to exist, but if someone were to discover one in a forest somewhere, I'd be happy to accept their existence.

 

[TankAss95]

At fitftw: There's no such thing as pure evil.
And why yin yang? That's dualism.

 

[fitftw]

Agnosticism IS wishy-washy. Why be committed to one side or the other? That's how religious wars occur. If everyone agreed that there may or may not be a god, we'd all play nice with each other and nobody would kill over their beliefs.

Why not believe them to exist? I'll say it's unlikely that unicorns exist, but I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, because it's impossible to know for sure. Just like god. Why is it such a bad thing to be non-commited towards a yes or no belief in god? I choose to straddle that line. I live my life by having one foot on both sides, about everything.

And yes, yin and yang. Everything has a light and dark side. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. On/off. Light/dark. Yes/no. Good/evil. Show me one man and I will find you his exact opposite. That's life.

The opposite of agnosticism is atheism and religion.

 

[homeforsummer]

Agnosticism IS wishy-washy. Why be committed to one side or the other? That's how religious wars get justified. If everyone agreed that there may or may not be a god, we'd all play nice with each other and nobody would kill over their beliefs.

Wait... agreeing there may or may not be something completely contradicts this:

And yes, yin and yang. Everything has a light and dark side. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. On/off. Light/dark. Yes/no. Good/evil. Show me one man and I will find you his exact opposite.

By your very own definition, if there's light/dark on/off good/evil, then there can never be a non-committal option.

Why not believe them to exist? I'll say it's unlikely that unicorns exist, but I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, because it's impossible to know for sure. Just like god. Why is it such a bad thing to be non-commited towards a yes or no belief in god? I choose to straddle that line. I live my life by having one foot on both sides, about a lot of things.

An unlikelihood is not the same as not believing they exist.

Not believing means you don't think there is any chance. Unlikely means there could be a chance.

I don't believe God exists, nor do I believe unicorns exist. In my own view, there is 0% chance either exists. However, if someone came along tomorrow with irrefutable proof for either, I would accept their existence.

However, you could say I'm agnostic about extra-terrestrial life. There's no evidence for it at the moment, I can't prove it myself, but I think it's likely. I'm not ruling out aliens' existence like I can rule out the existence of a God.

 

[fitftw]

so one can only be agnostic if things are "likely?" If things are "unlikely", that's atheism?

What about 50/50? That's how I feel about god, unicorns, aliens, etc. It's all 50/50

You can't rule out the existence of god, given this life and all the weird stuff that goes with it on a daily basis. Everything's too weird to just say there's no way a god did this. How do you know? You don't. Neither do I. That's why I'm agnostic.

 

[nitrorocks]

Most people are too scared to think that there is no purpose or goal in life. That is why most people rely on religion as a crutch, a safety net, something to cling to like a baby's bottle. People are infantile. It makes me sick when I drive past a church or mosque or temple and see the parking lot filled with people who would probably kill each other over the slightest incident on the road or in a shopping mall during the busy holidays.

There exists no solution to get everyone on the same page. You could burn down every religious institution and they would just build twice as many. There are two sides to every page. Yin and yang. Good and evil. I truly believe religion is evil. This includes atheism.

There's nothing I can do since you can't change the minds of most people without extreme amounts of money and power.

Does anyone really think we're better off NOT being agnostic? Obviously not since in this poll, "Maybe" is in last place. What a shame. I do believe agnosticism is the smart-man's decision about the existence of god and the other 2 extremes are foolish.

There are coincidences sometimes where even I wonder to myself if what just happened was a coincidence or something more, but I LEAVE IT AT THAT. I don't say "Oh yeah, that was DEFINITELY god doing something there..."

Why do you hate religion so much? You've never really proved a valid point.and just because the pledge of allegiance gas gods name in it on one line, doesn't mean it's brainwash. The teachers said you don't have to say it. Just move to another country if you don't like it.

 

[homeforsummer]

so one can only be agnostic if things are "likely?" If things are "unlikely", that's atheism?

No.

"Unlikely" and "Likely" are two variations of the same thing. They essentially imply degrees of likelihood, between "Impossible" and "Certain".

Of the above, I'd place God's existence into the "impossible" bracket. But then, I'm capable of being proven wrong.