Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,487 comments
  • 1,139,742 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
"Um, no, they are in fact the same God. Islam points to the Christian God, they have the same prophets (up till Jesus) as Judaism, and all are built on the same manuscripts." Azuremen

Wow completely false! If you think they are built on the same manuscripts you have never studied either religion.

Where are you on this one moderator scaff? The information to check this is easily available online.

Please be consistent on your warnings.
 
Last edited:
No - they published their results to the public. If they publish it to peer evaluation, they don't announce it with cat-sized letters on their homepage and give BBC, NBC and RTL interviews.
Well, they were a bit excited perhaps? :dopey: It would take a while to get a peer evaluation on the findings, and it was kind of a big deal. And it was shown to be a mistake a bit later and everyone moved on with their lives.

Peer-evaluation is a big factor in science.

"Um, no, they are in fact the same God. Islam points to the Christian God, they have the same prophets (up till Jesus) as Judaism, and all are built on the same manuscripts." Azuremen

Wow completely false! If you think they are built on the same manuscripts you have never studied either religion.

Well, I mentioned 3 religions, not 2, so...

And yes, I've studied all them. They all build on each other in some manner, Judaism > Christianity > Islam.

I really want to know how I'm completely false since Islam recognizes Jesus as a Prophet (and the Prophets before him) and Judaism uses the Old Testament from what I recall. So please, tell me how I'm completely false.
 

Now that I've read it, even opponents of the theorey agree it's not a death blow. The supporters merely commented that Superstring theory can account for the finding, they aren't outright denying the results.

Well, imagine that God has an infinite amount of energy. Now if he were to create a universe, it would require just a finite amount of energy. No laws of physics would be violated (well, at least not the law of conservation) - although this is pretty far-fetched and not to be taken seriously.

That's a subset of "always was" then, however the God bit has no evidence to back it up. I did not specify what form mass/energy had pre Big Bang.

Telling a child he is a animal is child abuse in my opinion.

I'm honestly curious as to why you think this. What harm will it do?
 
Now that I've read it, even opponents of the theorey agree it's not a death blow. The supporters merely commented that Superstring theory can account for the finding, they aren't outright denying the results.

At least a scientific opinion can change, to reflect our best and current understanding.

Religious opinion opposes change, and if it embraces change such as new scientific discoveries, religion has an ever narrowing sliver of information to provide us.
 
"Um, no, they are in fact the same God. Islam points to the Christian God, they have the same prophets (up till Jesus) as Judaism, and all are built on the same manuscripts." Azuremen

Wow completely false! If you think they are built on the same manuscripts you have never studied either religion.

Where are you on this one moderator scaff? The information to check this is easily available online.

Please be consistent on your warnings.

First and foremost do not tell the staff what to do or instruct us how to take action, we answer to the owner of the site and not to you.

Now to be rather blunt (as my own patience with you is wearing thin given that you are now issuing diktats to me while ignoring perfectly reasonable questions I have asked) you are wrong.

The root 'god' of all three is the same, as all three are identified as Abrahamic religions, they even share large amounts of religious text (in particular in regard to creation myths and the early texts of what you know at the Old Testament).

The main point of divergence around the three comes in regard to the status of Jesus and the messiah prophecies, which in short are:

Judaism - A messiah will come, Jesus was not the messiah and was a false prophet.
Christianity - Jesus was the messiah and his death and resurrection changed the aspect of god from a single being to a trinity. They also believe the messiah Jesus will return.
Islam - Jesus was a prophet not the messiah and no messiah will come as "He does not beget nor was he begotten".

However none of the above changes the fact, and the religious texts of all three and theologists on the whole agree, that the three share a common origin god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions#God


No - they published their results to the public. If they publish it to peer evaluation, they don't announce it with cat-sized letters on their homepage and give BBC, NBC and RTL interviews.

Actually they did both, however what was said to the scientific press and what the mainstream press then reported was a little different:

The preprint of the research stated "[the observed] deviation of the neutrino velocity from c [speed of light in vacuum] would be a striking result pointing to new physics in the neutrino sector" and referred to the "early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos" as an "anomaly".[15] OPERA spokesperson Antonio Ereditato explained that the OPERA team had "not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement".[7] James Gillies, a spokesperson for CERN, said on September 22 that the scientists were "inviting the broader physics community to look at what they [had] done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements".[16]
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

European researchers said they clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second that has long been considered the cosmic speed limit. The claim was met with skepticism, with one outside physicist calling it the equivalent of saying you have a flying carpet. In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings. "The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, which provided the particle accelerator that sent neutrinos on their breakneck 454-mile trip underground from Geneva to Italy. Going faster than light is something that is just not supposed to happen according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the one made famous by the equation E equals mc2. But no one is rushing out to rewrite the science books just yet. It is "a revolutionary discovery if confirmed," said Indiana University theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky, who has worked on this concept for a quarter of a century. Stephen Parke, who is head theoretician at the Fermilab near Chicago and was not part of the research, said: "It's a shock. It's going to cause us problems, no doubt about that - if it's true." Even if these results are confirmed, they won't change at all the way we live or the way the world works. After all, these particles have presumably been speed demons for billions of years. But the finding will fundamentally alter our understanding of how the universe operates, physicists said. Einstein's special relativity theory, which says that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now." France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research collaborated with Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory on the experiment at CERN.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-09-cern-faster-than-light-particle.html#jCp
Source - http://phys.org/news/2011-09-cern-faster-than-light-particle.html


Its also not as if they did this a couple of times and ran off to the press, they only submitted it for peer-review and told the press they had found an anomaly (the actually word they used) after six months of additional testing.
 
Last edited:
Indeed the same god or concept of the same god, hard to see why there is a dispute there.

(in particular in regard to creation myths and the early texts of what you know at the Old Testament).

Please explain this creation myth.
 
Sure, describe it however you wish, pretty ignorant tbh but no one is forcing you to actually read. I know you have no reason to but iirc you have claimed to study the book at one time?
 
I have no idea why you are bringing that up, are you blaming the potato famine on religion? I don't remember that much about it from history class.

I meant the Universe and everything in it, is indifferent to us.

Which is more likely?
1)We are here and we do not yet know why or how.
2)The creator of the universe told some people of his existance hundreds of years ago and expects everyone else to believe based on their record of events. Now his relationship with us consists of centuries of invisibility & silence.


Six days, Adam and Eve, garden of eden, etc.

And I think you will find that I'm free to describe it as a myth should I wish to.

Adam & Eve had two sons.. TWO SONS.
Who made the rest of the babies with Eve?
 
I meant the Universe and everything in it, is indifferent to us.

Which is more likely?
1)We are here and we do not yet know why or how.
2)The creator of the universe told some people of his existance hundreds of years ago and expects everyone else to believe based on their record of events. Now his relationship with us consists of centuries of invisibility & silence.

Still don't know why potato was brought up, not a big deal.




Adam & Eve had two sons.. TWO SONS.
Who made the rest of the babies with Eve?

Genesis now says there were no other people on the planet?
 
Sure, describe it however you wish, pretty ignorant tbh but no one is forcing you to actually read. I know you have no reason to but iirc you have claimed to study the book at one time?

I have read it and consider it to be a myth.

That has nothing to do with ignorance at all, rather a conclusion based on the absence of evidence to support it.

Please feel free to provide me with supporting evidence (to a scientific standard) for it and I will be more than happy to re-evaluation that position.
 
Still don't know why potato was brought up, not a big deal.

I guess it was a bad attempt at humour :guilty:

Genesis now says there were no other people on the planet?

Well, Genesis 2:18 says
Moses
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him.

So, Adam was alone he created Eve from his rib.
Then no mention of creating others.

I dunno, it's really badly written and theres so many versions of the same thing...

Who did Cain marry? mind = blown
 
Nothing scientific to say here, I'm pointing out that indeed you are ignorant to what the book says. It gets annoying, prove it wrong, or not that you can do that, show it's a fairy tail but at least get what it says right.
 
Well, Genesis 2:18 says


So, Adam was alone he created Eve from his rib.
Then no mention of creating others.

I dunno, it's really badly written and theres so many versions of the same thing...

There is mention of others, not that hard to find either, gotta read a bit more then the first few lines.
 
There is mention of others, not that hard to find either, gotta read a bit more then the first few lines.

You should actually post the passage.

I just can't see why anyone would live by the teachings of a book with no evidence.

If someone somewhere in history had invented an similiar but 'untrue' story to that of the old and new testament & forced an entire city to worship it.
It is fair to presume that they would have passed it to their children, (as they did)
and so on, all the way to the religious of today.
 
That is irrelevant, the book should be easy enough to shoot down for you without making crap up 👍

What did I make up?

(On Credibility of Religious Text)

A Guru from India called Sathya Sai Baba (died last year)
had all the miracles of jesus ascribed to him. Virgin Birth, Healing the sick etc.
There are apparently living eye witnesses to his miracles and he had over 1 million people show up to one of his birthdays. Most thinking he was a living God.

Anyone can look at this and tell you they are all nuts and the guy was a fraud.

But, some of those same people think that these kind of claims become especially credible when you put it in a really really old book.

That is just dissapointing. :'(
 
Last edited:
Nothing scientific to say here, I'm pointing out that indeed you are ignorant to what the book says. It gets annoying, prove it wrong, or not that you can do that, show it's a fairy tail but at least get what it says right.

First you can stop with the personal insults, particularly given your track record.

Now if I am so ignorant as to the basics of the creation story (I take it the world story will not offend your sensibilities) please let me know which of the following does not make up the shared elements of the three main Abrahamic religions?

Six days, Adam and Eve, garden of eden.

My point is (and remains) that a large amount of common ground exists between these three religions and one of the main ones is the elements covering what they believe in regard to the creation of the Earth and man.

That I consider it to be a myth is irreverent to that, as is the fact that you wish to disagree on the use of that term.

Given the degree of evidence that exists to support it, the word is actually fairly accurate (and is actually rather neutral in my opinion - I would use it to describe all religious texts). You are also well aware of where the burden of proof lies, if you are claiming accuracy in the Christian version of creation then please provide it.

You wish me to counter Adam and Eve, then simply see the contents of the Creation vs. Evolution thread and this book. Look forward to seeing you in that thread.
 
Last edited:
Nothing scientific to say here, I'm pointing out that indeed you are ignorant to what the book says. It gets annoying, prove it wrong, or not that you can do that, show it's a fairy tail but at least get what it says right.

You do understand burden of proof, right?

Edit: Ninja'd by Scaff.
 
No religion is better or more correct than any other, so why have any at all?

Because religion is the crux of war.

Without religion, going to war would be a heck of a lot harder. To make your people fear the people of another country, you need to make them appear evil and dangerous. Using religion is the easiest way to accomplish that.

If war is ever going to end, religion would have to end first.
 
Last edited:
First you can stop with the personal insults or take a few days off.

Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, send me away lol.

Now if I am so ignorant as to the basics of the creation story (I take it the world story will not offend your sensibilities) please let me know which of the following does not make up the shared elements of the three main Abrahamic religions?

Did I not completely agree with that a few posts up? Man common, you do read right?

Six days, Adam and Eve, garden of eden.

Wow, proving my point quite well. Do you really want me to expand on that?

My point is (and remains) that a large amount of common ground exists between these three religions and one of the main ones is the elements covering what they believe in regard to the creation of the Earth and man.

I have never argued with that, the contrary actually. But you fall off when you start speaking of earth and man, you don't know the fable(as you would call it).

That I consider it to be a myth is irreverent to that, as is the fact that you wish to disagree on the use of that term.

I don't disagree on the use of that term at all, why the straw man? I find it offensive that you pretend to know what the early writings say.

Given the degree of evidence that exists to support it, the word is actually fairly accurate (and is actually rather neutral in my opinion - I would use it to describe all religious texts). You are also well aware of where the burden of proof lies, if you are claiming accuracy in the Christian version of creation then please provide it.

Why again? LOL All I'm asking is that you understand the books you bash, which you clearly don't. Burden of proof would lie on me if I was actually claiming the books were correct, I am not. Unlike you, I actually know what the Christian version of creation claims and it is not what you pretend it claims.

I will ask for probably the 10th time, why can't we have a religion thread/bible/whatever thread and keep this junk out of the "do you believe in god" thread. No way and I know why, I've brought up many different topics away from religion and that makes most atheists uncomfortable because, quite frankly, it's easier for you to just make silly jokes about a book that has no baring on the true debate.

You do understand burden of proof, right?

Edit: Ninja'd by Scaff.

Please, don't read into it something that is not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because religion is the crux of war.
Damn Right!
A way to control people.

How often do people that talk to God have a list of rules/demands for everyone else?



This will never end.

Sam Harris
If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?
If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?
 
Wow, proving my point quite well. Do you really want me to expand on that?
Please explain in detail exactly which of those points don't exist in all three Abrahamic religions and why.

That is all my post was covering.

That you have attempted to make it a bigger issue than that is something you would have to expand on, not me.


I have never argued with that, the contrary actually. But you fall off when you start speaking of earth and man, you don't know the fable(as you would call it).
So the books of the bible regarding creation don't cover god creating the Earth or man? Given that's all I have in this conversation said in that regard I fail to see the mistake I have made.

As such I would ask that you clarify the matter.



Oh and stop double posting.
 
Back