Do you believe in God?

[Zenith]

 

[Famine]

If you don't want to read the bible

Read it. Nice story. It's as factually sound as a leprechaun riding a unicorn to Avalon.

Science invented the internet - as a by product of the particle accelerator at CERN - and you're using it to say science is lies. If science were lies, you wouldn't be able to do that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If you don't want to read the bible to have it backed out yourself it might be the illuminati making you not believe! The reptilians too. They made us believe a false science!

No thanks, I limit my fiction reading material to science fiction.

*IMG*

👍

 

[Bacon]

 

[alfiD]

Read it. Nice story. It's as factually sound as a leprechaun riding a unicorn to Avalon.

Science invented the internet - as a by product of the particle accelerator at CERN - and you're using it to say science is lies. If science were lies, you wouldn't be able to do that.

No thanks, I limit my fiction reading material to science fiction.



👍

Its the truth. The reptilians are just having you under their control =O

 

[Famine]

You know, there's very little merit to trolling.

 

[arora]

I don't think he is trolling, probably has not fully picked his poison as of yet. I've seen first hand this reptilian fascination with christian types before, I can't understand it.

 

[niky]

If you don't want to read the bible to have it backed out yourself it might be the illuminati making you not believe! The reptilians too. They made us believe a false science!

I'm sorry, but crazy is not allowed in this discussion. Further posting of spam will merit consequences.

-

Find it ironic, though, that you're telling us to read the Bible. As an ex-Catholic, I've read several different editions and have two or three around the house.

 

[Brett]

Phil Plait Quote Image

Zen Pencils is a wonderful website. I have subscribed to the website's RSS Feed and it has just been fantastic. The site's owner/artist just recently released his 100th cartoon and did it with Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot quote. 👍

 

[alfiD]

I'm sorry, but crazy is not allowed in this discussion. Further posting of spam will merit consequences.

-

Find it ironic, though, that you're telling us to read the Bible. As an ex-Catholic, I've read several different editions and have two or three around the house.

My apologies moderator.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Zen Pencils is a wonderful website. I have subscribed to the website's RSS Feed and it has just been fantastic. The site's owner/artist just recently released his 100th cartoon and did it with Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot quote. 👍

Thanks. 👍

 

[counter345]

Great video I found about the burden of proof.

 

[huskeR32]

Great video I found about the burden of proof.

Great stuff. IMO, /thread until a believer provides some real evidence. How can someone watch that and not immediately understand everything that non-believers have been trying to say for the entirety of this thread?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Burden of Proof

The risk is people staying too narrow or closed-minded. I get the impression that some "won't believers" in the thread expect every word of the Bible to be proven as fact - in doing this they exclude the possibility of a "God" as any kind of creator, supreme being, divine force etc... where as "Don't believers" may stay open minded enough to understand that where as there might not be a man with a big white beard sat on a cloud, there may actually be tangible things that do exist in the realms of science that explain many aspects of a "God".

I've not answered the poll yet for this reason. I won't say yes or maybe, because I don't and pretty much won't entertain the idea of a God as the Bible (for example) paints it*. But that does not mean to say that I don't think there aren't things that should be considered as a "God" in many definitions.

* sames as I wouldn't use a 60 year old road atlas

I hope that makes sense, I'm very very tired!

 

[niky]

Well, hardly any of us take the accuracy of the Bible as proof or non-proof for God per se... just proof or non-proof for Yahweh.

Some people just keep bringing it up as if it IS definitive proof, which is why the tread revolves around it.

Which is a shame. I'm reasonably familiar with Hindu mythology, and that's much more fun to discuss. Especially as it predicted the invention of nuclear weapons.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

After watching almost all of QualiaSoup's (the creator of the video above) videos, something he said in a few of them has stuck out to me.

He mentions how some theists try to make it seem as though science is faith based just like religion, and he brings up an interesting point in doing so. It took me a couple of times hearing this mentioned before it clicked for me, but then I asked myself, why would they do that unless they felt that faith was the weaker base to stand on. That, to me, explained why so many (manly creationists) try to make science into something faith based. Now, whether they consciously recognize that they feel that way or not I do not know (though I doubt they do), I feel it's an interesting point to be made.

 

[niky]

That's actually an interesting point. So it becomes a case of who's more or less insane for believing in opposing impossibilities?

 

[skoSko9]

After watching almost all of QualiaSoup's (the creator of the video above) videos, something he said in a few of them has stuck out to me.

He mentions how some theists try to make it seem as though science is faith based just like religion, and he brings up an interesting point in doing so. It took me a couple of times hearing this mentioned before it clicked for me, but then I asked myself, why would they do that unless they felt that faith was the weaker base to stand on. That, to me, explained why so many (manly creationists) try to make science into something faith based. Now, whether they consciously recognize that they feel that way or not I do not know (though I doubt they do), I feel it's an interesting point to be made.

I think one of the reasons why theist make claims that science is faith based is probably the sense that science is trying to tell you what is true, despite the fact that there is evidence that proves it to be true, not on faith.

It depends on the people, but tbh I don't think faith is a weaker base to stand on. It's a misunderstanding of a last attempt to prove their claim right. Why the need to put faith? Probably ignorance.

 

[sik180sx]

Agree or not,i think a belief in god is for the weak minded who can't handle life on their own.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I think one of the reasons why theist make claims that science is faith based is probably the sense that science is trying to tell you what is true, despite the fact that there is evidence that proves it to be true, not on faith.

Honestly I think it's just ignorance on their part.

 

[XoravaX]

I think one of the reasons why theist make claims that science is faith based is probably the sense that science is trying to tell you what is true, despite the fact that there is evidence that proves it to be true, not on faith.

I'd say claiming science as faith-based is due to ignorance, as TheDrummingKING said. Of course there are people who like to believe in scientists' hypotheses, like the Superstring theory or Big Crunch, but those are just hypothesised theories, not "real" science but rather philosophical thoughts.

Great stuff. IMO, /thread until a believer provides some real evidence. How can someone watch that and not immediately understand everything that non-believers have been trying to say for the entirety of this thread?

However, there is the burden of proof for those who deny the possibility of God's existence too (the part of atheists that are non-agnostics).

 

[sems4arsenal]

Human error. Which is how Moses came to cross the Red Sea instead of the Reed Sea.

Then add to it censorship, rewriting, forgery, more rewriting, more censorship and mistranslation in order to further some political or theological goal... over a period of two millenia... and you get the modern Bible. Or Bibles. Or whichever one you believe supports your view of homosexuality, sin and the divinity of Christ...

It is a shame really .

 

[Scaff]

However, there is the burden of proof for those who deny the possibility of God's existence too (the part of atheists that are non-agnostics).

I strongly suggest you watch that video again, because simply put your wrong (its once again shifting the burden of proof).

Based on all the currently available evidence for God (i.e. none) its a logical conclusion to state that God doesn't exist. That's not to say that should the evidence change I would re-evaluate that, but that's doesn't make me agnostic.

 

[skoSko9]

I'll make my claim since there isn't much interest by now. What's wrong with believing in God? Even if there are different types of Gods which other cultures believe, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'll make my claim since there isn't much interest by now. What's wrong with believing in God? Even if there are different types of Gods which other cultures believe, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Usually when people admit they have an imaginary friend they are called crazy. I don't see the difference to be honest.

 

[Zenith]

I'll make my claim since there isn't much interest by now. What's wrong with believing in God? Even if there are different types of Gods which other cultures believe, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Believe whatever the heck you want. Some of us look for truth. Is there anything wrong with false or unsupported belief? Not inherently, it's the decision making that's based on false or unsupported belief that becomes a problem.

Nobody is saying that you don't have the right to believe what you want. You start to seriously violate other people's rights when you take your completely unsupported beliefs and try to force them to live a certain way.

Also see the comic I posted earlier. Many of society's leaps are caused by people who sought after truth. We fix problems with truth, we create amazing new things with truth. We used truth to invent the internet, not unsupported claims. We use truth to build fast cars, not unsupported claims.

 

[skoSko9]

Usually when people admit they have an imaginary friend they are called crazy. I don't see the difference to be honest.

That still doesn't explain most of the "moral" laws that are created by God(s). There was a reason why everything was explained through God(s).

I'm not stupid, it's by people. Why should it matter if it's a imaginary friend or a supreme being when in the end, you learn what is right or wrong?

 

[arora]

Usually when people admit they have an imaginary friend they are called crazy. I don't see the difference to be honest.

By that logic our president should be institutionalized.

 

[Zenith]

That still doesn't explain most of the "moral" laws that are created by God(s). There was a reason why everything was explained through God(s).

I'm not stupid, it's by people. Why should it matter if it's a imaginary friend or a supreme being when in the end, you learn what is right or wrong?

So then those who have no belief in god or believe there is no god must have no morals, correct?

No, of course not.

Morals come from logic. If you accept them on different grounds then you will also probably accept some immoral things.

 

[skoSko9]

So then those who have no belief in god or believe there is no god must have no morals, correct?

No, of course not.

Morals come from logic.

Logic? Now this is getting interesting! I wouldn't say you are an immoral person if you don't believe in god(s), you learn most of the morals from god(s) or what people tell you is moral. I, in one second, without a doubt don't believe morals come from logic.