Do you believe in God?

[MatskiMonk]

Why refer to that god as a male? Does it have balls and a penis? Are they perhaps the reason people go on their knees for him?

My car has no vagina but I call it a "her", is it perhaps the reason why it rarely goes a month without leaking fluids?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Guys, of the 2,870 deities documented since humans started writing which one is your favourite?

Mine is Zeus, he f&*&n rocked. (Poseidon was a close second)

Also, you monotheists are 99.97% as atheist as me.
Cometh unto me bretherin.

 

[Famine]

Oooh. I'll go for Offler.

 

[CodeName]

Why refer to that god as a male? Does it have balls and a penis? Are they perhaps the reason people go on their knees for him?

GOD is not a male or a female, but he isn't a thing because he is someone, he is the creator, if he isn't someone then he is no one, and he isn't no one. How would you call someone like him then? . I will post the same surah again :

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

So "Just believe in your scripture rather than trying to prove it's true by selectively quoting it" is met by selectively quoting scripture. Nice.

Yes but things are that we can't discuss with you if it is about islam or another religion because you prefere still believing as an atheist even if I show you many miracles. What I ask is that I want to talk of Islam ( which is very interesting ) with people there and have a clean discussion. You say to me to stop the discussion and just believe and say nothing. There are other people that want to discover things about Islam because discovering and learning is the best thing.

 

[XoravaX]

No. Science doesn't seek to prove its hypotheses true. It seeks to prove them false. Our methods are transparent - we make every attempt to show we're wrong and you can go do them yourself and try even harder if you think we didn't try hard enough.Though anything that no proof can conceptually be obtained for - anything that cannot be falsified by the inability to prove it false - is proven false because it cannot be falsified. See Russell's Teapot.

If scientists are yet unable to prove something, it doesn't mean it can be proven later. You say that if they cannot prove it, it's false. However, if generations later that same thing is able to be proven, it is now suddenly true after being scientifically false, which messes up the factuality. Russel's teapot indeed doesn't say anything is false, but any hypothesis or belief, be it the teapot or God, is as unlikely as any other.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely

Russel's teapot indeed says that until proven each possibility is as unlikely. But it should be remembered, that every unproven hypothesis or belief is in the same line with the teapot. Highly unlikely, but still some of them are true, the teapot as probably as the Superstring theory, for example.


On the aspect of proving something false: if something is by observations proven true, it advances science in practice, through elimination of all conflicting possibilities. On the contrary, if one of the possibilities is proven false, it leaves infinite other possibilities, still unproven. It just cuts one path, but leaves the others open. But were it proven true, it would cut all the other paths, while leaving only one open.
If Lamarck hadn't proven the basis of new chemistry, the modern chemical elements true, but indeed only the old four-element system false, chemistry wouldn't have advanced as a science. He made a new discovery instead of trying to purposefully only crash the old view; science advances more when a new discovery proves or creates a new theory based on the facts of the discovery, than trying just to crash a hypothesis, which, as Russell's teapot quite comically explains, is just one unlikely possibility.

he isn't someone then he is no one, and he isn't no one

Pardon me, a double negative?
That he is not no-one, means he is (some)one. Which is contrary to being no-one.

---

To Famine, third post down here:

No, I didn't say that at all.

I said that if the concept is completely impossible to prove false, it is false by nature of being non-falsifiable.

Do we know God is non-falsifiable, science-wise?

Also, that teapot. It is very improbable.


If God is non-falsifiable, well, isn't actually the whole question about the origin of the universe too? We can always keep asking, "But what was 'before'?". Whether you say the existence has always been or it "appeared", they're both non-falsifiable.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Interesting

 

[Denur]

... if he isn't someone then he is no one, and he isn't no one....

Oh this is so cute.

 

[Famine]

Yes but things are that we can't discuss with you if it is about islam or another religion because you prefere still believing as an atheist even if I show you many miracles.

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.

What I ask is that I want to talk of Islam ( which is very interesting ) with people there and have a clean discussion. You say to me to stop the discussion and just believe and say nothing.

I want you - and every other theist - to stop pretending they can provide evidence that their faith is the right one. You cannot do it. You cannot provide evidence for faith or you destroy that faith. In return, atheists won't try to prove your specific religion is wrong, allowing you to believe what you wish to believe. We don't mind the occasional joke our way, if you won't mind the occasional one back.

Discussing Islam, Christianity, Shintoism, Raelism or any other religion is fine. Pretending that religion is the truth and proselytising... no. If nothing else, it's an insult to your own faith.

If scientists are yet unable to prove something, it doesn't mean it can be proven later. You say that if they cannot prove it, it's false.

No, I didn't say that at all.

I said that if the concept is completely impossible to prove false, it is false by nature of being non-falsifiable.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

BrB, smashing my head on a wall after reading this thread for more than 2 minutes a day.

I must stop doing this to myself

 

[Hun200kmh]

Why refer to that god as a male? Does it have balls and a penis? Are they perhaps the reason people go on their knees for him?

Why refer to that god as a male?

That is indeed a very intelligent question, one that would allow for an interesting debate, regardless of your belief or lack of it.

Does it have balls and a penis?

errr ....


Are they perhaps the reason people go on their knees for him?


ah ... you almost fooled me with your first question. Carry on.

 

[CodeName]

Interesting

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w">YouTube Link</a>

Please don't post a link like this because people won't whatch it. Just say what do you want to say by this video or just what you want to say.

 

[Famine]

Folk are more likely watch a video of Neil de Grasse Tyson than read cherry-picked scriptural quotes. And so long as it stays within the AUP, what our users post is their business.

And, on that topic, read this and assimilate the information.

 

[CodeName]

Why refer to that god as a male?

That is indeed a very intelligent question, one that would allow for an interesting debate, regardless of your belief or lack of it.

Does it have balls and a penis?

errr ....

Are they perhaps the reason people go on their knees for him?

ah ... you almost fooled me with your first question. Carry on.

I have answear it ...

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.I want you - and every other theist - to stop pretending they can provide evidence that their faith is the right one. You cannot do it. You cannot provide evidence for faith or you destroy that faith. In return, atheists won't try to prove your specific religion is wrong, allowing you to believe what you wish to believe. We don't mind the occasional joke our way, if you won't mind the occasional one back.

Discussing Islam, Christianity, Shintoism, Raelism or any other religion is fine. Pretending that religion is the truth and proselytising... no. If nothing else, it's an insult to your own faith.No, I didn't say that at all.

You are still saying the same thing. The subject of the discussion is about GOD, I am muslim, I expose my religion, I answear every question and telling why this religion is the right. This is how a debate has to go on.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I answear every question and telling why this religion is the right.

Every religion is equally wrong. Islam is not more right than Scientology.

There, I said it.
No belief is right, only facts are.

 

[CodeName]

Every religion is equally wrong. Islam is not more right than Scientology.

There, I said it.
No belief is right, only facts are.

Did you see my old posts or only saying that with ignoring? Go back a few pages and see my posts about miracles of Quran in scientology ( the sirius one there ).

 

[G.T.Ace]

I have read your posts, it doesn't make that stuff "right" though.
It's all fiction, that's my point.

People come up with religions and prophets all the time, even nowadays.
In England, you can actually be a Jedi, it's an acknowledged religion.
That makes the whole Star Wars franchise equal to the Quran, the Bible and however all these books are called.

 

[DegenThought]

I believe in the universe. Outside the universe only the Great Chinchillas may go

 

[G.T.Ace]

Guess it was already posted, but I think it kinda fits.

 

[CodeName]

I have read your posts, it doesn't make that stuff "right" though.
It's all fiction, that's my point.

People come up with religions and prophets all the time, even nowadays.
In England, you can actually be a Jedi, it's an acknowledged religion.
That makes the whole Star Wars franchise equal to the Quran, the Bible and however all these books are called.

Equal to the quran?
Are you as blind to see that the Quran doesn't contain not only one miracle, but a lots more, how would that be fictionnal? If I was teacher and I talk to the children about sirius star, I get get out the Quran instead of getting out a math book, it steel the same but it was revealed in the Quran since 1400 years and since 100 years here. It came since 1400 years, it talk about GOD, rules of life, after life and purpose of life. So don't post something as stupid ( for me ) as this.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Are you as blind to see that the Quran doesn't contain not only one miracle, but a lots more, how would that be fictionnal?

Star Trek showed me the wonders of mobile telecommunication in the 1960's (well, it would've, if I had lived back then). All hail to the mighty Gene Roddenberry.

So don't post something as stupid ( for me ) as this.

Great, for you. That's the point, opinions aren't facts and belief is not knowledge.

 

[Famine]

I answear every question and telling why this religion is the right.

Except it isn't. It's right for you. That's the limit.

This is how a debate has to go on.

What you're doing is not debate. It's preaching.

If I was teacher and I talk to the children about sirius star, I get get out the Quran instead of getting out a math book, it steel the same but it was revealed in the Quran since 1400 years and since 100 years here.

Smashing. The Egyptians got it as close as the Qu'ran 4,000 years earlier than that. Their data is old and outdated and the Qu'ran also uses old and outdated numbers - whereas the science books get it closer with each iteration. So please leave the storybooks out of science lessons and leave the teaching of it to scientists. We'll leave the science books out of your churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in return.


Incidentally, you're still double posting, despite me just telling you what you're doing wrong.

 

[Sureboss]

Are you as blind to not see that thousands of other religions proclaim the exact same thing in a slightly different frock?

What makes them wrong and Islam right?

Of course your response will be, "because the Qoran says so", which is exactly what their response would be if asked the same question about their religion.

 

[CodeName]

Are you as blind to not see that thousands of other religions proclaim the exact same thing in a slightly different frock?

What makes them wrong and Islam right?

Of course your response will be, "because the Qoran says so", which is exactly what their response would be if asked the same question about their religion.

No I won't respond that. What do say thousand of religion as islam?

Smashing. The Egyptians got it as close as the Qu'ran 4,000 years earlier than that. Their data is old and outdated and the Qu'ran also uses old and outdated numbers - whereas the science books get it closer with each iteration. So please leave the storybooks out of science lessons and leave the teaching of it to scientists. We'll leave the science books out of your churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in return.

Incidentally, you're still double posting, despite me just telling you what you're doing wrong.

Yes, egyptians had the real base of Math, but let me take again the exemple of Sirius. Egyptian didn't proved something like that and european discovered it Since 100 years and it was written in the Quran since 1400 years. Why don't you finally agree with this? Don't say me because you are atheist because atheist agree that 2+2=4 .

 

[G.T.Ace]

What do say thousand of religion as islam?

Exactly the same you posted.

"My god is the right one"

 

[DegenThought]

Fact, Fiction, Miracle, Belief, it really doesn't matter. At all. Some people don't want to be told what to believe, they want to believe, or not believe for themselves. It's as simple as that. There's nothing to be gained from trying to sway people otherwise.

 

[Famine]

And yet another double post I had to merge.

Read this and heed it.

Yes, egyptians had the real base of Math, but let me take again the exemple of Sirius. Egyptian didn't proved something like that and european discovered it Since 100 years and it was written in the Quran since 1400 years. Why don't you finally agree with this?

The Egyptians catalogued Sirius 4,000 years before the Qu'ran was written. I've told you this twice before too. The Greeks knew of Sirius too. Sirius is one of the oldest known catalogued stars. The fact it appears in your particular fable is of so little relevance it's mind-boggling how much stock you're putting into it.

 

[CodeName]

Exactly the same you posted.

"My god is the right one"

Yes, but mine also contains evidences and miracles. Mine also say why the other are wrong and how a human has to bea good obedient of God, it also details purpose of life, after life and real historical events.

 

[Scaff]

Why would a belief need proof, as it is a belief? You assume that my belief in God is based on rational proof, don't you? But you miss the main point of belief itself, that it doesn't need proof. If it has proof, it is not belief per se, but a fact.

But trying to prove a belief absolutely wrong, with the "proof" being other than just another belief, would need real proof, in the sense of scientific facts. But, as any belief is an absurd question in factual science, beliefs needn't be proved wrong, because they aren't backed up by facts. Like hypotheses needn't be proven wrong because they can just be disregarded until proven. Religious beliefs are disregarded by science because they aren't backed up by facts, but it doesn't necessarily make it false. Science's job is not to prove wrong, but to prove true. If we went the way of trying to prove everything wrong, it would be just a dead end because lack of proof either way.

Hence also scientific theories that aren't completely backed up by facts (ie. have unproven hypotheses as a part of the theory) aren't factual science, they're pretty much inexact. Say, as long as any part of the Superstring theory is not completely supported by (non-self-referencing) facts, seeing it as truth is as irrational as any belief, that just being an example. The hypotheses are just meant for speculation, not for believing. Yet I see many people who describe themselves as "rational" believe in such hypotheses.

Science doesn't prove anything wrong, because as long as there aren't enough facts to back something up, it can be disregarded due to inability to prove it either way. When it is completely backed up by facts, it is proven. There is no wrong in science, there is just right. Anything non-factual is not science; science just disregards belief but it doesn't deny it.

See: if I believe in some hypothesis that later turns out to be right, and it gets factual proof, I am right. However, by current science, should science try to prove anything false, my belief would be false because it doesn't have proof (as by your criteria for religion, for example). Right is false? Not because science proves no belief, no hypothesis false. It just proves some things true.

I do love that you've avoid this thread for days, spotted something Famine has said and utterly misunderstood it and then used it to try and argue a point.

Let me make this clear, you argued that anyone denying God bore the burden of proof (I disagree) in an attempt to try and force me to provide proof that God doesn't exist (because you can't prove non-existance and Famine didn't say anything close to that - you need to get a better understanding of falsability). With your ultimate aim being to try and get me to acknowledge that because you can't prove the non-existence of something then I have to accept that God may exist.

What you forgot about (and I understand that it may be a bit embarrassing and uncomfortable) is that then mean you have the burden of proof in regard to every single deity that has ever been claimed to exist (as a Christian you have renounced them as false Gods).

Nothing Famine has posted changes that and nothing alters how ridiculousness your claim was.

No I won't respond that. What do say thousand of religion as islam?

Our invisabale boss (insert deities name) created the Earth by doing X and man by doing Y. Do what I tell you and you will all live forever with me in Z.

Pretty much the core of what every religion ever has had at its heart.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes, but mine also contains evidences and miracles. Mine also say why the other are wrong and how a human has to bea good obedient of God, it also details purpose of life, after life and real historical events.

They all do EXACTLY that. Except for the evidence part of course, because that's not possible.
Have you ever read one of the other books? Do you even know what all the other religions say?

 

[CodeName]

And yet another double post I had to merge.

Read this and heed it.The Egyptians catalogued Sirius 4,000 years before the Qu'ran was written. I've told you this twice before too. The Greeks knew of Sirius too. Sirius is one of the oldest known catalogued stars. The fact it appears in your particular fable is of so little relevance it's mind-boggling how much stock you're putting into it.

Oh and it also describe the orbit of the two stars rotating on them with the exact number which is 49.9?

They all do EXACTLY that. Except for the evidence part of course, because that's not possible.
Have you ever read one of the other books? Do you even know what all the other religions say?

Yes of course I know, I only asked you if you knew what you said.