Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

The only reason one would rebel at the concept of God must be because you are not willing to be subject to God.

That's a reason, but not the only reason.

Others include that the concept of God is self-defeating and gloriously nonsensical, or that you believe in a different deity altogether.

 

[Carbonox]

"Rebel" is a funny term to use in that context.

But then again, I'd rather be a rebel than a blind follower of a genocide-committing dictator.

 

[RDAardvark]

The only reason one would rebel at the concept of God must be because you are not willing to be subject to God.

Which 'God'? There are thousands of them and if you narrow it down to the God of the Bible, how many schisms are there; are all of them bar one wrong? I for one do not want to be the subject of anyone who demands child sacrifices, allows incest, warrants ethnic cleansing or is misogynistic beyond belief.

 

[Crozzlow]

Gods are not real......and it's OK....

 

[Dotini]

13 university-sanctioned paranormal research projects:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects
http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects
New truths that only one can see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/new-truths-that-only-one-can-see.html?_r=2

 

[huskeR32]

@stormbringer Most of your post has already been sufficiently addressed, so I won't rehash it, but this one quote in particular really galled me:

Imo, an atheist is nothing more than a dictionary. He understands the world around him like a robot.

Utter crap, this tired old idea that, somehow, being an atheist makes people immune to emotions. In fact, I find quite the opposite to be true.

Since I don't spend my life believing that this is all merely a temporary stepping-stone on the way to an eternity in a "better place," I cherish all the more each day I get in this ludicrously short life. This is it, it's all I'll ever get. The best is not yet to come, it's happening right now, and slipping away from me each and every second.

When I look up into the sky on a clear, starry night, I am completely blown away by the realization that I am an unimaginably small and insignificant gathering of dust in a vast and wondrous universe. My very existence is happenstance, and terrifyingly fragile.

If I thought that it was all created for me (how arrogant!) by some magical sky-dad, and that there was something better waiting for me after, I would probably start to take my days, and all of this beauty and wonder that surrounds me, for granted. (Hurry up! Get me to the really good stuff!)

 

[Duke]

The only reason one would rebel at the concept of God must be because you are not willing to be subject to God.

That's ONE reason, yes, but far from the only. It's near the top of my personal list, but it is far from my only reason for rebelling at the concept of God:

• I don't believe in things that require explanations outside of natural phenomena.
• I don't believe in things that have zero objective proof of existence.
• I don't believe in things that you can't prove DO NOT exist, because that list is literally infinite.
• I don't believe in dogma.
• I don't believe in basing my life decisions and morality around something that is defined as unseeable, unknowable, and un-understandable.

I could go on, but I assume you get my point.

 

[stormbringer]

Yep. Making "love" a poor analogy - especially since you can explain it completely with the accumulated scientific knowledge we have. And even generate it.

Love isn't nonfalsifiable.

Are you kidding? What does science prove it with? Brain waves, tests and statistics?
Generate love? how? Youve been watching that AI movie where the lil kid robot finds love.

Science cannot prove anything, unless it physically exists in some measurable form.

Prove "Love is blind" with the complete knowledge we have of love science. I know its true, so science mustve figured it out.

 

[Famine]

Are you kidding?

No.

What does science prove it with? Brain waves, tests and statistics?

That and neurochemistry.

Generate love? how?

Neurochemistry.

Youve been watching that AI movie where the lil kid robot finds love.

Never seen it.

Science cannot prove anything, unless it physically exists in some measurable form.

Which is another way of saying "science can prove everything that physically exists in some measurable form".

Though you really mean "the scientific method", because "science" is just objective knowledge. Love exists in a measurable form.

Prove "Love is blind" with the complete knowledge we have of love science. I know its true, so science mustve figured it out.

You've got that backwards. If the scientific method has figured it out, you can know it's true. If not, you can only believe.

 

[stormbringer]

No.That and neurochemistry.Neurochemistry.Never seen it.Which is another way of saying "science can prove everything that physically exists in some measurable form".

Though you really mean "the scientific method", because "science" is just objective knowledge. Love exists in a measurable form.You've got that backwards. If the scientific method has figured it out, you can know it's true. If not, you can only believe.

Nope, you got it wrong. I know its true because i can feel it. I didnt need science to believe.
No neurochemistry is ever going to be able to prove it.

Neurochemistry.

"Patient A is in love, his brain is active in the right frontal lobe, so hes in love.
The left side just started sparking up...thats true love."

Love solved. Lol

You have no idea what youre talking about.

 

[Famine]

Nope, you got it wrong. I know its true because i can feel it. I didnt need science to believe.

Sort of. You believe it's true because you can feel it. If science said it was true belief would be irrelevant and you'd know it.

No neurochemistry is ever going to be able to prove it.

Neurochemistry.

Already has. Sorry it doesn't suit you.

"Patient A is in love, his brain is active in the right frontal lobe, so hes in love.
The left side just started sparking up...thats true love."

Love solved. Lol

You have no idea what youre talking about.

Actually I've no idea what you're talking about - but I suspect that makes two of us, since what you typed was gibberish. And also not neurochemistry.

 

[phonyk]

Anybody who regularly went clubbing in the nineties will know that it is absolutely possible to generate a feeling of love and euphoria by deliberately adjusting your neurochemistry

 

[stormbringer]

Science already has proven it. Thats a riot. Lol.

 

[Danoff]

Science already has proven it. Thats a riot. Lol.

...but atheists are the ones with closed minds. You might want to listen to him, he knows what he's talking about.

 

[BobK]

Science cannot prove anything, unless it physically exists in some measurable form.

Which is another way of saying "science can prove everything that physically exists in some measurable form".

Actually it means "science can prove some things that physically exist in some measurable form".

/pedant

 

[DK]

The only reason one would rebel at the concept of God must be because you are not willing to be subject to God.

It's the same reason why I'm not willing to be subject to Kim Jong-un, Adolf Hitler or Attila the Hun.

To quote Tyrion Lannister: "why are gods such vicious 🤬?"

 

[stormbringer]

...but atheists are the ones with closed minds. You might want to listen to him, he knows what he's talking about.

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.
I speak from what I know to be true from personal "human" experience. There is a huge difference there.

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science. If you claim such, you dont know what youre talking about.
Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.
I speak from what I know to be true from personal "human" experience. There is a huge difference there.

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science. If you claim such, you dont know what youre talking about.
Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

It seems I don't have enough hands to facepalm with... *carries on eating popcorn*

 

[Scaff]

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.
I speak from what I know to be true from personal "human" experience. There is a huge difference there.

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science. If you claim such, you dont know what youre talking about.
Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

Theory.

A word you clearly do not know the meaning of.

Please go away, find out what it actually means and then come back and explain why you now understand what you have written is simply inaccurate.

 

[Carbonox]

Here we go again. 1 more person who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means.

Tree'd by Scaff. Convenient.

 

[mister dog]

 

[Jet Badger]

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.
I speak from what I know to be true from personal "human" experience. There is a huge difference there.

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science. If you claim such, you dont know what youre talking about.
Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

I think it's your ego and your close-mindedness that disables you to understand, atleast a bit, different mindsets than yours or even the meaning of words you don't like.

 

[Danoff]

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science.... Its human ego.

Irony!

Yes your super complex emotional state could never be understood - it's way too super complex. There's no way that your experiences could possibly be measured and affected by chemicals in your brain. Try taking LSD and come back and report.

 

[phonyk]

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.

Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

Technically it's just some scientists' THEORY which says that you can carefully guide electrons through a series of semiconductors on a piece of silicon in order to perform billions of complex calculations, but this scientific THEORY is what you're using to make your quite staggeringly ill-informed posts here.

Oh, and for reference - gravity is basically the curvature of spacetime (well enough understood to know that you have to periodically recalibrate the clocks aboard satellites because the curvature of spacetime causes time to run at different speeds depending on the strength of its effect) and a bike remains upright because of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels rotating, along with the balancing of the rider and the geometry of the bike. It always amazes me that people who want to try and discredit science also seem to claim to have a good working insight into what science has and hasn't explained.

 

[Exorcet]

If a human wants to believe in God, he HAS to LOOK for Him.
He has to have that need to search for something greater than himself.
For the wise, who can actually imagine, speculate and philosophize, there are signs everywhere.

Then why aren't there believers everywhere? Why am I not one?

There is no room for argument with such, as they arnt open to anything they cant physically see or feel...
they are VERY open to scientific advances, even if they havent experienced the phenomenon themselves.

So you're wrong?

All it takes for such a person to change sides is "Doctor so and so in some part of the world discovered today that so and so is true"

This is pretty dumbed down, but it's a huge improvement over you're average religion. They either need to wait for a voice from the sky to tell them to change or they need to debate a centuries old book for decades to maybe change a few lines, evidence for or against what they're saying not even considered.

Their minds are rigid like the medievals who claimed the world was flat. And would adamantly defend that observation with harsh penalties. Until one day...

That is religion.

this is human nature though. youll find close minded extremists in all societies.
Problem is, What most understand about religion is based on media and corruption. It is not the true face of religion.

My idea of religion comes from practicing it. It's worthless at best, harmful at worst.

Not really. He just knows some scientists THEORY which he thinks is the final word.
I speak from what I know to be true from personal "human" experience. There is a huge difference there.

Yes, that difference would be you have no idea what you're talking about, but he very likely does. Relying on experience and the first explanation to come into your mind is a pretty good way to get things wrong.

I know love, true love, hate etc cannot be measured by science. If you claim such, you dont know what youre talking about.

So the correct answer, it to say "love is mysterious" and to ignore the entire field of biology which explains how organisms, including humans work? It sounds like you don't want to know what you're talking about. Other people do, so we can't settle for ignorance by saying love is just a mystery.

Hell, science doesnt even know what gravity really is, or why a bicycle actually stays upright. I, personally, wouldnt place such high trust in every little theory put forward by scientists, especially when it comes to a profound subject like the existance of God.

Science explains gravity than any religion does. It explains bicycles better than any religion. It explains God better. What part of religion should I possibly listen to given its track record? At least if I disagree with a scientist it's possible to prove that person wrong. You can't do that when someone is pushing an idea that can't be tested but believes it's true anyway.

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

The Bible says we're made of dirt because that's what the writers could see. Science says we're made of atoms because scientists wanted to actually know what we're made of. Who is blind here?

 

[Imari]

This is why i say atheists are close minded. They (people who rely purely on science) cant see beyond themselves and their achievements. Its human ego.

I'm sorry, you, the person who comes in and accuses atheists of only knowing religion through the media, clearly have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of atheist or the scientific method (which are two separate things).

You are not qualified to have an opinion until you educate yourself on some basic principles. Start with what atheism claims to be, and what the scientific method claims to be able to do.

You seem to think that scientists have this arrogant idea that the understand everything. You couldn't be further from the truth. Scientists are the one group of people that are truly aware of how very little we know. They work to try and expand that knowledge, if they can, but no good scientists pretends that his theory is the be-all and end-all in explanations of the universe.

You on the other hand, seem dead certain that you've got everything figured out. How is that more open-minded than someone who spends all day trying to learn things that he or she doesn't know yet?

 

[mohammad]

im sure everyone has looked for the answer & im sure no one has found it for sure
i dont think about it much , i belive in good & bad.. live & let live

 

[Dotini]

i belive in good & bad

This belief in good and evil is also known as dualism. It is also a hallmark of the extremely ancient religion of Zoroastrianism, which curiously enough, had its roots established in ancient Persia - today's Iran!

Let and let live, brother mohammad!👍

 

[stormbringer]

I'm sorry, you, the person who comes in and accuses atheists of only knowing religion through the media, clearly have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of atheist or the scientific method (which are two separate things).

You are not qualified to have an opinion until you educate yourself on some basic principles. Start with what atheism claims to be, and what the scientific method claims to be able to do.

You seem to think that scientists have this arrogant idea that the understand everything. You couldn't be further from the truth. Scientists are the one group of people that are truly aware of how very little we know. They work to try and expand that knowledge, if they can, but no good scientists pretends that his theory is the be-all and end-all in explanations of the universe.

You on the other hand, seem dead certain that you've got everything figured out. How is that more open-minded than someone who spends all day trying to learn things that he or she doesn't know yet?

I agree. Im not a religious scholar. But i am a scientist by education and profession.
Most of what i write is my experience and opinion.
I donot understand atheism because that mentality isnt logical to me.
I donot have everything figured out, just like you dont.
The existance of God is such a subject. Its philosophical, not scientific.
None of us here at GTP are qualified to actually debate this subject, just because were a community of compromising of mostly kids and teenagers following a video game.

As far as people who say science does have everyday phenomenon like gravity or bicycles or love figured out, i suggest you read.

 

[Imari]

But i am a scientist by education and profession.

No, you're not. At best you're in a profession that uses soft science. Everything you've said so far about science is so wrong that if you are a trained and practising scientist, no sensible research director would hire you.

Besides, what do you think I am, a baker's boy?

I donot have everything figured out, just like you dont.

So why are you trying to make out that atheists and/or scientists (your position is a little unclear) think they understand everything? It's an obvious strawman, and it's just not true.

Neither atheists or scientists are more prone to claim that they know everything than theists, and I'd say that of all people scientists *should* be the least likely. They're probably in the same boat realistically, but they have the most opportunity to learn all the things they don't know.

The existance of God is such a subject. Its philosophical, not scientific.

Nobody claimed it wasn't. But when people attempt to bring God into the scientific realm by saying things like "God exists", it's perfectly logical to use scientific reasoning to refute that. The scientific method is the best tool we have for establishing the existence of things.

None of us here at GTP are qualified to actually debate this subject, just because were a community of compromising of mostly kids and teenagers following a video game.

Want to back that statement up with something? Or are you just making stuff up? You have no idea how qualified or otherwise people in this thread are.

As far as people who say science does have everyday phenomenon like gravity or bicycles or love figured out, i suggest you read.

Read what exactly? There are good theories about how gravity, bicycles and love work. You (as a scientist, no less!) still don't understand the concept of a theory.

There is no such thing as a final and definitive proof or explanation. All we ever have is "this is the best we've come up with so far". That's called a theory.

Take points 2 and 3 of Dalton's Atomic theory.

-Atoms of a given element are identical in size, mass, and other properties; atoms of different elements differ in size, mass, and other properties.
-Atoms cannot be subdivided, created, or destroyed.

Those were perfectly reasonable given the observations at the time. Atoms appeared to be the smallest possible unit of matter, and atoms of the same element appeared to be identical. It wasn't until better experimental techniques evolved that it was possible to make observations that showed that these two points were in fact incorrect. Nonetheless, the theory still allowed for useful predictions about the behaviour of atoms.

The theories about gravity, bicycles and love are no different. They may be totally wrong for all we know, but they have value by allowing us to predict some useful things about the universe and how we can interact with it. That's about all a scientific theory is supposed to do.