Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,478 comments
- 1,092,749 views
- 2,153
- Great White North
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
Run
You have no idea what's coming to you.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,186
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Belief has multiple meaning, one of which is religious, as such the context the word is used in changes its meaning. why exactly is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
So you did expect us to magically know about your parents. OK.
The exact same thing you have received previous warnings for, I suggest you review your inbox.
You forget to add "and only if your me as other sources (which I am dismissing out of hand) disagree". You stance suggests a consensus that simply does not exist and that is not something you can dismiss out of hand without evidence.
We have already covered this, so why are you asking again? Nominate the member of staff and I will provide a scan of my passport to them.
Yes that must be the reason!
That's in English is it?
Context once again.You are right, debt does not necessarily involve a deity. Which is EXACTLY why in Arabic, the word religion/deen does not necessarily involve a deity.
It's literally what it means
The problem you have is that is exactly what context can do, as I have clearly shown with the various definitions of faith.
I agree that it can be potentially confusing, that however doesn't then allow you to dismiss them or play bait and switch with them.
With what?
That it defines debt in a religious and non-religious context?
That doesn't I'm afraid support a claim that all worldviews are religions, however out of interest exactly what debt do you think people owe the world?
You are not a member of staff, as such please do not tell other members how they will post, in what manner they will post and/or under what terms they will post.
Doing so while making a passive aggressive dig at a member of staff is also not a good idea.
Focus on your own contributions and if you feel a post breaks the AUP (and the one you have quoted certainly does not) then use the report button.
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
According to your source it has two meanings:
- An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
- (belief in) Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something):
"No belief in god/s" is a belief itself.
Is false. You are wrong. According to those two meanings from your source, a no belief in god/s is a belief.
Why exactly is this so difficult for you to accept?
Please tell me how the parents part makes a difference.
Let me see:
Inappropriate content: Nope.
Inappropriate behavior: Subjective, I don't recall breaking any of the AUP rules to get that warning.
Abusive comment: Nope
I fail to see how this
Are you ****ing kidding me?
Last month in the Islam thread, somebody posted what was supposed to be a quote from the Quran and it was so butchered I couldn't read the half of it. That's not my opinion, that's a ****ing fact.
There's other Arab members on here, would you like them to confirm?
Relates to any of the 3 warnings. Unless you personally consider it inappropriate behavior. Do you?
My stance is fairly reasonable in Arab country in person. What you're asking me to do is impossible online.
I have shown you multiple times already, that there's dozens of contradictory "sources" on the internet regarding Arabic or Islam. How would you know which one is correct, and which one is not? This is because Arabs/Muslims tend to have this insane stubbornness to learn a new language saying "The Quran is Arabic, so Arabic is the best language and I need to learn no other". Most scholars have this behavior, so you're left with amateurs, imbeciles and ill-informed people that can't even speak English well attempt to convey Islam or (improperly) translate Arabic language.
Not that I can discuss it with you anyway, because you don't speak the language. You're in no position to argue Arabic with me, or anyone that speaks it. You may consult others, sure. Are you going to do that, though?
What's funny is that you have not provided any source yet that contradicts my claim.
So you expect me to just take their word for it if they saw it?
Must be :|
What? It's the Arabic wikipedia page defining the word deen and its etymology.
What English?
What? Please elaborate.
The word deen, which is the equivalent of religion in English, originated from "Debt". That's the etymology. It's literally the same word, but a new meaning was added to it at a later point. The meaning that was added, what commonly refers to "religion" today, is the meaning that I and @SalmanBH translated for you .
بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ.
Go back and read our translations, and find me where it says it must involve a deity.
I'm getting tired of saying this over and over again. If you don't want to take my word for, @SalmanBH 's word for it, or if you think the Wikipedia page is full of ****, just say so.
What? How do we discuss things then? How can you discuss an idea if you keep changing the meaning of the word to suit your argument? All I ask from a member is to explain what they mean by that word. I'm not allowed to do that???
It does. It means having a set of beliefs and principles.
Beliefs+principles you guy by = worldviews. Right?
Me, my opinion? Such a complex question should be phrased better. Are you asking what I think I owe to the world, or what I think people owe to the world? More importantly, what do you mean by "world"? In what context?
You better be joking because I didn't TELL him to do anything.
1) We shouldn't go into details..bla bla = A suggestion. Like saying, one should deal with with one like this and so etc.
2) Let's use layman terms etc etc = A suggestion on how to deal with a layman.
You seem to have this "don't tell me what to do" problem as you've asked me something similar before. I implore you to make the distinction between one making a suggestion, and one telling another what to do.
I'd like to believe that @Famine and I have reached this point where taking small jabs at each other is acceptable, since he's been doing the same lately.
I personally don't have a problem with him doing it. If he has a problem with anything I say, he can speak for himself and ask me to apologize, and I will.
Thanks for the suggestion though.
Out of curiosity, what if that post is a moderator's? I'm certainly upset by how you threatened me twice now. The AUP literally says:
- You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
"Do [x] or else" is not a warning as you claimed, it's a threat.
I kindly moved on, but should a situation like this happens again from you or another member of the staff, what do I do? This is a serious question by the way.
Wait.
How dare you agree with me on something?
- 27,202
- United Kingdom
If you think it's bull****, then you've either not read or not understood the article.
In your opinion, God exists = absolutely fine. Nobody is trying to take that away from you.
In your opinion, there is proof that God exists = not fine, as the "proof" does not meet the definition of the term and cannot be substantiated.
Here's the gist of the article Famine linked to:
"I believe in God" comes under the first kind in that last quote, tastes or preferences. Nobody can tell you that you don't believe in God, just like they can't tell you that, for instance, Camaros are better than Mustangs. People can discuss the merits of Camaros or Mustangs but "better" is entirely subjective.
But "God exists" is an untenable position, since there's no evidence behind it. It's an opinion alright, but you aren't entitled to that opinion as a statement of fact unless you can explain (and prove) why God exists. And chances are, you can't.
If this thread was simply full of people saying "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe in God" then things would be much simpler. It would be quite a boring thread honestly, but what we have is two situations that complicate it and lead to conflict.
One is people saying that their belief and that of others, or the bible, or the fact that religion has been around for yonks is proof God exists (it isn't); the other is people saying that Atheism is a belief (it isn't - it's the very opposite of that).
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, you're telling a member what he must do because I'm going to turn up and say what you attribute to me.
Now answer the question. Why do you think you can ignore a direct instruction from a member of staff.
That is also an instruction. The answer needs to be a good one because you cannot afford for it to be a bad one, or to ignore that instruction.
There's no point - you refuse to be and you reinvent language and reality in order not to be.
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
Whether its wrong or right, considering the topic of this thread, God's existence is yet to be established, in a final and for all way.
I agree.
If you take all of the opinions out of GTP, there wouldn't be one page left.
Not to mention the topic here invokes practically all opinion by its very nature.
The argument of backing up your opinion with substantive support is mostly bogus as well since in the final analysis, its still, basically a divide based on individual perception, or opinion.
BHRxRacer
(Banned)
- 1,214
Telling him what he must do? No, I think it was pretty clear that I was trying to warm him up. I even liked his post out of sympathy. I didn't say he must do anything.
Because you're going to turn up and do a certain something? Well, not exactly. I made a prediction. I predicted based on previous experience, and posts of yours, that it's highly probable that you'll come to this thread and make that statement. It's one of those educated guesses that you like. "Before someone comes and does/says something" Isn't literally saying he WILL come and do something. It's figurative language. I know that you know this because your English is good enough.
Why do you think you can ignore a direct instruction from a member of staff.
I don't think I can, and I don't think I did. I think that you misinterpreted my post. Maybe it's because of emotion, since we've been arguing back and forth in several topics, but the point remains that you misunderstood my post. Since we'd share the blame on this, the best I can do is promise to do my best not to make another post that's misinterpretable, but only if you can promise to do your best to interpret them correctly
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not good enough. Have a week to come up with a better answer.Telling him what he must do? No, I think it was pretty clear that I was trying to warm him up. I even liked his post out of sympathy. I didn't say he must do anything.
Because you're going to turn up and do a certain something? Well, not exactly. I made a prediction. I predicted based on previous experience, and posts of yours, that it's highly probable that you'll come to this thread and make that statement. It's one of those educated guesses that you like. "Before someone comes and does/says something" Isn't literally saying he WILL come and do something. It's figurative language. I know that you know this because your English is good enough.
Why do you think you can ignore a direct instruction from a member of staff.
I don't think I can, and I don't think I did. I think that you misinterpreted my post. Maybe it's because of emotion, since we've been arguing back and forth in several topics, but the point remains that you misunderstood my post. Since we'd share the blame on this, the best I can do is promise to do my best not to make another post that's misinterpretable, but only if you can promise to do your best to interpret them correctly
- 27,202
- United Kingdom
Not really, otherwise everything humankind has ever learned would be false, or open to interpretation. Which is not the case.
Substantive support must be just that - substantive. That substance is provided by the scientific qualities of repeatability, non-falsifiability and independent analysis. Can this piece of evidence be repeated? If not, it doesn't meet the standard. Can it be falsified, i.e. is there an inherent probability of it being proven false? If it can, it can't yet be considered sufficient evidence. Can it be given to anyone else with the tools to investigate, for them to come to the same conclusion? If it can't, it isn't acceptable as evidence.
That's where the blue strawberry example came in before. Someone is entitled to think that strawberries are blue, since that's their opinion. But to prove it, they'd need to find several other examples of blue strawberries for repeatability. If such things existed, this would be plausible. But it's highly falsifiable, since our knowledge of the wavelengths of light would show that it's red.
Even if all of humankind could only see in black and white, we could invent a machine that showed the light reflecting off it would be a different wavelength from the light reflecting off a blue object. The terms "blue" and "red" would have no meaning to us obviously, but the objective data could be replicated by anyone around the world using the same methods. The conclusion being thus: Strawberries aren't blue, and the opinion of the guy saying they are is not worth listening to.
This though:
...is about as close as you've got to saying something sensible on this subject in years. The issue then is whether it can be established, which by any method that matters, is highly unlikely.SuperCobraJet
Of course, the whole argument here is that it shouldn't need to be "established", since proof denies faith. I believe that might have been mentioned before.
- 1,223
- Kalayaan Islands
Don't you guys ever get tired of debating? Just wondering.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Generally speaking, no.
It gets harder and less enjoyable the more people reinvent reality and language to suit them - often they've talked themselves into an indefensible corner they're too proud to give up on - but for the most part, most people on both sides of any discussion don't do that.
Some folk would be better just proselytising on a blog though, yes.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,186
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Given that you have (unsurprisingly) managed to self destruct and earn a week off I'm going to address one core part of you reply with the following question.
Why are you quote mining?
Lets take a look at the full source shall we (rather than your edited version):
Now I would be very interested to know why you removed 1.2? A quite clear religious definition of belief, the English language has (as I and others have repeatedly explained) both religious and non-religious meanings for belief based upon the context. The source makes that clear (that it is a clarified definition of the first part does not change that at all).
You deliberately removed it, which would seem to be at odds with this part of the AUP:
- You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.
It would seem from my viewpoint that you removed it because it didn't support you claims, and you did so in a deliberate and misleading manner.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Yippee! Everybody involved will hopefully enjoy a well-earned week off.
Posting on the "Do you believe in God?" thread is great fun, but exhausting hard work as well, even for those who only read or play a minor note in this Great Fugue of a thread.
Hopefully, the major protagonists will reengage in cosmic battle next week, but armed with ever tighter, more concise arguments, better citations, greater brevity and above all, more levity. Even so, I see only another fight to the death, it not being conceivable that the players involved could EVER politely agree to disagree, let alone resolve the question. Both sides are fired with a glorious but tiresome zeal which borders on Messianic.
Last edited:
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
- 1,085
- Barcelona
- Missing
- Halo v8
Why?
Why is "humans just appearing" not a possibility in your mind, yet "humans being put on Earth by a higher power/being" is?
Also, by "humans just appearing", do you mean the theory of evolution?
- 391
- Bahrain
- SalmanBH
I, as a Muslim, believe that no one can ever be certain that God exists until one of two things happens:
1. The Apocalypse takes place.
2. There is life after death and we witness God ourselves.
Not one person living on this Earth can confirm 100% that God exists, despite any evidence that may be brought forth. But my own opinion is that there is something more to this purely mechanistic view that many scientists have of the world.
I would recommend that you guys watch this talk given by Rupert Sheldrake which was banned for some weird reason.
1. The Apocalypse takes place.
2. There is life after death and we witness God ourselves.
Not one person living on this Earth can confirm 100% that God exists, despite any evidence that may be brought forth. But my own opinion is that there is something more to this purely mechanistic view that many scientists have of the world.
I would recommend that you guys watch this talk given by Rupert Sheldrake which was banned for some weird reason.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,186
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Ah the morphic fields man...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
...who takes issue with science using the scientific method, which is not a big surprise given that he has utterly failed to provide any proof to a scientific standard.
However I am interested in what you describe as the something 'more' and why and how it sits outside what science describes (given that science literally means knowledge)?
Oh and it wasn't banned...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#TEDx_controversy
...which kind of shows the level of honesty we are dealing with from him.
- 391
- Bahrain
- SalmanBH
You have quoted a website that completely opposes pseudo-science and the anti-science movement.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
It's one of their main purposes, of course they will disagree with a man like Sheldrake. But thanks for clarifying that it wasn't banned, simply moved to the TED blog.
Anyhow, I wasn't saying that I agree with what Mr. Sheldrake is saying, for example when he says that one dogma that mainstream scientists believe is that everything is constant, claiming that the speed of light has changed over the years, but I think that this is because of the development and improvement of the equipment we use to measure the speed of light and that it has remained constant.
I was only trying to change the topic since everyone seemed to be getting a little bored of the constant discussion of belief and opinion, and this sure does give us a different perspective of things.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
T_Exige
Premium
- 151
- Belgium
- T_Exige
I haven't read the whole thread so I wil just answer the question.
This is my own opinion and I respect that of others.
I dont believe in any religion, for me they are all made to keep people in place, get money or power. Some are better than others. Some people need them.
I also don't believe some evolved ape can create a Pagani Zonda or a Bugatti Veyron.
Who knows what is out there, I do believe in god, but not those made by people.
This is my own opinion and I respect that of others.
I dont believe in any religion, for me they are all made to keep people in place, get money or power. Some are better than others. Some people need them.
I also don't believe some evolved ape can create a Pagani Zonda or a Bugatti Veyron.
Who knows what is out there, I do believe in god, but not those made by people.
Last edited:
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 23,819
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I'm not entirely sure how you can believe in god but not in religion. Without religion there can surely be no god. The two being intrinsically linked.
Whether you believe in a god or not, 'religion' has always been something made up by humans, again the two have to be intrinsically linked.
If you don't believe in evolution what do you believe in? The creation of man from thin air sounds an awful lot like the work of 'a higher power' to me.
Similar threads
