Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

@SuperCobraJet
I'm interested in what it's like to experience a personal revelation. If it's not too personal, I'd be pleased to hear about your experience.

 

[20832]

I don't know, if that has been posted yet, but I find it kinda fits the whole topic.



And in response to this, theThinkingAtheist did this video

 

[zzz_pt]

a lot of people did a response to that guy's stupid video. ^^

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You simply cannot call something 'evident' if you do not offer as to why. It's not evident, it's conjecture.

What does it offer? What makes it so obvious? As @Scaff has consistently asked you, what makes your belief in your religion more valid and true than someone else's belief in a different religion?

I think we are talking about two different things here.
By reading it, or just from observation, it is unique or different, as compared to other religions.
Thats what is evident in that respect.
It offers redemption, through faith and impartation of a new identity, or operating system.
As said before, that is more logical, rational and applicable.

I can now thankfully reduce your nonsense to a single point.

No one (but you) has claimed than the scientific method is the basis for existence.

As such you have redefined it in an attempt to suit your own ends.

It is not the basis of existence, it is the method used to provide proof of existence via valid robust evidence testing; for it to be the basis for existence it would have to be the creating mechanism, which again no one (but you) has said.

You have been linked to information on the Scientific method previously, so why are you still getting it wrong? Is it ignorance or deliberate (and I do expect an answer on this point)?

You know I'm tempted to say we are making progress.

Again, I'm not redefining anything, just pointing out the obvious.
Otherwise I can agree with most of what you have here.
"It is not the basis of existence, it is the method used to provide proof of existence via valid robust evidence testing"
Now if this can be qualified, as to reality, we will be making progress.
Being subject to, the physical realm, and point in time, Yes that is exactly what it is.
Also that, the standard, may not have identified everything that may exist, even within its parameters.
And of course corrections and additions do occur as new information, or changes, discovery, etc. come into play.
Are you agreeable with that?

Now just as then, the sledgehammer has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the sunrise has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the hamburger has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the sneeze has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the yellow has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the anger has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the cunnilingus has no clue what can exist.

What the hell game are we playing here? Did I score any points?

We are playing, excruciate with details.
Sorry, but you didn't score any points.
Almost though.

Finally, you ask a question I can understand, and is not lost in ambiguity.

I can't speak for @Scaff, however my answer is simple:

Because there is absolutely no evidence that any gods exist, and because the stories made up to support their existence make no sense.

No evidence, or the kind of evidence you want to see?

For example. The Bible is the "word of God" > The Bible contains the story of Noah and the flood > that story is demonstrably nonsense > at least some of "God's words" are nonsense > I can't trust any "words of God".

Why do you think it nonsense?
Perhaps, you do not realize, we exist in the miraculous, already.

 

[Liquid]

By reading [the NT], or just from observation, it is unique or different, as compared to other religions.
Thats what is evident in that respect.

How is it? It is not evident. Please explain.

What is within those pages that make you accept what is written as fact?

 

[Scaff]

Again, I'm not redefining anything, just pointing out the obvious.

You put forward a definition that no one here has used and that no source provided has ever claimed and then used your revised definition to try and advance your point.

You redefined it.

Otherwise I can agree with most of what you have here.
"It is not the basis of existence, it is the method used to provide proof of existence via valid robust evidence testing"
Now if this can be qualified, as to reality, we will be making progress.

Qualified in what manner?

Being subject to, the physical realm, and point in time, Yes that is exactly what it is.

Point in time yes but its perfectly possible to apply the method to historical data, however you will need to elaborate on 'physical realm'.

Also that, the standard, may not have identified everything that may exist, even within its parameters.

It may not have been used to identify things that do exist, but it has not yet failed to when it has been applied.

And of course corrections and additions do occur as new information, or changes, discovery, etc. come into play.
Are you agreeable with that?

That is correct, which is why I have said all along that should evidence to a scientific standard be available for god(s) then I (and I am sure many) would be happy to evaluate it and take it into account.

In the entire history of humanity (approx 50,000 years) no evidence has been presented that meets the standard, and the cited sources of claimed evidence have repeatedly failed even the most basic of examination is the reason why I have no belief in god(s), in exactly the same way I have no belief in fairies or elves, etc.

By reading it, or just from observation, it is unique or different, as compared to other religions.
Thats what is evident in that respect.
It offers redemption, through faith and impartation of a new identity, or operating system.
As said before, that is more logical, rational and applicable.

Why is it so difficult for you to be specific in this regard?

What exactly is it that makes Christianity (and your specific sect if you need) so unique and different?

The question has been asked a number of times and yet we just seem to get 'mumble, mumble, stuff, mumble'. So this time be specific, as plenty of religions offer redemption (Hindus for example) , to try and claim faith as unique is odd to say the least (that could however just be your abuse of grammar), a new identity (too many to list again) and a new 'operating system'? Oh you mean faith again.

Specifics please.

 

[zzz_pt]

Amazing stuff.

 

[GBO Possum]

Why do you think it nonsense?
Perhaps, you do not realize, we exist in the miraculous, already.

I already explained why I think the Noah/flood story is nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-513#post-10057647

I hope you are not so delusional that you think "we exist in the miraculous" actually explains anything.

 

[Scaff]

I already explained why I think the Noah/flood story is nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-513#post-10057647

I hope you are not so delusional that you think "we exist in the miraculous" actually explains anything.

The interesting part is that almost all of the OT flood myth mirrors the Gilgamesh flood myth, which predates Judaim

http://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm

So not only is it unsupported by evidence as an actual event, we do have evidence that its actually a copy of another religions myths (as is much of the bible OT and NT - including Jesus).

 

[SniperRed3]

I have a pet dragon in my greenhouse and on my morning ride I went 140mph on my Raleigh chopper in the woods.

 

[Liquid]

I have a pet dragon in my greenhouse and on my morning ride I went 140mph on my Raleigh chopper in the woods.

Please.

There's debunking myths and then there's just being an arse.

 

[Scaff]

On topic please.

 

[RalliArt/////]

The link you gave had a blanket response that was supposed to respond to the first 7 presumed contradictions all in one. It referred to a thousand page article talking about something completely different. That's not a response, that's a cop-out.

You fail to mention this post. The one you also couldn't refute. Can you respond without sounding like a child this time?

Speaking of cop-outs, you said your response to all 300+ answers to your "contradictions" was this post. Not only does that make no sense but "That's not a response, that's a cop-out."

 

[Danoff]

You fail to mention this post. The one you also couldn't refute. Can you respond without sounding like a child this time?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-511#post-10051559

Refute what? There's nothing serious in that post.

Speaking of cop-outs, you said your response to all 300+ answers to your "contradictions" was this post. Not only does that make no sense but "That's not a response, that's a cop-out."

The link you gave damaged its own credibility beyond repair immediately. No that's not a cop out.

 

[Scaff]

You fail to mention this post. The one you also couldn't refute. Can you respond without sounding like a child this time?

Speaking of cop-outs, you said your response to all 300+ answers to your "contradictions" was this post. Not only does that make no sense but "That's not a response, that's a cop-out."

Given that most of these can be reduced down to either "what they actually mean to say is...." or "what it should actually have been translated as......" doesn't really help.

It leads to one of two outcomes:

• Your links are right (and given Answers in Genesis's track record that's a push - the earth is not 6,000 years old) which means that god let his 'word' become so confused that its not worth the paper its printed on. After all if the degree of translation errors go that deep then the whole thing has to be looked on with doubt.
• They are wrong and god has ensured that his book is his 'word', which makes it full of contradictions.

A third option does of course present itself. That the books are a mish-mash of bits borrowed from a range of other religion, mixed with a good helping of 'winner writes it the way they want' historical myth all compounded by the books being written at wildly different points in history.

I'm going with the third one, given that it actually has some evidence to back it up (and the world is not 6,000 years old - AiG are quite frankly so wrong on that point that its goes beyond idiocy).

 

[GBO Possum]

You fail to mention this post. The one you also couldn't refute. Can you respond without sounding like a child this time?

Speaking of cop-outs, you said your response to all 300+ answers to your "contradictions" was this post. Not only does that make no sense but "That's not a response, that's a cop-out."

If the excuse for inaccuracies and contradictions is that English versions of the bible are translations, and that's where the errors came from, then, OK - Any version of the Bible which has gone through either transcription or translation can not be trusted. Since there were no printing presses back then, we have to use the original documents, or photographic copies of them.

And here is the problem. The originals no longer exist, and the only technology available for copying was transcription.

For some reason, I have this expectation that God would be aware of this, and aware that there are multiple versions of Biblical books around which are contradictory. My next expectation is that on something as important as this, that God would fix it. After all, his people go around killing in the name of the Holy Word, so they better be reading what God actually meant.

Is it too much to expect that the entity which created a universe (or maybe many), should be able to find a way of communicating simultaneously, consistently and unambiguously to the various peoples of this planet? And to the peoples of other planets in this universe?

 

[CodeRedR51]

This is a good reason why religion disgusts me.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I wanna to try...

"Belief" in the religious sense - to know without question that something is true - is not possible* to achieve rationally. Everything can be doubted*. God himself could come to me dressed in robes, standing 2000 feet tall, look down at me, smite the tree next to me, and say "I am the one true Christian God, do you believe in me now?", and I'd reply "How do I know you're not lying?". How do I know he's not a shroom slipped into my dinner? How do I know he's not a hologram, or part of the computer program that my entire consciousness is trapped in. No amount of evidence is possible to prevent me from doubting my perceptions (even the made up spiritual ones). I could literally have died and gone to heaven and still not "believe" in the way that religious people use the term.

You sound like the proverbial "Doubting Thomas" on steroids.
While you can certainly proclaim such jibberish, it is highly unlikely your life is spent in a vicious cycle of trying to decipher what is an illusion and what isn't.
You would be totally disfunctional if you did.
So all of that is of no consequence in reality.
If you wop your thumb with a hammer, I doubt you will worry about illusionary aspects, since the reality of it, will clearly establish itself as an immediate non illusional priority.
In the end result, it doesn't matter if everything is illusional, you still have to play it out.

However, you're not using it in the religious sense, you're misusing it (still) in the colloquial sense. You think "believe" - means to kinda think it's probably true. And for that, I require significant evidence - of which I have seen none. And no evidence to the contrary - of which I have seen lots.

*Except the cogito

I'm not misusing it, I believe its true, because I know it to be true.
It's a flawless application.
How is "no evidence", also "a lot of evidence"?
So you believe the cogito?

SuperCobraJet how's your relationship with God?

Good, thanks for asking.

You put forward a definition that no one here has used and that no source provided has ever claimed and then used your revised definition to try and advance your point.

You redefined it.

Redifined what?
I have know idea what you are talking about.

Qualified in what manner?

In the manner I described.

Point in time yes but its perfectly possible to apply the method to historical data, however you will need to elaborate on 'physical realm'.

Being part, and of, the "physical" or material realm.

It may not have been used to identify things that do exist, but it has not yet failed to when it has been applied.

That assumes infallibilty, or perfection, which is not the case.
It has not yet failed "according to" who, and what.
Since science is a human endeavor, it is automatically imperfect.
The best that can be said for it is: "it is good at identifying things that do exist, but not perfect."

That is correct, which is why I have said all along that should evidence to a scientific standard be available for god(s) then I (and I am sure many) would be happy to evaluate it and take it into account.

Another clear indicater of imperfection.

In the entire history of humanity (approx 50,000 years) no evidence has been presented that meets the standard, and the cited sources of claimed evidence have repeatedly failed even the most basic of examination is the reason why I have no belief in god(s), in exactly the same way I have no belief in fairies or elves, etc.

Well my question would be: Why would you insist on a physical standard to identify a spiritual phenomenon?

Why is it so difficult for you to be specific in this regard?

What exactly is it that makes Christianity (and your specific sect if you need) so unique and different?

The question has been asked a number of times and yet we just seem to get 'mumble, mumble, stuff, mumble'. So this time be specific, as plenty of religions offer redemption (Hindus for example) , to try and claim faith as unique is odd to say the least (that could however just be your abuse of grammar), a new identity (too many to list again) and a new 'operating system'? Oh you mean faith again.

Specifics please.

I said "faith and impartation".
The new identity, or operating system, being made possible by the impartation of the "Holy Spirit".

 

[Scaff]

Redifined what?
I have know idea what you are talking about.

You re-defined the scientific method and used 'your' definition to propose statements that made no sense.

In the manner I described.

You didn't describe a manner.

Being part, and of, the "physical" or material realm.

As opposed to?

That assumes infallibilty, or perfection, which is not the case.
It has not yet failed "according to" who, and what.
Since science is a human endeavor, it is automatically imperfect.
The best that can be said for it is: "it is good at identifying things that do exist, but not perfect."

No you assume infallibility, no one has claimed that.

It has not failed yet, 'yet' being a key point.

Another clear indicater of imperfection.

Which no one has claimed otherwise (well apart from you).

Well my question would be: Why would you insist on a physical standard to identify a spiritual phenomenon?

Please suggest another method that will provide the same level of validation and work on the 'spiritual', something by the way which you (and others) have yet to even show exists.

I said "faith and impartation".
The new identity, or operating system, being made possible by the impartation of the "Holy Spirit".

Ah the Holy Spirit. Yep that's not unique to Christianity either.

So once again be specific as to the unique point(s) that make it stand out so obviously (to you)?

 

[Liquid]

@SuperCobraJet

How is [the New Testament obviously and evidently better than other holy texts]? It is not evident. Please explain.

What is within those pages that make you accept what is written as fact?

Well? You still refuse to answer why your denomination within your own religion is better than the other apparently wrong denominations of your own religion, let alone why your religion as a whole is more correct than other religions.

"It just is" does not suffice. At all.

 

[GBO Possum]

I already explained why I think the Noah/flood story is nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-513#post-10057647

I hope you are not so delusional that you think "we exist in the miraculous" actually explains anything.

@SuperCobraJet, I explained why the Noah story is nonsense, as you requested. There are many other parts of the Bible that are nonsense too, but let's stick with this one.

Do you now understand why the flood myth is nonsense?

 

[Danoff]

You sound like the proverbial "Doubting Thomas" on steroids.
While you can certainly proclaim such jibberish

You're too dismissive. It's fact, those things are possibilities.

, it is highly unlikely your life is spent in a vicious cycle of trying to decipher what is an illusion and what isn't.

Of course not, and I have addressed that.

So all of that is of no consequence in reality.

No there is a consequence. The consequence is that I do not believe (in the religious sense) in anything*. I'll take it a step further, because the doubting possibilities exist, no one, should believe (in a religious sense) in anything. I don't care if you've had a spiritual experience or not, you can't possibly know the nature of that experience.

I'm not misusing it, I believe its true, because I know it to be true.

Your statements above continue to demonstrate that you are conflating the two uses of the term - perhaps intentionally.

How is "no evidence", also "a lot of evidence"?

You misunderstood. Read it again, if you still have questions let me know.

So you believe the cogito?

It's a tautological truth. It's true by definition, and yes, I believe it (with the conviction of a religious person, but not with the same rationale).


* Except the cogito

 

[RalliArt/////]

Refute what? There's nothing serious in that post.

...another cop out.

Speaking of cop-outs, you said your response to all 300+ answers to your "contradictions" was this post. Not only does that make no sense but "That's not a response, that's a cop-out."

The link you gave damaged its own credibility beyond repair immediately. No that's not a cop out.

Its funny what you can get away with - depending which side you're on.

2 Timothy 4:3...they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[Liquid]

You are literally giving us Bible quotes as if they are factual and meaningful?

You claim what is in the Bible to be true. The onus is on you to prove that they are true, not for someone else to disprove them. And to prove that they are true, one needs to present real evidence substantiating the claims in the Bible, of which there are many. Empty rhetoric and quoting is just that.. empty.

 

[BobK]

2 Timothy 4:3...they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Sounds like pretty much any religious meeting I've ever known of. What was your point, again?

 

[zzz_pt]

@RalliArt/////

Those verses from the bible are meaningless and pointless. It's obvious that the people who wrote the bible were dumb about a lot of things (almost everything) but not to the point where they would leave out some passages claiming that everyone who contradicts the bible is a fool or something on the same lines (and will go to hell of course). It's a basic strategy to every religion or ideology that wants to keep information away from its "flock". Do not question it.

Serious claims and facts are there for anyone to see, investigate and reach conclusions.

The greatness of our species is the capability to raise questions and to doubt. If we wouldn't do this, we would probably be living in caves.

“Let go of certainty. The opposite isn't uncertainty. It's openness, curiosity and a willingness to embrace paradox, rather than choose up sides. The ultimate challenge is to accept ourselves exactly as we are, but never stop trying to learn and grow.” ― Tony Schwartz



“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell

 

[Scaff]

2 Timothy 4:3...they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Irony.

Posting the above while using Answers in Genesis as a source for citations.

Oh and why have you not answered any of the points I have raised on this?

I repeat:

Bats are not birds and rabbits are not ruminates.

I both resist and claim contradiction on these claims.

and

Given that most of these can be reduced down to either "what they actually mean to say is...." or "what it should actually have been translated as......" doesn't really help.

It leads to one of two outcomes:

• Your links are right (and given Answers in Genesis's track record that's a push - the earth is not 6,000 years old) which means that god let his 'word' become so confused that its not worth the paper its printed on. After all if the degree of translation errors go that deep then the whole thing has to be looked on with doubt.
• They are wrong and god has ensured that his book is his 'word', which makes it full of contradictions.

A third option does of course present itself. That the books are a mish-mash of bits borrowed from a range of other religion, mixed with a good helping of 'winner writes it the way they want' historical myth all compounded by the books being written at wildly different points in history.

I'm going with the third one, given that it actually has some evidence to back it up (and the world is not 6,000 years old - AiG are quite frankly so wrong on that point that its goes beyond idiocy).

 

[splitzle_]

No. The universe came from the big bang, not a big man in the sky. (well, it might not be the big bang, but its more believable than a God) Humans came from evolution, and any way we advanced is because of our brains having the capacity to do so. I would believe in a God if things like abuse and poverty didn't happen. But they do.

 

[RalliArt/////]

Thank you all, I feel blessed.

Luke 6:22 How blessed are you whenever people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because of the Son of Man!

1 Peter 4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.

 

[Jet Badger]

And that, my friends, is the theological equivalent of covering up your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALA"...