Do you believe in God?

[BHRxRacer]

So a leap of faith doesn't require belief?

No. Not by the original definitions, or what the word implies.

If someone I trust tells me to invest in stock because it'll boom, I wouldn't have to believe they're right to take a leap of faith and invest.

No I'm not.

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't read enough of your posts to decide if you're Muslim at heart or not. Other members fall into that category.

You will want to check what the AUP says about attacks on other members before you carry on down this route.

I didn't attack any member. That was a generalization. Same kind of generalizations @Famine have posted before.

You may want to check the AUP yourself, sometimes.

Nice try, but I didn't give you the temp ban.

You didn't. Where in my post did I say you did? This is why I give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem to not understand my posts at all.

You broke the rules when 1) You threatened me rudely 2) Claimed that I broke the rules when I clearly didn't.

Again with the insults and false accusations.

No insults. Accusations that can be backed up, yes. I asked you before what the procedure is to complain about a moderator.

Not only have I replied to your points but I have included all of the points for discussion.

That further illustrates how you missed the whole point of my post then.

You do not get to make the decision as to which of the definitions is or is not accurate

I do not. Your source does. Your sources listed 1.0 to be the original/accurate definition.

(Common definition are not stated as not being accurate - if that was the case you would have a point - but its not).

They don't have to be explicitly stated they are. You can deduce that they are inaccurate yourself, or by using discrete logic.

I'm glad you're at least acknowledging that I would have a point if that was true. That's a relief..

You deliberately missed out a core part of the definition, which is blatant quote mining.

No. I quoted the full thing before without removing anything. That =/= missing out on parts. I don't have to quote the WHOLE THING every single time. I erased the latter parts the last time because maybe you'll see it clearly that way.

That's assuming the latter part were a part of the definition anyway. For the last time, the part that I was arguing is the part that I quoted. Why can't you understand that? I'm arguing 1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2.

Given your post I would have to say that the time off has not been used wisely.

Is there some kind of rehab center I should be aware of? As far as I'm concerned I did nothing wrong. Stop treating yourself as a god. You're a sack of meat behind a computer just like me, we all make mistakes. I don't report posts, by staff or regular members for that reason.

If you can demonstrate to me that I did something wrong, I'll apologize and stop doing it. This must be the 10th time I tell you or @Famine this.

Nope. I was browsing the forum and this thread popped to the top of most recent posts.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Just pointing out things I found amusing.

It never occurred.

Then you're not the target audience for Islam.

That would, in the absence of evidence, be a belief. It is not that case that I believe that no gods exist. I simply don't believe that they do. We've been over this.

What is it that you said in the F1 thread? "would it hurt to get a direct answer from you?"? Yeah, that.

You keep giving me lawyer replies. My question was a yes or no. Can you give me a yes or no?

So what was all that tripe about atheists being "raw Islam" then?

My belief is raw Islam. Some of you called it atheism. You called it agnosticism.

 

[Famine]

Just pointing out things I found amusing.

I asked why it was relevant, not why you said it.

Then you're not the target audience for Islam

Nor are any other atheists, because they do not believe in any deities. Nor are any nontheists, because they believe deities do not exist. Nor are any agnostics, because they believe you cannot know if deities exist.

In fact, from your statement, your only "target audience" seems to be people who believe deities can exist, that a single supreme deity exists and who haven't decided which one.

What is it that you said in the F1 thread? "would it hurt to get a direct answer from you?"? Yeah, that.

You keep giving me lawyer replies. My question was a yes or no. Can you give me a yes or no?

I gave you a direct answer. It could not have been any more direct.

My belief is raw Islam. Some of you called it atheism. You called it agnosticism.

I called what you were presenting as your beliefs as agnosticism. It took quite a lot of questioning to get you to the point where you actually pinned down what your beliefs were, because whenever you get pulled up on some rubbish you've said you claim it was a joke or not meant to be taken seriously. What you said was that "I don't believe, nor disbelieve that god(s) exist, and will not until evidence comes up.". If you are now equating that with the "raw Islam" you describe of simply having faith that a supreme deity exists, you don't understand what "faith" and "belief" mean.


I will presume at this point that what you said were your beliefs were also a joke or not meant to be taken seriously since you are now presenting them differently. As I have said in more than one thread now, you are so incredibly dishonest about what you think that it is not possible to determine from your posts what you actually think.

Discussion does not work well when one side is a pathological liar.

 

[Scaff]

No. Not by the original definitions, or what the word implies.

If someone I trust tells me to invest in stock because it'll boom, I wouldn't have to believe they're right to take a leap of faith and invest.

Then you quite clearly do not understand the English language to the degree you think.

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't read enough of your posts to decide if you're Muslim at heart or not. Other members fall into that category.

You don't get to pick who replies to you.

I didn't attack any member. That was a generalization. Same kind of generalizations @Famine have posted before.

You may want to check the AUP yourself, sometimes.

• You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
• You will, if asked by a representative of the forums, cease posting any content.

I know the AUP quite well enough thank you.

You didn't. Where in my post did I say you did? This is why I give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem to not understand my posts at all.

You broke the rules when 1) You threatened me rudely 2) Claimed that I broke the rules when I clearly didn't.

I've not threatened you rudely at all. I've told you what the consequences of breaking the AUP are, if you wish to discuss the specifics of the reason why you have been given warnings then use the PM tool for that. Discussions of that nature (regarding the violations of a specific member) are not (and have never been) a public topic.

No insults. Accusations that can be backed up, yes. I asked you before what the procedure is to complain about a moderator.

The staff disagree.

As far as the process of complaints goes, you PM the site owner.

I do not. Your source does. Your sources listed 1.0 to be the original/accurate definition.

They don't have to be explicitly stated they are. You can deduce that they are inaccurate yourself, or by using discrete logic.

I'm glad you're at least acknowledging that I would have a point if that was true. That's a relief..

Its not however true is it?

You see you don't get to decide which of the 1.x definition is or isn't true.

In this case you argued that belief has no religious context, and to try and illustrate this you quoted a source and removed a section that defines belief as having a religious context.

A deliberately miss-leading action.

No. I quoted the full thing before without removing anything. That =/= missing out on parts. I don't have to quote the WHOLE THING every single time. I erased the latter parts the last time because maybe you'll see it clearly that way.

That's assuming the latter part were a part of the definition anyway. For the last time, the part that I was arguing is the part that I quoted. Why can't you understand that? I'm arguing 1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2.

You don't get to make that choice.

Is there some kind of rehab center I should be aware of? As far as I'm concerned I did nothing wrong. Stop treating yourself as a god. You're a sack of meat behind a computer just like me, we all make mistakes. I don't report posts, by staff or regular members for that reason.

Please keep going if you wish.......................




edited to add.........................too late.

 

[GBO Possum]

@BHRxRacer and @SuperCobraJet, I feel like I'm getting a message to be open-minded.

I'm therefore thinking that we could all benefit from this brief video about the topic:-



And SuperCobraJet, I'm still waiting to hear back from you regarding the flood myth. You asked why I described it as "nonsense", and I gave a brief number of reasons. Do I take it that we have tacit agreement that it's nonsense?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You had to re-define the scientific method to make those claims.

That you can't see to understand that smack of either deliberate ignorance or an utter failure to comprehend even the basics of the method.

No one has ever claimed that the method is the basis of existence (because its not), yet that is exactly what you used it for in your 1800 example..

You keep saying this, as if saying it will make it true.
Basis of existence, or proof of existence, doesn't change the outcome.
And the same standard is being, applied.
There is no redefiniton, of scientific method.

No you strung a series of word together, that alone doesn't answer the question.

Well if you do not want to accept the fact, scientific method is, "physically, and point in time dependant"
and it may not have identified, everything that could exist, then don't accept it.

And why that one and not all the other claims for the supernatural?

Because, it is the only one, I personally have found to be uniquely applicable.

Yes you did and given that at nno point have I claimed it was I don't really need it pointing out to me.

Well I quess that clears that up then.
Scientific method is not infallible.

If its a fact then you will not mind providing a sourced and peer reviewed example of this.

It wouldn't matter, if I did.
That would not guarantee infallibility.
It only insures it to a degree.

Which means its not objective.

As for the rest, that kind of undermines you claim for gods existence being a fact.

By your standard, it is not considered objective, because it is possible, it is not.
That has no bearing on the fact, it could be totally objective, in spite of the possibility.
God's existence is a fact for me. But not for you, by your imposed standard.

I don't own the scientific method, so I'm not quite sure why you need that emphasis.

Because while you may not own it, you have apparently, adopted it, for your standard for proof of existence.

However the standard in question is the one that you quite clearly don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting.

So you say.
Maybe like you, I should request, a sourced and peer reviewed example.

it would be nice if you cleared that one up, so how about you explain exactly what you think the scientific method is and how it works?

Basically, it is a identification and verification system, for physical phenomenon.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai.

Of those four, only the first two are of God's covenant promise to Abraham.
Which was carried out through Isaac, not Ishmael.

And yet you are still unable to say what it is and demonstrate its uniqueness (and why that uniqueness would make it stand out so obviously).

In spite of the fact, I've stated several times now.

 

[Liquid]

[Citation Needed]

It's all well and good saying X, Y, Z is true, god's word and so forth, but without actual evidence it is absolute fantastical conjecture. It being written down is not evidence.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Months later, still in circles I see. That being the case, might as well say it again then:

I believe in God.

And no, there's no scientific proof of God's existence.

That's why I say "I believe".

Simples!

 

[Liquid]

I believe in God.

And no, there's no scientific proof of God's existence.

Perfectly amicable!

The difference is between stating one's belief in a god / higher power, and claiming that that belief is fact.

"I believe in god" - Fine. Perfectly entitled to do so.
"I believe in god, he exists and [insert religious doctrine] is true" - No. Requires evidence.

 

[Scaff]

You keep saying this, as if saying it will make it true.
Basis of existence, or proof of existence, doesn't change the outcome.
And the same standard is being, applied.
There is no redefiniton, of scientific method.

You seriously don't see that it being the 'basis of existence' is totally and utterly different to it being used to provide 'proof of existence' is a difference on a huge scale and most certainly does change things (not just the outcome)?

By your standard, it is not considered objective, because it is possible, it is not.
That has no bearing on the fact, it could be totally objective, in spite of the possibility.
God's existence is a fact for me. But not for you, by your imposed standard.

Its not objective by your own standard either! (unless you have a very different idea of the difference between objective and subjective)

So you say.
Maybe like you, I should request, a sourced and peer reviewed example.

No problem at all. I cite your 1800's example, as for peer review then anyone here will do that quite nicely.

Basically, it is a identification and verification system, for physical phenomenon.

Define physical?

Of those four, only the first two are of God's covenant promise to Abraham.
Which was carried out through Isaac, not Ishmael.

Your moving goal posts again, first it was just 'the holy spirit' (which all four have) and its still not unique. Nor have you covered how this clearly elevates Christianity.

In spite of the fact, I've stated several times now.

Citation required, nothing so far has been unique and you certainly haven't defined what makes this unique factor stand out (and 'its obvious' or variations on that are not enough).

 

[kennylmao]

Whatever you guys called me, atheist or agnostic, is actually raw Islam. Islam does not require you to believe(100%) in god, it only asks you to take a leap of faith that one supreme being exists, and to live by its teachings, practices and worldviews. Matter of fact, it acknowledges that humans are skeptics by nature. The word Islam literally means surrender. As in, stop the fight inside your head about whether or not god exists and just live assuming he/she/it does.

lol, sorry snipping this part out but this caught my eye. You mean being ignorant?

 

[huskeR32]

(unless you have a very different idea of the difference between objective and subjective)

Does he ever.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet, yes, we are making progress. I actually understood one line of your post above. The first one.

Meet me part way, if you would, and explain what the other five lines might mean.

I did you the courtesy of answering your question about why I regarded the flood myth as nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-514#post-10065930

It means just what it says.
I'm not sure what you are looking for on this.
Read the New Testament, it is the explanation.

As to the flood, if you look at it from man's perspective, it can easily be considered nonsense.
Since from that perspective, the power to perform it, as your objections point out, is inadequate.
However, going back to the point of, if , God is who he says he is, then it was certainly doable.

What is the difference between that (personal revelation) and what muslims claim as personal revelation.
How can we distinguish between a true and a false revelation? Because everyone claims that his particular personal revelation is the true one. That doesn't help those who are outside of the experience to recognize any truth to whatever they claim.

Indeed, that is the overwhelming, puzzling question, is it not?

To arrive at the answer, will take a very in depth, time consuming, personal investigation on the part of each individual, into all the possibilities.

One of the first things about that, in all religion, is the need, want or desire to achieve righteousness, in relation to a God or Deity.
Certainly, a reasonable suggestion, considering our imperfectness in all honesty.

And historically, something that appeals to most men, having been present in one form or another, since time began.
Providing a justification process inherent in all men.

Now in this day and age, of increased and enlightened knowledge, many would say, that is no longer relevant or applicable.
However, the same problems that have persisted forever, still continue today, and are more serious than ever, given the immense destructive power, that comes with that knowledge.

Stability in that respect, is dependant on the moral aspects, which still are defined in religion.
So therefore, I find religion, to be as critical, if not more so now than ever.
Current world events also clearly show this.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Supposedly there was an error on the first post, but it posted anyway.

 

[zzz_pt]

It means just what it says.
I'm not sure what you are looking for on this.
Read the New Testament, it is the explanation.


Supposedly there was an error on the first post, but it posted anyway.

As to the flood, if you look at it from man's perspective, it can easily be considered nonsense.
Since from that perspective, the power to perform it, as your objections point out, is inadequate.
However, going back to the point of, if , God is who he says he is, then it is certainly doable.

Where can we consult that statement? The bible wasn't written by god, it was written by man. Where, in the universe can we go to read or to listen what god says about himself?

Also, do you know any other perspective of the world arround us other than human's perspective? I don't. I'm not anything but a human being so I can't possibly have a perspective about the reality we inhabit other than a human perspective.

 

[Liquid]

@SuperCobraJet I would be interested to read your thoughts on one of my posts slightly earlier on, on this page.

The difference is between stating one's belief in a god / higher power, and claiming that that belief is fact.

"I believe in god" - Fine. You are perfectly entitled to do so.
"I believe in god, he exists and [[insert religious doctrine]] is true" - No. That requires evidence.

 

[GBO Possum]

Supposedly there was an error on the first post, but it posted anyway.

Yes, there are errors.

Stability in that respect, is dependant on the moral aspects, which still are defined in religion.

Religion doesn't define morality. Sorry, you can't claim ownership for religion.

http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html

And your Bible condones rape, slavery, murdering of children and so on, which I find repugnantly immoral.

So your god can get away with anything and it's still moral? Like your assertion that he killed everyone on the planet except for certain members of Noah's family a few thousand years ago. (Which is still nonsense in my opinion.)

 

[zzz_pt]

 

[kennylmao]

Now in this day and age, of increased and enlightened knowledge, many would say, that is no longer relevant or applicable.
However, the same problems that have persisted forever, still continue today, and are more serious than ever, given the immense destructive power, that comes with that knowledge.

What are these problems which you speak of?

Also, by "immense destructive power", I'm assuming you mean weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Greek blokes as translated (or modified) into English with a conclusion at the bottom written only God knows by whom

If God exists then He is the Creator.
If He is the Creator He created everything.
If He created everything, then everything works according to the way He created His Creation.
Therefore what is Morally right is Morally right because God.

And this is self evident.

 

[Danoff]

If God exists then He is the Creator.

Nope! Could just be a powerful observer.

If He is the Creator He created everything.

Nope! Maybe just created some stuff.

If He created everything, then everything works according to the way He created His Creation.

Nope! Maybe he screwed up.

Therefore what is Morally right is Morally right because God.

To leave morality up to a guy who advocates stoning infidels and homosexuals is a bit strange to me.

 

[Blkout]

Absolutely I do. One look at the complexity of the universe we live in and the complexity of all life, especially human beings should be enough proof that something far more complex than us created us and I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

 

[Hun200kmh]

LOL

A powerful observer is NOT God.

The creator of some stuff is NOT God.

If he screwed up he is NOT God.

A guy who advocates stoning infidels and homosexuals is NOT God.


This isn't Marvel Comics you know ...

 

[Danoff]

Absolutely I do. One look at the complexity of the universe we live in and the complexity of all life, especially human beings should be enough proof that something far more complex than us created us and I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

Everything you said has been addressed about 5000 times in this thread.

A powerful observer is NOT God.

How do you know?

The creator of some stuff is NOT God.

How do you know?

If he screwed up he is NOT God.

How do you know?

A guy who advocates stoning infidels and homosexuals is NOT God.

I can get on board with that one.

 

[Scaff]

Absolutely I do.

Good for you.

One look at the complexity of the universe we live in and the complexity of all life, especially human beings should be enough proof that something far more complex than us created us.........

First that's conjecture not fact, and secondly it illustrates a massive lack of understanding of the evidence we do have.

and I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

A statement only made by those either ignorant of how evolution actually works or those unwilling to understand it. That however is a discussion for another (very large) thread.

 

[DQuaN]

Absolutely I do. One look at the complexity of the universe we live in and the complexity of all life, especially human beings should be enough proof that something far more complex than us created us and I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

Oh dear...

I suggest maybe you read up on Evolution. Considering it is FACT and does not require "buying in to", it would be wise in knowing a little about it before arguing against it.

Let me ask you this. If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

In any case, we didn't evolve from primates.

 

[Danoff]

A guy who advocates stoning infidels and homosexuals is NOT God.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

 

[Hun200kmh]

How do you know?

Two answers:

1 - The logical stuff - A "Creator of all the Creation, not part of it, but an entity before, beyond and distinct from the Creation, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, not bound by place or time or by any element or dimension of the Creation" is the only notion compatible with the word GOD. Every other entity that has been created is not God, regardless of how powerful it is, or in what dimension it lives, attainable by us or not.

2 - The faith stuff - I believe in the existence of GOD as above defined.

 

[Famine]

£4.52...

I don't buy into the argument that we evolved from primates, otherwise why would we still have monkeys, they would all be humans now.

Monkeys and humans both evolved from a common primate ancestor.

 

[Hun200kmh]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Yeah, right. That's got a lot to do with the belief in God!

 

[Danoff]

Two answers:

1 - The logical stuff - A "Creator of all the Creation, not part of it, but an entity before, beyond and distinct from the Creation, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, not bound by place or time or by any element or dimension of the Creation" is the only notion compatible with the word GOD. Every other entity that has been created is not God, regardless of how powerful it is, or in what dimension it lives, attainable by us or not.

Let's say there was a being who was "not part of it, but an entity before, beyond and distinct from the Creation, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, not bound by place or time or by any element or dimension of the Creation". That being is not then automatically responsible for creating the universe. That being may have sat omnipresently by and watched the universe do its own thing. You assume that if such a being existed, that it created something just because it could. Maybe it didn't. Or maybe it did create some stuff, but not everything.

Maybe this amazing being created the earth and everyone on it, and then took credit for the rest of the universe, for which his buddy was actually responsible. Maybe he and his buddy are having a race to see who's creation can reach the star system where they've hidden a beacon we haven't heard yet first. After we reach it, they'll smite us all and start again to see if they can come up with a creature that does it faster. Loser has to take a shot.

2 - The faith stuff - I believe in the existence of GOD as above defined.

With complete unwillingness to entertain any other possibility.

Yeah, right. That's got a lot to do with the belief in God!

That's the Christian God (also the Jewish God and Islamic) advocating the stoning of gays and infidels. So I take it you don't believe in him. As you said:

A guy who advocates stoning infidels and homosexuals is NOT God.

Several entire religions disagree with your assessment.


Edit:

Additional shots taken if your creation doesn't use a spoken language containing 1000 distinct words first, doesn't invent the computer first, and doesn't invent faster than light travel first.

Edit2:

"He clearly said ulag, that's a new word for the red berries"
"No, he said ulek, that's still the word for wolf pelt"
"No way, ulag, that's 1000, take a shot!"
"Dangit! I am so wasted!"