Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

I too believe that there is some kind of life out there, if there is a planet similar to Earth,
there is a chance that there is life.Now is that life more intelligent then us we can only guess until we
probably find them, or they find us.

I believe that there is a God, an individual or many who created us, in one way or another.How we pictured them in
the past, and stayed with that form today, can come from many reasons.

Here is my theory of who God is.
A person of great knowledge and power who came from, who knows where, here to this planet.
And i think the reason why he has a beard is because he traveled far trough space, so he didn't shave
for a long time.Or perhaps he forgot, since he was devoted in our creation.

A clear and perfect expression of belief in a personal god.

 

[dddsprayshop]

I just can't understand, if we are created by a person, how is that person a "god"?
My ex-wife and i , two eggs and two spermcells, we created a boy and a girl together..
BAMMM, we are gods.
No, all parents are gods.
O wait, the doctor that does IVF, they are gods too.
(forgot, by that definition, animals are gods too)
Or should it be "create out of nothing"? Ieuuwww, we are created out of nothing, so our basic nature is nothing...
It just doesn't make any sence.

"GOD": three letters combined into a word that is the explanation for all. Too easy, too lazy for an actual proper answer.
And if there isn't an answer just yet, do not answer with god, wait for the intelligence and resources to get the right answer, don't make things up.
O wait, that allready happened 3500 years ago, now sold as a book.

 

[GBO Possum]

I have subjective evidence which says that the Turing Machine which posts to this thread was given the nickname SuperCommaJet due to a software bug. The bug has not been fixed to this day because it made it more difficult to determine that the program was not human.

Naturally, I believe (because it's obvious) that they chose to retain the Cobra version of the name.

 

[GBO Possum]

Did you know that God is a racist?

In his own words:-

 

[dddsprayshop]

Did you know that God is a racist?

In his own words:-

Nice video, i laughed at the end.Also disturbing information about that skin color matter.
Don't know if it is true, but i could be, "reading the "book" to the end is impossible, even for christians"
Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

 

[huskeR32]

From my individual perspective, it is fact, which is subjective evidence.

You've got that backwards. Thinking that something is true is not, in itself, evidence.

----------

From my individual perspective, I think that SCJ is a satanic cross-dressing card-holding Communist with neon pink hair and is in a secret relationship with John Travolta and his masseuse.*

Now, let's hear you agree that the above is legitimate evidence of anything.


*No offense intended towards satanists, cross-dressers, Communists, people with pink hair, or John Travolta's masseuse. I just figured those were some things I could safely assume weren't traits of ol' SCJ.

 

[Dotini]

You've got that backwards. Thinking that something is true is not, in itself, evidence.

----------

From my individual perspective, I think that SCJ is a satanic cross-dressing card-holding Communist with neon pink hair and is in a secret relationship with John Travolta and his masseuse.*

Now, let's hear you agree that the above is legitimate evidence of anything.


*No offense intended towards satanists, cross-dressers, Communists, people with pink hair, or John Travolta's masseuse. I just figured those were some things I could safely assume weren't traits of ol' SCJ.

Amongst ourselves here on this forum, I certainly agree that one very isolated and stubborn man's beliefs are not evidence of anything important. We should question and criticize beliefs as much as we like - while paying due respect to the man. (He must indeed be made of wire and steel to endure us. )

But what if approximately six billion people, or ~85% of the entire human population on Earth, held similar views? Is it then so easy to disregard, or safely mock, the subjective views of the great bulk of humanity as illegitimate and insignificant? I submit that to do so would be to disregard and mock the bulk of humanity. Not a very sociable thing to do.

I would respectfully ask you and a few others to lighten it up - just a little - to preserve the social respectability of the forum. Thank you.

 

[zzz_pt]

Amongst ourselves here on this forum, I certainly agree that one very isolated and stubborn man's beliefs are not evidence of anything important. We should question and criticize beliefs as much as we like - while paying due respect to the man. (He must indeed be made of wire and steel to endure us. )

But what if approximately six billion people, or ~85% of the entire human population on Earth, held similar views? Is it then so easy to disregard, or safely mock, the subjective views of the great bulk of humanity as illegitimate and insignificant? I submit that to do so would be to disregard and mock the bulk of humanity. Not a very sociable thing to do.

I would respectfully ask you and a few others to lighten it up - just a little - to preserve the social respectability of the forum. Thank you.

Among those 85% there are hundreads of mutually exclusive religions/beliefs. And its reasonable and logical to assume all of them are false or all of them are false with 1 exception. That's a very low %.

The 15% of atheists/non religious people don't carry that problem of mututal exclusion.

Probably 99,99% of humanity once believed the earth was flat, the sun and the moon were gods, diseases were "curses", etc. They were wrong.

 

[Imari]

Is it then so easy to disregard, or safely mock, the subjective views of the great bulk of humanity as illegitimate and insignificant?

It's certainly just as easy to point out false logic whether it's one person believing in it or six billion.

It is not safe when it's six billion. People still get stoned, hung, burned alive and worse for publically espousing opinions that are contrary to the societal norm, no matter how irrational the beliefs are.

I submit that to do so would be to disregard and mock the bulk of humanity. Not a very sociable thing to do.

Yes, well. Neither is telling people that they're going to burn for eternity unless you believe in their fairy friend.

Both views can be discussed rationally, and people on both sides can be :censored:holes about it. That's just humans being humans, it's not really anything to do with the particular viewpoints they hold.

I would respectfully ask you and a few others to lighten it up - just a little - to preserve the social respectability of the forum. Thank you.

SCJ talks mostly gibberish, so I rather think that he's made his own bed when people reply with either sarcasm or outright aggression.

But I doubt it matters. @SuperCobraJet seems to have reached the end of his cycle and bailed again. He'll be back in six months or so, and then we can redefine some more words.

It's a shame, in a way. I'd love a religious person of any religion to answer the question "What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?"

 

[Liquid]

I'd love a religious person of any religion to answer the question "What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?"

That question should be stickied for any newcomers to the thread.

 

[DQuaN]

But what if approximately six billion people, or ~85% of the entire human population on Earth, held similar views? Is it then so easy to disregard, or safely mock, the subjective views of the great bulk of humanity as illegitimate and insignificant? I submit that to do so would be to disregard and mock the bulk of humanity. Not a very sociable thing to do.

I'd make a rough guess and say that over half a billion people believe in Santa Claus.

Does that add weight or evidence to the possibility he exists?

 

[Liquid]

There is no correlation between the quantity of believers and the quality of that belief. Acceptance of a claim is, or should be, built on evidence and not faith or number of followers.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If you make an effort to be consistent and clear in your use of language, if nothing else you will find that people's responses to your posts are a lot more direct.

For example, your continued difficulty in defining the physical and spiritual realms. It's all very well to refer to something as part of the spiritual realm, but if you can't explain why you define a miracle as a spiritual event and gravity as a physical one, it's going to be really hard for anyone to have a sensible discussion with you about the dualism of the physical and spiritual realms. For the simple fact that no one but you clearly understands what you mean by the words that you say.

I've seen you try to explain, but frankly the explanation was even less enlightening than the original statements being questioned. Given your style of writing, it's not surprising that some people come to the conclusion that you're being deliberately vague.

Hence my advice to choose your words with care, and with a mind for the audience to which you're speaking. Particularly when you're trying to explain something that you have said and others haven't understood (which could probably describe the last week or so of your posts), you need to try and find some common ground on which they can understand what you want to say.

Most of the people in this thread aren't stupid, but neither are they psychic. You need to be very clear about what you mean, especially if what you mean is something beyond your listener's normal experience.

==========

I continue to write this advice in the hope that you have something interesting to share, that you have simply been unable to communicate clearly thus far. While I do not share your religious beliefs, I don't think that there's even value in discussing them until you can explain what you think and why in a clear and concise manner.

==========

Perhaps something that would aid your understanding is that at the foundation of any knowledge is observation. To use gravity as an example again, theories of gravity are constructed to explain observations, such as an apple falling from a tree or the Earth orbiting the Sun.

If two people arrive at different theories of gravity, this may be because they have observed different gravitational effects. They may not be able to come to an agreement on which of their theories is correct, but they can both gain knowledge by sharing the observations and circumstances which led them to develop their theories.

Similarly, religion beliefs are often constructed to explain observations. (If they are not based on observation or experience, then they are simply fictional fantasies, and not worth discussing.)

And similarly, two people may have different religions beliefs because they have observed different spiritual phenomena. They may not be able to come to an agreement on which of their beliefs is correct, but they can both gain knowledge by sharing the observations and experiences that led them to adopt their beliefs.

This is where I feel that you're falling down. For atheists it's simple. "I have never witnessed anything that required the existence of God or a higher power to explain it, therefore I do not believe in God until I do witness something that would require the existence of God to explain it." From this you can understand quite clearly how an atheist has arrived at his position.

For someone like yourself, who has a particular religion, it's more complicated. I think if you want to be taken seriously, you need to start getting into what things make you think God exists. Without using the word "obviously". A lot of it will likely be torn apart logically, but use this to learn and adapt.

If your faith is true, then it will become stronger for being analysed. As with everything, likely not everything you think is correct, and you will be better off for finding out which parts of your belief are sound, and which are simply feel-good twaddle.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong. It's only a problem if you refuse to recognise the problem when it's pointed out to you.

Trying to share something, "not in common", will always be difficult, if not impossible to communicate effectively.
This subject being the most difficult in that respect.
That being the case, there is no way, for you and many others here to comprehend much of what I say.
Because again, you do not have it "in common".
Now I don't say this from a condescending viewpoint, but to be perfectly honest, until you are saved and recieve the "Holy Spirit" you will never understand what I am talking about.
Thats just the fact of the matter.
It's not a word barrier, as much as a "not in common" understanding barrier.

 

[Peasantslayer]

What bothers me about religion is that no matter how much evidence is given against it their is always some sort of loophole to make it plausible, God created the universe in a day but the rest of the Earth in 5 which seems odd considering the Earth is 1 planet in a galaxy consisting of 100s of billions of planets in a universe consisting of 100s of billions of galaxies but a day could mean a million years... no a day is a day stop retrofitting your religion.

If carbon dating isn't enough to prove the universe is older than 6,000 years then you can watch this which is very strong evidence for evolution.

 

[DQuaN]

but to be perfectly honest, until you are saved and recieve the "Holy Spirit"...

I don't need saving thanks.

 

[Imari]

That being the case, there is no way, for you and many others here to comprehend much of what I say.

There's really no way for you to know that if you haven't tried. I can't speak for whether anyone else would understand or not, but you have absolutely no idea what experiences I have or haven't had, and as such you're talking complete bollocks when you say that you know that I wouldn't understand. You wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and yet you know what I am and am not capable of understanding, without even trying to explain it to me.

As long as you continue to hide behind excuses like this, don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously. It's a complete cop out.

Yes, it's hard to teach people things they don't know yet. I rather suspect that the vast majority of your religious knowledge has come from other people or beings, either directly or in the form of a certain text which contains a great amount of education. Should the people who taught you about your religion not have bothered either? Wouldn't that have been great, if all the people who would have written the Bible decided that other people didn't need that knowledge?

How about this: What is it that makes you so special that you were able to learn from all the great teachers that you've had, and yet I cannot learn from you?

If you want to actually engage with people, you're going to have to cut the bull:censored: and actually talk about what's going on behind your opinions.

Yes, you're likely to take some flak for it, not helped by your endless evasions up to the point where there's a line of people who are just gagging for something concrete that they can rip you apart for. But if you believe that what you say is true, then there are people who are interested to hear what you have to say.

But I've given you a way to start without even sharing your personal experiences.

So I'll ask you for the third time: What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?

From there at least we can hopefully move on to how you decided that your belief was right. But if there is or was no way you could ever be wrong, I don't see why anybody should pay any attention at all to the first word you say.

A person that does not accept even the idea that they could be wrong is not someone who has put any effort at all into establishing whether their ideas and perceptions are correct.


P.S. There are logical flaws in your post, but I'm choosing not to address them at this point under the final hope that you will stop dancing around the point and actually speak like someone who wants to share their knowledge with those who know less. At this point you sound like someone poking fun at the retarded kids: "I'm saved, you wouldn't understand what it's like, you're not good enough".

It makes me sick, and I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting your tone.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Now I don't say this from a condescending viewpoint, but to be perfectly honest, until you are saved and recieve the "Holy Spirit" you will never understand what I am talking about.
Thats just the fact of the matter.

At this point you sound like someone poking fun at the retarded kids: "I'm saved, you wouldn't understand what it's like, you're not good enough".

It makes me sick, and I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting your tone.

Don't want to get caught up in this, just thought I'd compare these two statements above. It's not uncommon, though it is annoying, when people basically say you wouldn't understand, you've not experienced it -- like new parents continually telling people without kids that they don't understand what it's like.

.. anyway, carry on.

 

[mistersafeway]

Trying to share something, "not in common", will always be difficult, if not impossible to communicate effectively.
This subject being the most difficult in that respect.

Yeah, no, most of Britain was converted really easily when Christianity showed up, the only difference here is that modern "heretics" aren't completely bloody stupid. We also aren't going to buy "you haven't been splashed with Jesus water" or "you can't know until you believe" as an explanation for... well, anything.

That being the case, there is no way, for you and many others here to comprehend much of what I say.

Because again, you do not have it "in common".

I was taught this bollocks as if it were fact* at primary school. I was indoctrinated (unsuccessfully, thank 🤬) by the state.

At the very least I don't remember any statements that it may not be.

Now I don't say this from a condescending viewpoint, but to be perfectly honest, until you are saved and recieve the "Holy Spirit" you will never understand what I am talking about.

Nope, it's 'cause you aren't making any attempts to be understood. Do you notice how you don't get other Christians backing you up very often? I'd be willing to bet it's because they have just as hard a time as us deciphering most of your points.

Thats just the fact of the matter.
It's not a word barrier, as much as a "not in common" understanding barrier.

Is this going to be what you beat us over the head with for the foreseeable future? Because it's weak and, like most of your understandable points, easily refutable. Amazingly enough, I've never had trouble understanding any religion until a condescending jackass a believer told me I did. Big surprise, the only thing that harms understanding is a believer, backed into a corner, redefining reality even further from actuality than their religion already does.

 

[Danoff]

until you are saved and recieve the "Holy Spirit" you will never understand what I am talking about.
Thats just the fact of the matter.

That's a bit tautological isn't it? Until you agree with me you won't agree with me? Until you believe in God you won't believe in God? What this boils down to is a claim that no person finds God on his own or through the help of other people. God supposedly comes to that person and proves himself. No need or point for any religious person to spread the message then.

I rather think it's the other way around, people find God through the help, insistence, pressure, and veiled threats of other people.

 

[GBO Possum]

There's really no way for you to know that if you haven't tried. I can't speak for whether anyone else would understand or not, but you have absolutely no idea what experiences I have or haven't had, and as such you're talking complete bollocks when you say that you know that I wouldn't understand. You wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and yet you know what I am and am not capable of understanding, without even trying to explain it to me.

As long as you continue to hide behind excuses like this, don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously. It's a complete cop out.

Yes, it's hard to teach people things they don't know yet. I rather suspect that the vast majority of your religious knowledge has come from other people or beings, either directly or in the form of a certain text which contains a great amount of education. Should the people who taught you about your religion not have bothered either? Wouldn't that have been great, if all the people who would have written the Bible decided that other people didn't need that knowledge?

How about this: What is it that makes you so special that you were able to learn from all the great teachers that you've had, and yet I cannot learn from you?

If you want to actually engage with people, you're going to have to cut the bull:censored: and actually talk about what's going on behind your opinions.

Yes, you're likely to take some flak for it, not helped by your endless evasions up to the point where there's a line of people who are just gagging for something concrete that they can rip you apart for. But if you believe that what you say is true, then there are people who are interested to hear what you have to say.

But I've given you a way to start without even sharing your personal experiences.

So I'll ask you for the third time: What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?

From there at least we can hopefully move on to how you decided that your belief was right. But if there is or was no way you could ever be wrong, I don't see why anybody should pay any attention at all to the first word you say.

A person that does not accept even the idea that they could be wrong is not someone who has put any effort at all into establishing whether their ideas and perceptions are correct.


P.S. There are logical flaws in your post, but I'm choosing not to address them at this point under the final hope that you will stop dancing around the point and actually speak like someone who wants to share their knowledge with those who know less. At this point you sound like someone poking fun at the retarded kids: "I'm saved, you wouldn't understand what it's like, you're not good enough".

It makes me sick, and I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting your tone.

@SuperCobraJet, @Imari's post is really worth reading. Not just once. If necessary, try sprinkling it with a liberal dose of commas, but read it.

I have trouble explaining why I ever believed in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or Jesus Christ. The reason is probably that these stories were injected into my mind before I was capable of having reasons to believe things, and before my brain was mature enough to understand the process of assimilation of knowledge.

This may explain why you are being so evasive. I suspect you just don't know why you believe this stuff and therefore can't answer the questions.

Before you reply with answers, see if you can explain your belief to yourself in unambiguous terms. If you can, then do share, please. If you can't, then bid rationality (and us) goodbye.

 

[huskeR32]

Amongst ourselves here on this forum, I certainly agree that one very isolated and stubborn man's beliefs are not evidence of anything important. We should question and criticize beliefs as much as we like - while paying due respect to the man. (He must indeed be made of wire and steel to endure us. )

But what if approximately six billion people, or ~85% of the entire human population on Earth, held similar views? Is it then so easy to disregard, or safely mock, the subjective views of the great bulk of humanity as illegitimate and insignificant? I submit that to do so would be to disregard and mock the bulk of humanity. Not a very sociable thing to do.

I wasn't questioning or speaking to his belief in god at all, so how many people agree with him is entirely irrelevant. Rather, I was pointing out a huge fallacy in his idea of what constitutes evidence. I've long ago stopped even trying to discuss theism itself with him. If he can't use words correctly, effective communication will never happen.

As far as respect is concerned, well, Imari illustrated my views on that quite well.

I would respectfully ask you and a few others to lighten it up - just a little - to preserve the social respectability of the forum. Thank you.

I didn't word my post the way I did just to make fun, or try and be a jerk. He has shown, time and again, that when you keep the conversation about god and his faith, that he will just obfuscate facts, redefine words, and keep dancing around. So instead, I went really tongue-in-cheek with it, tried to make it a context in which he would clearly see that he was misusing the word "evidence." Unsurprisingly, he just ignored it altogether.

Look, I want constructive conversation in here as much as you do, that's exactly why I keep challenging him on these things. If we stop pushing back when he mutilates language to suit his own needs, then we may as well all just leave. Once you let someone's made-up rules stand, you'll never keep the train on the tracks.

 

[GBO Possum]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".





And here is an example of a kid being brainwashed into religion.

 

[Dagger311]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".

Forgive me for not seeing what was so scary about that. I see that in church every Sunday I can make it to one, except without as many soldiers. They were singing a hymn.

 

[zzz_pt]

/Speechless

 

[GBO Possum]

Forgive me for not seeing what was so scary about that. I see that in church every Sunday I can make it to one, except without as many soldiers. They were singing a hymn.

If there was any doubt that the military is conducting warfare on a religious basis, in support of a particular God, then this should dispel that doubt.

Also, look at the way peer pressure is being used to ensure that everyone buys into the God, and the whole group hug and hand waving behavior to hypnotize the soldiers into a frenzy.

 

[Danoff]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".





And here is an example of a kid being brainwashed into religion.

Group singing is nowhere near as disturbing to me as group talking. I don't mind when everyone sings a hymn as much as when everyone responds in unison:

Priest: "May the Lord be with you."
Mob: "And also with you."

...gives me the creeps.

 

[GBO Possum]

It gives me the creeps that the State (allegedly separated from "church") is using religion to create a mob euphoria among military people who may well be battling people who use a different God to pump up their fervor.

It's a way of treating the enemy as an "other".

This is the sort of thing that leads to abuses such as those we saw at Abu Graib.

How can these soldiers go to a Muslim country without having their attitudes colored by repetious singing to Jehovah?

I don't see this as a step forward on the path to world peace, and in part, it explains America's predeliction to bomb anything they feel like in the Middle East.

Indoctrination such as this is not part of the moral high ground.

 

[huskeR32]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".

That is unsettling, for so many reasons.

Group singing is nowhere near as disturbing to me as group talking. I don't mind when everyone sings a hymn as much as when everyone responds in unison:

Priest: "May the Lord be with you."
Mob: "And also with you."

...gives me the creeps.

*shudder*

 

[dddsprayshop]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".

Scary if you see it for the first time and really understand the whole picture.
I'm not scared, because i know this for a long time, that it excists.
I'm not scared, because i can't do anything about it by myself.I can't stop it, it happens and happend for ages and ages bfore my time on this planet.
If i'm scared, my fear will not change that behaviour, only actions will change that behaviour.
But if i would take action, what makes me different from that behaviour.
Most people are like sheep, i walk amongst them, but i will not copy them.

Forgive me for not seeing what was so scary about that. I see that in church every Sunday I can make it to one, except without as many soldiers. They were singing a hymn.

What should be seen and is scary:
These boys wear uniforms and will get access to weapons and not just knives and guns.
These boys wear uniforms and are commanded by humans that hide behind "god's word".
These boys wear uniforms and will kill if the "wrong" words of "god" command them.

 

[Imari]

Here is what you get when a mob believes in a particular God.

I recommend watching it right through. The word which comes to mind is "scary".

This one isn't so scary.

In the military, particularly among frontline soldiers, building group feeling is incredibly important. Those boys need to believe that the men on the left and right of them are willing to die for [insert higher cause here]. If the easiest way to do that is through a common religion, the training officer would be a moron not to take advantage of the fact.

Further, if you're expecting boys to go out and kill other people, it's way easier if they believe that they're somehow superior to those that they're going to kill. It's not right, maybe, but it sure makes the job a hell of a lot easier. Only psychopaths find killing humans as easy as squashing ants, and so introducing some conceptual framework under which soldiers can justify their actions probably helps.

It's debatable whether the military is pushing God as such, or whether it's just taking advantage of the fact that it provides a lot of things that they're looking for and is already in place in a significant proportion of their recruits.


I really have no problems with whatever techniques they choose to use on recruits. They're training them to go out and kill people, and that sort of overrides anything else for me.