Do you believe in God?

[Dennisch]

Since the poll has the option to change your vote, the No way option gained 0.2%.

Couple of fallen souls joined the scientific side.

 

[Joel]

Since the poll has the option to change your vote, the No way option gained 0.2%.

Couple of fallen souls joined the scientific side.

I just changed my vote to no, when did the poll change to allow that option?

 

[Dan]

I love this band, but sometimes the stuff they post gives me a headache.

 

[Dennisch]

I just changed my vote to no, when did the poll change to allow that option?

I think it changed last week, it was mentioned but it was soon buried in the discussions.

Edit.

Almost in the majority. Giggity.

 

[Joel]

I think it changed last week, it was mentioned but it was soon buried in the discussions.

Edit.

Almost in the majority. Giggity.

Ah I see. Yeah I voted yes maybe 6 or 7 years ago when I was still a good little Catholic boy.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think it changed last week, it was mentioned but it was soon buried in the discussions.

Whoever changed it really should have simplified the option that kind of represents yes. "Without him nothing would exist" is a superfluous limitation to anyone believing in a she, a non-gender, a this, a that, or the other kind of god.

It bugs me when people do that with polls.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Since the poll has the option to change your vote, the No way option gained 0.2%.

Couple of fallen souls joined the scientific side.

This screenshot was taken 12 hours after @Scaff reset the poll.

 

[DCP]

All of the technological advancements here are done by human advancements and discovery without the assistance of a nonexistant supernatural being. IF there was a supernatural being that created the universe (which there isn't), then he should have created all modern technology, destroyed disease, stopped all wars, and made us never run out of resources, no?

That would be a god who would allow for peoples lives to be convenient, to continue sinning and destroying other peoples lives. It's clear, in Genesis, why we are born, live, and die naturally. It's the soul that really counts for eternity.
A thought of a non existent being is exactly the plan of an evil being, aiding those thoughts of assuming there is no All Powerful Being.

Religion really does slow down progress. I also just don't understand the things people do for an imaginary being, including to give their lives for it. So I think I have a question for everyone to answer:

What if there was a world with no religion?

I'd probably say that we'd be a lot better off without religion, as we could have done more scientific progress without any skewed evidence of religion. ISIS may not have happened, as they would have almost zero reason to attack any surrounding countries. This thread wouldn't have existed, but we would have progressed a lot more than we have now as a species.

What if there was a world with no science? We wouldn't really know, would we?
The science man would guess and provide calculations, but that's about it.
The fact that there has always been religion says allot that there is a God. There is also a villain making sure people don't believe this.

Consisering you always ignore the evidence we post, often going so far as to accuse us of blindness while simultaneously not responding to the point being made, and considering every time you post something that is supposedly evidence, we actually point out flaws and give context, which is more than you've done...

I find it fascinating that you are surprised people are not going to believe in god just because. People need reasons to believe in things. Anything. And not just practical reasons, like "believing will allow me into heaven." I can't convince myself that something is true just because it's convenient. I need to be convinced. Of anything.

If I told myself I believed in God it would be a lie. Even if I really wanted it to be true. You don't get to choose what you believe. It happens completely automatically based on your experiences and knowledge. What you can choose is what you investigate, what you try to learn about to get the most accurate beliefs.

You have now made it quite clear that you have never investigated, even to the smallest degree, evolution, the big bang, archaeology, ancient world history, chemistry, nuclear physics, or possibly anything but the bible. From what I can tell, it's very possible that everything you "know" about the world is from what someone told you. You've been discouraged from learning, from caring about anything but God. And I think that's a shame.

Usually the reason people come to believe in God, is when nothing else seems to work anymore. That's the sad part.
I see you still going on with that word evidence, which means nothing to me, sorry mate.
I can't prove to you that my God exists, yes, but neither can you prove your religion. You can't prove the big bang, or the origins of evolution. Now that is true.
It's true, man is indoctrinated with what they are taught. I'm glad I experienced that side of your fence, and it did nothing for me. Think about it, if there is no god, I really don't have nothing to lose right? I've got a convenient happy life, and I "will" die soon, so I will become nothing, as you guys believe.
On the other hand, if there really is a God, think of the price you would need to pay before a Holy Judge, because of your crimes against Him?
Two options, one choice, if you seeking salvation. You can choose to follow another god if you want, but then all gods don't lead to ONE.

Are you actually being serious with this?

Yes people have looked for the evidence and have been doing so for centuries. Now actually answer the question, how do you explain the absence of any evidence at all if the events happened (keep in mind that the volume of evidence we have for Egyptian life is vast)?


As I have said over a dozen times already, evidence to a scientific standard that is repeatable, falisifiable and peer reviewed.



So you insult me, infer I'm going to kill myself and all about me wanting to have a defence?

Odd because all I have done is ask questions, it was you at the point of being unable to answer those questions who went on the defence. Now once again please explain why you have claimed I will kill myself?

Here, perhaps you can look into this https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/movie-review-patterns-of-evidence-exodus/

Why does science have to give you evidence? Can you not put pride aside and repent of your sins and call on Christ?
I can only think of pride preventing this. Science won't save you when you really need them / it.

You keep saying I'm insulting you, yet it's quite the opposite, I assure you.
It's inevitable that you will die, no matter how many pills, operations or treatments. It's physical death.
I refer to you killing your own soul, by assuming there is no God. You can't prove or disprove it, yet you just go by what man is telling you through science. If science is supposed to be observed, there are so many things you have never observed, even yourself, yet you just go with it, yet people say Christians are boastful and use God as the easy way out. They fail to realise that there is no other way out, no matter how much knowledge science gives you, it doesn't change anything.

 

[DQuaN]

Troll. Definite troll. Either that or he's completely brainwashed and actually believes in the gibberish he's spouting in which case I feel very sorry for him.

@DCP you will never know the true beauty of the world as it is. You will never know the truth. If I was religious I would pray for you, but oh well.

You are also not able to have any kind of discussion on this subject as you have no clue of anything outside of God. I will not be discussing with you any more. (Not that it was a discussion in the first place).

 

[Famine]

You can't prove or disprove it

There are myriad things you can neither prove nor disprove. Why should anybody believe in any of them?

I can't prove to you that my God exists, yes, but neither can you prove your religion. You can't prove the big bang, or the origins of evolution. Now that is true.

No it isn't - you absolutely can prove the Big Bang and evolution. The latter is one of the most solid truths in our existence and the former is getting there with it.

How can you prove it? With objective evidence - that is evidence that exists and can be perceived by any intelligence in the universe, independently of the intelligence itself. I can perceive it, you can perceive it, aliens from Magrathea can perceive it - and we can all teach each other freely what we're looking for and where it is.

Literally the exact same standard of evidence gathering was used to make whatever device you're using to suggest that objective evidence and scientific knowledge have no value. It would not function on faith alone and whether one has faith in it or not, it would continue to function due to the objective knowledge used in its construction - or fail to function for objectively known reasons. As below, so above...

 

[DQuaN]

No it isn't - you absolutely can prove the Big Bang and evolution.

I enjoy trying to explain the fundamentals and benefits of science as much as the next person. I like to make people rethink their outlook on the world.

There occasionally comes along a cause so lost, it's not worth the energy of typing. If the other person does not even read what you are posting or take anything on board, what's the point?

I've hit this mark now with DCP, you and Scaff must be getting close.

 

[Liquid]

And now it has become a majority vote. This screenshot shows that majority as one. One.

I don't think the No Way gets that many votes in normal discourse. Plenty of people seem to have exercised their right to change their vote. Would anyone who reads this care to say why? It would make for interesting discussion and bring us partially back on topic to the original original point about belief in general and not exclusively and exhaustively debating Christianity in particular.

 

[DCP]

There are myriad things you can neither prove nor disprove. Why should anybody believe in any of them?
No it isn't - you absolutely can prove the Big Bang and evolution. The latter is one of the most solid truths in our existence and the former is getting there with it.

How can you prove it? With objective evidence - that is evidence that exists and can be perceived by any intelligence in the universe, independently of the intelligence itself. I can perceive it, you can perceive it, aliens from Magrathea can perceive it - and we can all teach each other freely what we're looking for and where it is.

Literally the exact same standard of evidence gathering was used to make whatever device you're using to suggest that objective evidence and scientific knowledge have no value. It would not function on faith alone and whether one has faith in it or not, it would continue to function due to the objective knowledge used in its construction - or fail to function for objectively known reasons. As below, so above...

I'm saying the evidence for God is the creation of everything seen and unseen.
You're saying it's evolution and this big bang which came from no cause.
I can only agree with you if you prove that God doesn't exist, and you can only agree with me, if you call on Christ yourself. It simply boils down to this. Evolution and big bang doesn't give us a reason why we perish, or why we have a conscious, or emotions, or guilt. They don't come from "nothing".

I mean, this quote is too true

"The observant man recognizes many mysteries into which he can not pretend to see, and he remembers that the world is too wide for the eye of one man. But the modern sophists are sure of everything, especially if it contradicts the Bible.

 

[Liquid]

I'm saying the evidence for God is the creation of everything seen and unseen.

Wrong

That is not evidence. That is an assumption.

You're saying it's evolution and this big bang which came from no cause.

Wrong

Nobody is saying those things came from nothing. With the Big Bang, we don't know; that's science's default position. We don't know until we have evidence to conclusively say otherwise. No arrogance. But from what we do know, I think it has something to do with space-time singularities.

Evolution doesn't "come from nothing". It is a very real and documented process which developed concurrently with the first lifeforms. By the by, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That is called abiogenesis and it is a completely different discipline and field of study. Evolution doesn't have a will and it didn't just "appear" out of thin air.

Evolution and big bang doesn't give us a reason why we perish, or why we have a conscious, or emotions, or guilt. They don't come from "nothing".

You might want philosophy and existentialism if you want to talk about the Whys and to pontificate about the fragility of the human condition.

"The observant man recognizes many mysteries into which he can not pretend to see, and he remembers that the world is too wide for the eye of one man. But the modern sophists are sure of everything, especially if it contradicts the Bible.

No, no it isn't. Arrogant people exist everywhere. There may be arrogant scientists but science is impartial. As I said above, the default position is unknown. Scientific hypothesis are made on existing evidence, peer reviewed studies and scholarly acknowledgements.

We are not sure of anything unless we have the evidence to demonstrate and prove it.

 

[Famine]

I'm saying the evidence for God is the creation of everything seen and unseen.
You're saying it's evolution and this big bang which came from no cause.

Nope. Nowhere in that post do I refer to evidence for God, nor that the big bang "came from no cause". Stop inventing things.

What I did say was that there is and can be no objective evidence for God. You said that too:

I can't prove to you that my God exists, yes

If something cannot be proven (which is a separate concept from something that has not yet been proven), there can be no objective evidence for it.

I can only agree with you if you prove that God doesn't exist

Why is that a necessity?

You didn't answer my previous question about the nature of things that can neither be proven nor disproven. What gives any one of those things any merit over the others? Why should one believe in one entity that cannot be proven nor disproven but not another? Why is that entity's existence - which cannot ever be held to be true or false - accepted, but the existence of something else that is intangible and invisible is not accepted?

How does one decide between two things for which there is the same quantity of objective evidence - zero?

and you can only agree with me, if you call on Christ yourself.

Unfortunately Christians are somewhat vague on giving a repeatable method for doing this. It's like they want to hog the afterlife for themselves.

Meanwhile science gives you a repeatable method for any one of the things you pooh-pooh because you don't want to accept them.

It simply boils down to this. Evolution and big bang doesn't give us a reason why we perish, or why we have a conscious, or emotions, or guilt.

Nor is it required for them to.

Similarly, your internet-connected device doesn't give you a reason why your favourite colour is blue - that doesn't mean you get to dismiss all of the objective evidence and knowledge that has gone into making it.

The answers you're seeking to the meaning of life are not in the remit of cosmology, evolutionary biology or information technology. They're not in mathematics either, but I doubt that you shoplift because you don't accept adding up your bill, as finance "came from nothing".

You're rejecting objective knowledge at whim. It seems to be that it's because you don't understand it, don't understand what it means, think it's too complicated or think that it threatens your belief in your deity...

I mean, this quote is too true

"The observant man recognizes many mysteries into which he can not pretend to see, and he remembers that the world is too wide for the eye of one man. But the modern sophists are sure of everything, especially if it contradicts the Bible.

The most fundamental statement in science - the one that underpins all things that we search for, test for, discover, document and build everything upon - is "I do not know".

If we knew everything, we'd not need to look for things. The very notion that scientific study is still undertaken rubbishes the concept that humanity is arrogant enough to think it already knows it all.

 

[Jet Badger]

And now it has become a majority vote. This screenshot shows that majority as one. One.

I don't think the No Way gets that many votes in normal discourse. Plenty of people seem to have exercised their right to change their vote. Would anyone who reads this care to say why? It would make for interesting discussion and bring us partially back on topic to the original original point about belief in general and not exclusively and exhaustively debating Christianity in particular.

I've changed my vote from "Maybe" but the reason is probably not that interesting. Back in the day I read the poll options as "Yes, god definitely exists", "God definitely doesn't exist" and "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't", so just cleared that up now.

 

[niky]

But the modern sophists are sure of everything, especially if it contradicts the Bible.

Not very hard to contradict a publication that so readily contradicts itself.

 

[DK]

And now it has become a majority vote. This screenshot shows that majority as one. One.

I don't think the No Way gets that many votes in normal discourse. Plenty of people seem to have exercised their right to change their vote. Would anyone who reads this care to say why? It would make for interesting discussion and bring us partially back on topic to the original original point about belief in general and not exclusively and exhaustively debating Christianity in particular.

At the time I voted (it must have been 4 or 5 years ago!) I was a fence-sitting agnostic who was unaware that agnosticism/gnosticism sits on a different axis to atheism/theism rather than agnosticism being a neutral position on the atheism/theism axis.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

And now it has become a majority vote. This screenshot shows that majority as one. One.

I don't think the No Way gets that many votes in normal discourse. Plenty of people seem to have exercised their right to change their vote. Would anyone who reads this care to say why? It would make for interesting discussion and bring us partially back on topic to the original original point about belief in general and not exclusively and exhaustively debating Christianity in particular.

I changed my vote from Maybe to No. I describe myself as a militant agnostic, in that I really don't care. I don't give a 🤬 whether god exists as it makes no difference to my life. I'm not the kind of person to believe something like that without evidence. However, the reason I went from maybe to no is because I don't ever want to associated with the religious loonies who are so stupid that they can't understand basic logic and instead feel the need to preach to everyone using pseudoscience or made up evidence because they don't understand what real science is. Religion is not a problem, but religious people have put me off religion and all associated things for life. I'm not averse to the idea of a deity or deities, but the people who think that science is false and that their god/scripture/lack of logic can explain everything are one of the worst problems with the modern world. They slow scientific development, spread prejudice, start wars and conflicts, and brainwash people into following their stupid ideals. Religion can be an incredibly powerful force for good, but it's also one of the most powerful destructive forces in the world.

 

[Dennisch]

My, my, my.

@Beeblebrox237 turned into militant atheist.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

My, my, my.

@Beeblebrox237 turned into militant atheist.

It's hard not to when you read the opinions forum!

 

[Dennisch]

There comes a time when you'll accept that some people are just so far gone that it's not worth getting worked up over. The current influx of said members makes no difference, there have been plenty of brainwashies in these parts before.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Very true. Spoken like someone much older and wiser than me. Still, it really is enough to put you off religion.

 

[Dennisch]

Spoken like someone much older and wiser than me.

 

[Exorcet]

I mean, this quote is too true

"The observant man recognizes many mysteries into which he can not pretend to see, and he remembers that the world is too wide for the eye of one man. But the modern sophists are sure of everything, especially if it contradicts the Bible.

This is backwards, just see below.

It simply boils down to this. Evolution and big bang doesn't give us a reason why we perish, or why we have a conscious, or emotions, or guilt. They don't come from "nothing".

Why do we parish?
Science > DNA corruption, but also subject to more research in case this isn't right/the entire story
Bible > gives an answer, doesn't make sense though

Why do we have a conscious?
Science > admits we don't know
Bible > surely knows and won't here anyone saying other wise

Why do we have emotions?
Science > Evolution, but subject to more research in case this is wrong/not the whole story
Bible > same as consciousness apparently.

How can you claim science is the arrogant side?


You also mentioned that picking god is the safe choice. It's wrong. All illogical/unprovable choices are equal. If there is a chance that following god sends you to heaven, there is equal chance of it sending to you to hell for displeasing the real god, Zeus, or Thor, or anti-Jesus, etc.

 

[FoRiZon]

Could i be chased if i choose "maybe"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Time for some atheist jokes? These are crackers, in several ways.

 

[Brett]

And now it has become a majority vote. This screenshot shows that majority as one. One.

I don't think the No Way gets that many votes in normal discourse. Plenty of people seem to have exercised their right to change their vote. Would anyone who reads this care to say why? It would make for interesting discussion and bring us partially back on topic to the original original point about belief in general and not exclusively and exhaustively debating Christianity in particular.

I changed my vote from "Maybe" to "No way!". The reason being can be seen in the quoted post below that I made a few weeks ago.

Outside of a brief period, I was never particularly devote. There are too many inconsistencies and arbitrary rules to follow. Most of the stories fail to hold up to scrutiny. I also cannot reason my way around the cruelties that some are subjected to because of some higher power. If that higher power cannot do a better job with his/her creation, then there is no reason for me to devote any of my energy to their lack of effort.

Instead, it is easier to go about living by respecting and treating other humans well for the simple fact that they are human and being the right thing to do, not because some person in the sky is going to judge me for it.

 

[Liquid]

Time for some atheist jokes? These are crackers, in several ways.

I feel so persecuted.

 

[Scaff]

Here, perhaps you can look into this https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/movie-review-patterns-of-evidence-exodus/

A movie that starts with a flawed and outdated premise from a man who died in 1965 (do you honestly think that all research into ancient Eygpt stopped at that point and has gone no further), then cherry picks information and makes claims without any basis in fact to force a point.

Why do you think this has not been published as a peer reviewed research paper that has re-written our knowledge of the time period in question?

Why does science have to give you evidence?

It doesn't. You don't understand science (but that has been clear for a while).

Can you not put pride aside and repent of your sins and call on Christ?
I can only think of pride preventing this.

Why not Thor or Odin or Ganesha?

What can you show that will convince me that Christ is real and they are not (and do not say pray or open you heart - you assume I have not been down that route in my life).

Science won't save you when you really need them / it.

It has done on at least three separate occasions.

Jesus has never to my knowledge worked in the development of either passive or active vehicle safety features. They are however a product of the scientific method and have saved me from serious injury and/or death.

You keep saying I'm insulting you, yet it's quite the opposite, I assure you.
It's inevitable that you will die, no matter how many pills, operations or treatments. It's physical death.
I refer to you killing your own soul, by assuming there is no God. You can't prove or disprove it, yet you just go by what man is telling you through science. If science is supposed to be observed, there are so many things you have never observed, even yourself, yet you just go with it, yet people say Christians are boastful and use God as the easy way out. They fail to realise that there is no other way out, .

No you were not. You quite clearly said that those who the devil had tricked would take their own lives and then put me into the group that the devil had tricked.

Why are you being so misleading on this? Why do you refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner?

no matter how much knowledge science gives you, it doesn't change anything

Now aside from science actually meaning knowledge, its changed pretty much every aspect of human life. So yes it has changed quite a bit.