Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

So it belongs in here because maybe God did it? Is that what you're trying to say? In which case, shouldn't we be discussing earthquakes, volcanoes and nasty weather in this thread as well?

I don't argue that "God" did anything, since I don't believe in anything like God as it is accepted in this thread. I argue - for the sake of argument - that there is some evidence of external intelligence(s) which affects human belief systems, and therefore civilization itself. Not at all the same as god, but maybe remotely analogous. Effects on the weather? I would say there is a connection between weather and "sightings", as sightings often occur just before or after thunderstorms, when electrical disturbances abound. Ground currents and soil conditions may also play a role.

 

[BobK]

I don't argue that "God" did anything, since I don't believe in anything like God as it is accepted in this thread. I argue - for the sake of argument - that there is some evidence of external intelligence(s) which affects human belief systems, and therefore civilization itself. Not at all the same as god, but maybe remotely analogous. Effects on the weather? I would say there is a connection between weather and "sightings", as sightings often occur just before or after thunderstorms, when electrical disturbances abound. Ground currents and soil conditions may also play a role.

I think you missed my whole point. This is the "Do you believe in God" thread, not the "Are you obsessed with strange lights in the sky" thread.

 

[Dotini]

I think you missed my whole point. This is the "Do you believe in God" thread, not the "Are you obsessed with strange lights in the sky" thread.

My point is that strange lights in the sky may be misinterpreted as God, since they sometimes have the same effect as God. So if the strange lights are not God (and they are not), then what are they? How can a strange light manifest intelligence and exert "religious" reactions over people? Study will tell

 

[Scaff]

So if the strange lights are not God (and they are not), then what are they?

A subject for discussion in another thread would be the answer.

 

[Dotini]

A subject for discussion in another thread would be the answer.

But there are those who assert the strange lights are or could be a manifestation of God. They are spoken of in the holy books, and are inseparable from the story of Christianity and history itself. "In hoc signo vinces".

Is a phenomenon which disguises itself as God and attempts to be God not a fit subject for the "Do you believe in God thread? I think it is.

I'm saying you cannot understand God or religion without some reference to strange lights in the sky.

 

[ryzno]

Weren't the strange lights explained in the Space thread?
But I do get @Dotini s point.

 

[Dotini]

Post deleted pending further investigation

 

[Scaff]

But there are those who assert the strange lights are or could be a manifestation of God. They are spoken of in the holy books, and are inseparable from the story of Christianity and history itself. "In hoc signo vinces".

Is a phenomenon which disguises itself as God and attempts to be God not a fit subject for the "Do you believe in God thread? I think it is.

I'm saying you cannot understand God or religion without some reference to strange lights in the sky.

You said there were not God and as such what are they. If you are asserting that they are not a deity of any form then they don't belong in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

You said there were not God and as such what are they. If you are asserting that they are not a deity of any form then they don't belong in this thread.

I'm asserting the existence of an external intelligence which generates religious events and belief systems including miracles in order to guide the destiny of humanity on Earth. That external entity may potentially be God, but I doubt it. It could be ancient aliens, or Illuminati, but I doubt that too. It could be an undiscovered form of life indigenous to the Earth which we run across as Djinn or Hessdalen lights, which I think is more plausible. It is a Trickster. Which is like a deity but less benevolent.

 

[Scaff]

I'm asserting the existence of an external intelligence which generates religious events and belief systems including miracles in order to guide the destiny of humanity on Earth. That external entity may potentially be God, but I doubt it. It could be ancient aliens, or Illuminati, but I doubt that too. It could be an undiscovered form of life indigenous to the Earth which we run across as Djinn or Hessdalen lights, which I think is more plausible. It is a Trickster. Which is like a deity but less benevolent.

Or it could be none of those and simply be a natural phenomenon that we simply don't yet fully understand.

Now while it is interesting and certainly could have been mistaken for the actions of a God historical, unless any one is answering that right now then it's not on topic.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Edit: The phenomenon is a shapeshifter, altering physical reality in puzzling ways. Is it evidence of an external intelligence, toying with human belief systems of science and religion. Maybe it is.

I think the lens is dirty.

 

[unit-one]

I mentioned that the lights at Hessdalen take many shapes. Here they are seen as transparent cubes or crystalline structures, hanging in the sky just in front of one of the permanently operated cameras.

Edit: The phenomenon is a shapeshifter, altering physical reality in puzzling ways. Is it evidence of an external intelligence, toying with human belief systems of science and religion. Maybe it is.

wow, raindrops...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is it evidence of an external intelligence, toying with human belief systems of science and religion. Maybe it is.

In my opinion it's certain evidence of an intelligence which invented the Novus NVC-GDN5801C-2 camera along with its inbuilt "image fixing" techniques that have created apparent cubes from the UV polarisation from water droplets on the lens (clearly all equidistant from the sensor). The interpretation you offer is certain evidence that we, as a species, still enjoy "other-worldly" speculation on subjects whose true origin is not readily apparent.

Barely on-topic for this thread, surely?

 

[Imari]

It implies there may be more to reality than we currently know.

Anyone who thinks there isn't more to reality than we currently know is a moron of the highest order and you should immediately dismiss anything that they have to say.

Pointing this out is like saying the sky is blue. If this is all the video has to add to the thread it's no wonder why people are confused. It's kind of fundamental to a discussion forum that we don't currently know everything, unless you were looking for an echo chamber.

 

[Dotini]

In my opinion it's certain evidence of an intelligence which invented the Novus NVC-GDN5801C-2 camera along with its inbuilt "image fixing" techniques that have created apparent cubes from the UV polarisation from water droplets on the lens (clearly all equidistant from the sensor). The interpretation you offer is certain evidence that we, as a species, still enjoy "other-worldly" speculation on subjects whose true origin is not readily apparent.

Barely on-topic for this thread, surely?

I'm deleting the raindrops post pending further verification. The remainder of the Hessdalen information stands, and I would encourage members to investigate it on their own.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Maybe, there will never ever be a way to prove it or disprove it. Faith is about believing in something that you can't perceive. However, I also can't ignore the lack of evidence. But the tl:dr version is that you'll never know as long as you're alive. So don't look down on other people for believing something different about this wonderful universe. We all live in it, and we all deserve to enjoy it equally.

 

[TenEightyOne]

However, I also can't ignore the lack of evidence.

Such as?

 

[MisterWaffles]

Such as?

I've never had a supernatural experience in my life.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I've never had a supernatural experience in my life.

Sorry, I'd completely misread that sentence

 

[CodeRedR51]

Maybe,

Damnit, 2 months without a post and you have to go and bump it.

Thought it was finally going to die a slow death.

 

[BobK]

Thought it was finally going to die a slow death.

Lol, never gonna happen.

Much like religion itself.

 

[MisterWaffles]

I was just something I had on my mind and needed to get of my chest. I'm an agnostic, but I have two friends, one is a hardcore atheist and the other is an evangelic. It disappoints me of the pointless bickering that goes on between and within both parties.

Nobody is being forced to reply after this though, so do with this thread as you will.

 

[Joey D]

I have two friends, one is a hardcore atheist and the other is an evangelic. It disappoints me of the pointless bickering that goes on between and within both parties.

To me this is where both sides falter greatly, neither one of them wants to listen to what the other side has to say or consider any other possibilities other than the conclusion they've drawn.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Lol, never gonna happen.

Much like religion itself.

Sad but true.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Closest thing to a Christian thread so Merry Christmas GTP

 

[TenEightyOne]

Closest thing to a Christian thread so Merry Christmas GTP

It's jolfadr here in England, no need for fancy modern christmastiding!

 

[Rallywagon]

Happy Festivus for the rest of us!

 

[Imari]

To me this is where both sides falter greatly, neither one of them wants to listen to what the other side has to say or consider any other possibilities other than the conclusion they've drawn.

Hold up.

An atheist is a person who says that because there's no credible evidence for God, it should be assumed that he doesn't exist until there's a reason to think otherwise. An atheist will happily discuss how they've arrived at that conclusion. As has been shown in this thread, if presented with possible evidence that God exists, they will ask more about it. Inevitably, the evidence turns out to be unavailable, but I'm pretty sure that every atheist in existence would jump on the opportunity to see objective evidence of God were it to be available.

A Christian believes that there is a God with certain attributes. They may or may not have had personal experiences that would lead them to think that this is true, but Christians of an evangelical bent also tend to think that one should believe in God even without any evidence. They also will not accept any discussion of whether they may be incorrect, to the point of making profoundly illogical and irrational statements.

This isn't to say that there aren't people on both sides who just go around being bellends. But there are bellends all over the place, and it's not because of their beliefs. That's just the sort of people they are. But the difference between an atheist and a theist is that one clearly states that their mind can be changed by the presentation of certain information or evidence.

On the other hand, one can't prove non-existence, so a theist makes no such statement. A theist cannot have their mind changed by any information or reasoning that someone else might present, by definition.

 

[Joey D]

Hold up.

An atheist is a person who says that because there's no credible evidence for God, it should be assumed that he doesn't exist until there's a reason to think otherwise. An atheist will happily discuss how they've arrived at that conclusion. As has been shown in this thread, if presented with possible evidence that God exists, they will ask more about it. Inevitably, the evidence turns out to be unavailable, but I'm pretty sure that every atheist in existence would jump on the opportunity to see objective evidence of God were it to be available.

A Christian believes that there is a God with certain attributes. They may or may not have had personal experiences that would lead them to think that this is true, but Christians of an evangelical bent also tend to think that one should believe in God even without any evidence. They also will not accept any discussion of whether they may be incorrect, to the point of making profoundly illogical and irrational statements.

This isn't to say that there aren't people on both sides who just go around being bellends. But there are bellends all over the place, and it's not because of their beliefs. That's just the sort of people they are. But the difference between an atheist and a theist is that one clearly states that their mind can be changed by the presentation of certain information or evidence.

On the other hand, one can't prove non-existence, so a theist makes no such statement. A theist cannot have their mind changed by any information or reasoning that someone else might present, by definition.

Problem is I rarely, if ever, see an atheist (at least on the Internet, I don't know any personally in every day interactions) happily discuss how they arrived at their conclusion, it's typically just filled with hate towards religion.

The main reason I'm not an atheist any more was that I thought a majority of atheists I came across were massive jerks and it made me stand back and reexamine my beliefs to see if I was being like that. Turn out I was and when I started listening to the other-side of the argument instead of instantly discrediting it, I found that I did believe in a higher power after all. This is what I was referring to in my post, many atheists refuse to even listen to anyone who's theist without getting some superiority complex about them and instantly say thing to them like "don't believe in imaginary friends", "why don't you beat your wife like the Bible says", "why do you believe in children's stories", etc. I've only ever came across a hand of of people claiming to be atheists that I could have a reasonable conversation with and where they actively listened to how I arrived at my belief and in turn I listened to them.

I also agree that many theists, especially ones with more evangelicals beliefs, will refuse to listen to atheists and I think they are wrong too, they should at least consider the possibility their beliefs might be incorrect or unfounded all together. They should examine the religion they subscribe to and see if it truly fits them or if they should look elsewhere. I don't have many personal experiences to draw from on this unfortunately so I'm not sure how any interactions would go.

All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to listen then instantly refute on both sides. You should also always be challenging yourself on what you believe to be true, whether is a belief in a higher power or a non-belief. I personally don't see enough of it, especially between varying religious beliefs, and I think religion and God would be less of a hot topic if people just listened instead of instantly refuting.

 

[mistersafeway]

Problem is I rarely, if ever, see an atheist (at least on the Internet, I don't know any personally in every day interactions) happily discuss how they arrived at their conclusion, it's typically just filled with hate towards religion.

I think the problem with having this sort of discussion is that the atheists (like myself) get annoyed with seeing the same weak arguments presented like they're laying down a royal flush and all refutations ignored entirely, and that quite often leads to jumping the gun and assuming that it's yet another idiot rather than someone looking for an honest debate so they actually can question themselves. Not to say there aren't atheists who are just jerks because of it, but I think that a possible explanation for that is that they became atheists after seeing a discussion online involving the aforementioned annoyed atheists and thought being a jerk was mandatory.