Do you believe in God?

[Foofer37]

Wrong thread, head over to the correct one to debate that.

However in short, no the body of evidence by far and away supports evolution as a theory (and that's scientific theory, as in collected body of evidence).




Which God and which version of that God's claims?

You're a mocker. Bible talks quite a bit about this. God has made it known, you refuse to see it.
Like you said yourself, evolution is a theory and only that. DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, proves that evolution is impossible.

I thought this thread was about do you believe in God? I posted my response, you responded to me. Now it's the wrong thread?

 

[Scaff]

You're a mocker. Bible talks quite a bit about this. God has made it known, you refuse to see it.

That's all rather presumptive of you, how do you know my journey through life?

Like you said yourself, evolution is a theory and only that. DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, proves that evolution is impossible.

A scientific theory is the collected body of all facts and evidence on the subject. It's not a guess as you are trying to claim.

We have a separate thread for evolution, and no DNA doesn't disprove Evolution, quite the opposite, but as I said take it to that thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/creation-vs-evolution.51448/

I thought this thread was about do you believe in God? I posted my response, you responded to me. Now it's the wrong thread?

It's the wrong thread for evolution, now as I asked, which God?

Edited. So Christian God then, may I ask do you feel that the Ten Commandments are a solid moral code?

 

[Famine]

DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, proves that evolution is impossible.

Remind me what God's morals are again. I keep forgetting.

 

[x3ra]

No DNA proves that the beginning of life is too complicated to have come about as a result of chance. Nothing to do with science's definition of evolution.

At least that's how I see it. Evolution maybe has some merit to it, but only for very small changes, certainly not tails, wings or fire-breath. And if I ever see a species changing into another species, then I would change my mind. I don't think you can say fairer than that.

Now where's that DNA thread ?

 

[Famine]

No DNA proves that the beginning of life is too complicated to have come about as a result of chance.

Evolution maybe has some merit to it, but only for very small changes, certainly not tails, wings or fire-breath.

And if I ever see a species changing into another species, then I would change my mind.

 

[x3ra]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

—
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

I'll take the smilies as ridicule. I await the violent opposition, I'll round the caravans up.

 

[Foofer37]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

—
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

I'll take the smilies as ridicule. I await the violent opposition, I'll round the caravans up.

Yes, quite. Like I said, mocker

 

[x3ra]

All we need now is a consensus and we have a scientific "self-evident". Just like the 97%.

 

[Famine]

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Sadly for your cod philosophy, evolutionary theory already went through all three phases, and every single one of your risible statements requires a dramatic misunderstanding of its principles.

 

[Foofer37]

Sadly for your cod philosophy, evolutionary theory already went through all three phases, and every single one of your risible statements requires a dramatic misunderstanding of its principles.

My friend I believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't then I'm sorry. No amount of arguing will convince you to believe. Only God can do that.

 

[Dennisch]

No DNA proves that the beginning of life is too complicated to have come about as a result of chance. Nothing to do with science's definition of evolution.

At least that's how I see it. Evolution maybe has some merit to it, but only for very small changes, certainly not tails, wings or fire-breath. And if I ever see a species changing into another species, then I would change my mind. I don't think you can say fairer than that.

Now where's that DNA thread ?

I think that you'd be best off searching for the pseudo science thread.

 

[Joey D]

Just discovered this thread. Interesting post. I do believe in God. But the majority on here, according to the poll, do not. That would explain why, as I already suspected, so many are ok with using exploits, cheats, cutting corners and ramming others out of their way.

Some of the most religious people in history exploit others and cheat, not to mention do even worse things than that.

Without religion, morals are useless.

Nope, from a purely cultural perspective, morals rose out of the need to keep a harmonious group. If you go way back to a time when humans were hunter/gathers in a small group, it makes sense to instill in people not to do anything harmful to the group. Thus morals. Religion evolved out of a way to explain the unexplainable and then started using stories to reinforce a moral code.

You can be moral without religion, all it requires is for you to follow the golden rule, which is don't be an ass.

My friend I believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't then I'm sorry. No amount of arguing will convince you to believe. Only God can do that.

I don't think God did anything to convince me how I believe. And I'm not an atheist by any means. I'm fairly certain I came to my conclusion on my own.

 

[x3ra]

I think that you'd be best off searching for the pseudo science thread.

I'll head over there when you've finished with it.

@Joey D Yes religious persons have been very naughty boys .... Hitler was a big fan of evolution.

 

[Foofer37]

Some of the most religious people in history exploit others and cheat, not to mention do even worse things than that.



Nope, from a purely cultural perspective, morals rose out of the need to keep a harmonious group. If you go way back to a time when humans were hunter/gathers in a small group, it makes sense to instill in people not to do anything harmful to the group. Thus morals. Religion evolved out of a way to explain the unexplainable and then started using stories to reinforce a moral code.

You can be moral without religion, all it requires is for you to follow the golden rule, which is don't be an ass.



I don't think God did anything to convince me how I believe. And I'm not an atheist by any means. I'm fairly certain I came to my conclusion on my own.

Well then, good luck to you. You will need it.

 

[Famine]

My friend I believe in the God of the Bible.

Which Bible?

Also, from earlier but as yet unanswered:

Remind me what God's morals are again. I keep forgetting.

 

[Joey D]

Well then, good luck to you. You will need it.

Need it for what exactly?

 

[Scaff]

@Joey D Yes religious persons have been very naughty boys .... Hitler was a big fan of evolution.

Apart from that not being true, it's also utterly irrelevant. He was a vegetarian who celebrated Christmas as well.

 

[Joey D]

I'll head over there when you've finished with it.

@Joey D Yes religious persons have been very naughty boys .... Hitler was a big fan of evolution.

And the Catholic Church knowingly covered up sexual predators preying on young children. What's your point?

My point was not that atheists, agnostics, and non-religious can't be terrible people, it was that being religious doesn't inherently make you good.

 

[Foofer37]

Need it for what exactly?

For everything. That's all you have.

 

[Joey D]

For everything. That's all you have.

I honestly have zero idea what you're even on about here. Can you be a tad more specific? I'm all for having a discussion but ambiguous statements get us nowhere.

 

[Foofer37]

I honestly have zero idea what you're even on about here. Can you be a tad more specific? I'm all for having a discussion but ambiguous statements get us nowhere.

Yes it is clear you have no idea. But it is clear you mock God and the Bible. Best of luck

 

[Scaff]

Yes it is clear you have no idea. But it is clear you mock God and the Bible. Best of luck

Asking questions is not mocking.

However you seem to have a serious aversion to answering questions, and would it seems rather simply attack others rather than doing so.

 

[TexRex]

Just discovered this thread. Interesting post. I do believe in God. But the majority on here, according to the poll, do not. That would explain why, as I already suspected, so many are ok with using exploits, cheats, cutting corners and ramming others out of their way.

"People aren't paying attention to my comments in threads dedicated to good sportsmanship (or lack thereof) in multiplayer games, so I'm going to whine about it here."

 

[monkeywall]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, not a belief in a lack of god. Agnosticism is a belief in an inability to know whether there is a god. Agnosticism is more of a religion than atheism.

As far as i was taught atheist do not believe in any sort of thing like a god nor in any sort of religion. An agnostic believes there could be a god but also there could be no such thing, it's not a religion. They both lack belief in a god unlike a theist who believes in a god. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are just a way categorising a person's belief in god and religion.

It would help if Jesus would come back like the book says...

Some jehovah's witnesses believe he's already here. He's behind you i few years back I read a article about world religions, the found out that the biggest practiced religion is Chinese folk religion the concept of god shouldn't be looked at just from a western point of view which seems to happening here. Also when asked questions about god we need to clear on the definition of god, people's definitions can differ greatly (ah an idea for a thread)

Stopping before i continue to rant some more. Going back to read about cars wait there is a god it's Fernando Alonso

Edit: @Scaff a wee thing that you might be interested in looking into is the differences in deductive and inductive reasoning and how we use it to get factual evidence. You may know about it or already commented about it haven't read all your posts. But from what I read you seem an intelligent person who'd be interested in it.

 

[Joey D]

Yes it is clear you have no idea. But it is clear you mock God and the Bible. Best of luck

Can you point out where I mocked God or the Bible? All I indicated was that you can have morals without religion and that I don't need God (with a capital G) to convince me of anything with regards to spirituality.

I do believe in a higher power too. However, it's not the God of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Famine]

As far as i was taught atheist do not believe in any sort of thing like a god nor in any sort of religion. An agnostic believes there could be a god but also there could be no such thing, it's not a religion. They both lack belief in a god unlike a theist who believes in a god. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are just a way categorising a person's belief in god and religion.

As you say, atheists do not believe, while agnostics do believe - thus agnosticism is, as @Danoff says, more of a religion than atheism.

 

[TexRex]

God (with a capital G)

On the topic of capitalization...it's one thing to capitalize a proper name (even that of a fictional character)--we're talking about God, not a god--but why the convention of capitalizing "he/him/his?" Do you suppose God capitalizes the pronoun "me" when referring to himself?

(This is directed at anyone--not merely the individual whose post was quoted.)

 

[Dennisch]

when referring to himself

Did you just assume a gender?

 

[TexRex]

Did you just assume a gender?

Gender has been applied by way of the "He/Him/His"--of course I'm not the least bit surprised that God is labeled as male, with the appropriate male pronouns, since I believe this particular god is more a construct of powerful men wanting to assert their will over a group of people than an embodiment of divinity.

 

[monkeywall]

As you say, atheists do not believe, while agnostics do believe - thus agnosticism is, as @Danoff says, more of a religion than atheism.

You pulled me back in maybe my choice of words was wrong i should have said think there is a possibility instead of believe. If you define religion as a belief in something even if its a belief in a possibility then i'd agree. Although, I think a religion is more 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. or A particular system of faith and worship. Also a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. Rough quote from oxford dictionary.

An agnostic could be religious, agnosticism isn't a religion based on the belief in the possibility. Another rough quote from same dictionary. 'Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God'. They could be religious and think or believe in a god but or just someone who's open to the possibility of god. It does come down to the definition of religion and agnosticism that you follow.

Always when chatting with admin. Hopefully i don't sound like a know it all or pompous. I do enjoy discussions like the one here and trying to use what I've learnt. Or i could be a 'miss educated fool' (Damien Marley).