How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[blue_dragon]

Look at the freaking numbers, one form doesn't show up in a perfect ratio with the others. Quicksand mentionned earlier, and I quote:



... which is false, because according to steric obstruction and the position of chiral carbon atoms in the molecule, you won't necessarily get an identical amount of all the possibilities. There you have it, this is what I answered to.

And you couldn't attach this to your post? Makes it seem like you were looking for a way to criticize those who attempted to understand what you were talking about.

You are ******** illiterate, I give you that.

You have persuaded me that I'm wrong and you're right. I'm sorry that I didn't grow up with a second language, I was simply trying to read what you wrote, since you posted in a foreign language without a summery or translation. So if the message I received from it is wrong, the only one to blame is yourself. Also, that was totally uncalled for.

 

[snex]

the problem with plantinga's supposed "refutation" is that the very reason he thinks the tractors were intelligently designed is BECAUSE they have organized complexity! dawkins is not criticizing him for making this argument, wrong though it may be. what dawkins is pointing out is that IF organized complexity is your criteria for an inference of design, then all designers must be designed, and you are stuck in an endless chain of designers.

clearly, dawkins' point is that organized complexity is the WRONG criteria to look at. plantinga, being an actual philosopher, is just being a dishonest kook. he gets dawkins' point, he just wants to evade it because he cant refute it. and like the gullible sap you are, you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[RDK]

the problem with plantinga's supposed "refutation" is that the very reason he thinks the tractors were intelligently designed is BECAUSE they have organized complexity! dawkins is not criticizing him for making this argument, wrong though it may be. what dawkins is pointing out is that IF organized complexity is your criteria for an inference of design, then all designers must be designed, and you are stuck in an endless chain of designers.

clearly, dawkins' point is that organized complexity is the WRONG criteria to look at. plantinga, being an actual philosopher, is just being a dishonest kook. he gets dawkins' point, he just wants to evade it because he cant refute it. and like the gullible sap you are, you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Did nobody read AltF4's post about how creationists pulled the concept of "complexity seems to implies creation" out of their asses? To say that complexity in living organisms and systems implies a creator (or catalyst) is a false statement, simply because there's no reason to think that way.

 

[Sandy]

I'm sure any of you non christians falls under on of these categories. H

I. Probability vs. Certainty

A. Math is certainty:
1. 2+2 will always =4
B. History is probability:
1. It’s not possible to know exactly what happened in the past, but we can find likely explanations based on known facts.
2. Of course, the facts always have their own interpretations as well.
3. Rain/driveway example.

II. Four Undeniable Facts

A. After His Crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
B. A group of Jesus’ women followers found His tomb empty on the Sunday after His crucifixion.
C. On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups saw Jesus alive after the date of his death.
D. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe Jesus had risen from the dead, despite having every predisposition to the contrary.

III. The Swoon Theory

A. The swoon theory states that Jesus simply passed out during crucifixion and his resurrection was his regaining of consciousness.
B. The numerous inconsistencies in this theory take into account very little of the evidence. For example:

C. No primary source claims that Jesus did not die including those hostile to Christianity.
1. Sanhedrin, Roman Council, Emperor Julius, Philo, Josephus
D. The series of events makes no sense in His condition:
1. How could a beaten decrepit Jesus roll a massive boulder away from a tomb?
2. Then unarmed defeat two Roman guards to escape.
3. Only to travel several miles in order to appear before his disciples in a mangled condition,
4. Then encourage them to look forward to their version his resurrected body.
E. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion, period.
1. Roman law would demand that any soldier allowing a capital prisoner to escape death in any way would himself be executed.
2. The soldier did not break Jesus’ legs.
3. John 19:32, 33
F. John’s Gospel records blood and water mixed together flowing from Jesus’ pierced heart.
1. John 19:34
2. Any medical professional can tell you this is a sign of collapsed lungs and asphyxiation.
IV.

The Mistaken Theory

A. This theory does not take into account any of the four facts.
1. How could Mary have lost her way? She is one of the ones who buried Him.
2. In order to end this theory all that was needed was to correct the Apostles by producing a body.
3. Implicit in the Sanhedrin’s explanation is the empty tomb
a) Matt 28:12-14
V. The Hallucination Theory
A. The groups to which Jesus appeared to would constitute a mass and lasting hallucination.
1. Jesus appeared to individuals and groups over a period of forty days.
2. He appeared once to a crowd of about five hundred people
3. His discourse before his ascension took about 2 hours.
4. Matt 28; Acts 1
B. The hallucination theory would only explain the post-mortem appearances.
1. This theory does not explain the empty tomb, the rolled away stone or the inability to produce a body.
VI. The Conspiracy Theory
A. The body was not stolen
1. It would be impossible for a few unarmed peasants to over power the Roman guards standing watch on Jesus’ tomb.
2. Even if they could have overpowered them, then the Roman government would have been alerted immediately and executed the apostles as a rebellion.
B. No one is a martyr for a lie
1. Lies are for the benefit of the liar. What did the Apostles gain? They were hated, imprisoned, exiled, crucified, boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled, and fed to lions—hardly a list of perks!
C. If the resurrection was a lie, it would have been exposed quickly and easily by the Apostle’s opponents.
1. The Sanhedrin and the Roman Council both had the power and vested interest in putting down this lie.
2. All that was necessary was to produce a body.
3. Instead the Sanhedrin and the Roman Council spent their time persecuting the Apostles trying to get them to deny the resurrection. The Apostles never denied Him.
VII.

The Myth Theory

A. The style and characteristics of the Gospels are radically different than any myth.
1. Psychological complexity
2. Descript secondary details
a) John 8:6
b) John 21:7
3. Derogatory comments about the authors themselves
a) Peter’s Denial
b) The Apostle’s constant bickering
c) Their "hard-hearts" after the feeding of the five-thousand
B. There was not enough time for a myth to develop.
VIII.
1. Dates:
a) Johns’ Gospel: 90 AD
b) 1st Corinthians 15: 57 AD
c) Mathew and Luke’s Gospel: 74 AD
d) Mark’s Gospel: 35 AD
2. A myth about the historical Jesus could not have risen with in 5-10 years of those who remember Him
B. .
C. Women Discovered the tomb empty
1. Myth-makers would have never added this as part of their story.
2. A woman’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine
D. The Gospels claim to be truth.
1. Luke 1:3; At 1:1; John 20:31
2. There are no records of a "normal" Jesus.
3. No stories of in which he does not perform miracles or rise from the dead.
4. If the Gospels claim truth yet are myths, then we really have come full circle back to the conspiracy theory, which we have already refuted.
a) John 20:30, 31
b) Luke 1:1-4
IX. Other Objections
A. Apparent Contradiction in the Gospel Accounts
1. Secondary discrepancies do not negate primary facts.
a) The primary facts remain the unchanged.
b) The existence of secondary discrepancies actually strengthens the case for the resurrection.
c) This means that the gospel writers were independent and did not collaborate with each other.
B. The Resurrection is only Wish-fulfillment
1. This statement falls under the same scrutiny that it proposes.
a) It is possible that those wanting the resurrection to be false would believe that it is because it fulfills their wish!
b) Who’s wish does it fulfill?

 

[Digital Watches]

Um... What kind of bull**** is that?

I: Nonsequitur.

II: Why are these facts undeniable?

III onward: I don't see how any of this is relevant, considering that you're assuming the Jesus story to be true in the first place, an assumption that I'm not willing to work from. You're making an argument that the bible happened as it's written based on the assumption that the bible occurred as it's written.

 

[Scar]

He's not saying the facts are undeniable, he's saying that "II" is a worldview in which those four statements are undeniable facts.

btw Nonsequitur = Latin = you cryptically saying you don't understand? I'm a bit rusty, but instinct is telling me that's passive voice and something like "cannot be followed."

 

[Gamer4Fire]

He's not saying the facts are undeniable, he's saying that "II" is a worldview in which those four statements are undeniable facts.

btw Nonsequitur = Latin = you cryptically saying you don't understand? I'm a bit rusty, but instinct is telling me that's passive voice and something like "cannot be followed."

It is also a logical term used in philosophy and debate to mean "this does not follow." Other terms would be ad hominem, No True Scotsman and Strawman. These are all well known debate and philosophy terms that anyone who's taken a humanities class in college would be familiar with.

In other words, you are showing your ignorance by trying to act smart.

 

[snex]

2. A myth about the historical Jesus could not have risen with in 5-10 years of those who remember Him

lets assume your gospel dates are correct (they absolutely are not, but whatever).

ever heard of joseph smith? muhammad? L ron hubbard? jim jones? myths about these men persisted WHILE THEY WERE STILL ALIVE!

its amazing how you christards completely reject all the myths of these men despite the fact that we know these men existed and the myths about them have a much closer proximity to their lives than what we have for jesus. we have EYEWITNESS accounts (actual ones, that we can prove are actual eyewitnesses) that attest to them. people willingly DIED for these men! how can you possibly deny their truths??

 

[Quicksand]

the problem with plantinga's supposed "refutation" is that the very reason he thinks the tractors were intelligently designed is BECAUSE they have organized complexity! dawkins is not criticizing him for making this argument, wrong though it may be. what dawkins is pointing out is that IF organized complexity is your criteria for an inference of design, then all designers must be designed, and you are stuck in an endless chain of designers.

clearly, dawkins' point is that organized complexity is the WRONG criteria to look at. plantinga, being an actual philosopher, is just being a dishonest kook. he gets dawkins' point, he just wants to evade it because he cant refute it. and like the gullible sap you are, you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Pot, meet kettle.

lets assume your gospel dates are correct (they absolutely are not, but whatever).

I wish I could make assertions without following with a basis.

ever heard of joseph smith? muhammad? L ron hubbard? jim jones? myths about these men persisted WHILE THEY WERE STILL ALIVE!

its amazing how you christards completely reject all the myths of these men despite the fact that we know these men existed and the myths about them have a much closer proximity to their lives than what we have for jesus. we have EYEWITNESS accounts (actual ones, that we can prove are actual eyewitnesses) that attest to them. people willingly DIED for these men! how can you possibly deny their truths??

What's your point? The reason 1st century Christians followed Jesus is because he performed miracles.

 

[AltF4]

No, the reason 1st century christians followed jesus is because they thought he performed miracles. That, or he never existed in the first place and the whole story is made up.

If I sent Lance Burton back in time, people would be worshiping the "miracles" he performed today.

 

[Quicksand]

No, the reason 1st century christians followed jesus is because they thought he performed miracles. That, or he never existed in the first place and the whole story is made up.

If I sent Lance Burton back in time, people would be worshiping the "miracles" he performed today.

How do you know he didn't?

 

[AltF4]

You're absolutely absurd, Quicksand!

You go and say "The reason 1st century Christians followed Jesus is because he performed miracles." As if somehow Jesus performing miracles is just some kind of given undeniable fact. And then you're justification for this claim is "How do you know he didn't?"

BAH!! *rips hair out*

 

[Quicksand]

You're absolutely absurd, Quicksand!

You go and say "The reason 1st century Christians followed Jesus is because he performed miracles." As if somehow Jesus performing miracles is just some kind of given undeniable fact. And then you're justification for this claim is "How do you know he didn't?"

BAH!! *rips hair out*

No, you're missing my whole point. I assume, that since I take the bible, it and it's entire canon is indeed correct. Therefore, the eyewitness accounts (again whether or not it's real or not is another matter) claim to have seen Jesus perform miracles and as a result they were followers of him. So I say that the reason 1st century Christians followed Jesus is because of eyewitness accounts. Do you have any other books Paul or Mark or John wrote?

 

[Crimson King]

So we are just pretending that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the books then? I've had classes in a Catholic High School that said it was written by their follows some 40 years later (earliest one)

Plus your whole "How do you know he didn't do miracles" claim is idiotic and annoying. The burden of proof is on the believer. It is pretty hard to proof something didn't happen.

 

[Quicksand]

So we are just pretending that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the books then? I've had classes in a Catholic High School that said it was written by their follows some 40 years later (earliest one)

What is your point?

Plus your whole "How do you know he didn't do miracles" claim is idiotic and annoying. The burden of proof is on the believer. It is pretty hard to proof something didn't happen.

Again, I'm misunderstood in my point. My point is that the Bible is the only historical record of what Paul actually said and wrote - whether or not it's true or not is another matter altogether. I hate to say it, but most historians accept Jesus and the apostles as actual people who existed.

 

[RDK]

So we are just pretending that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the books then? I've had classes in a Catholic High School that said it was written by their follows some 40 years later (earliest one)

Plus your whole "How do you know he didn't do miracles" claim is idiotic and annoying. The burden of proof is on the believer. It is pretty hard to proof something didn't happen.

Seeing as how Catholics are pretty messed up in just about everything in regards to religion, I tend not to believe anything they say. And that includes idiotic mumblings uttered from the mouth of that idiot the Pope.

However, if you actually research it, the Bible has a lot of parallel documents that prove most of it as historical. I can't say how much, as I haven't looked into it ALL myself, but as a general rule, a lot of it lines up with other historical documents.

 

[Crimson King]

Two major biblical events have very little proof to their existence: The Exodus and the Flood.

Many records show that the Jewish people probably weren't even IN Africa at the time of the pyramids, and a lot of accounts show that the farmers of the region were paid to help build it, so there was no need for an mass freeing of the Jewish slaves. The Great Flood has even less basis. The dimensions of the ark are giving in the bible, but it never states whether the flood waters were fresh or salt. Fresh water would require a much larger ark in order to account for two of every type of whale, shark, and other large salt water creatures. Salt water would require plenty air tight fish tanks because the salt could easily drip into it and wipe out all sorts of fish. Then, what of all the beetles. Since most people who believe the flood was true do not believe in evolution, all the creatures who exist to today had to exist when creation started because any variation of creatures would be an evolutionary change. What happens to all sorts of beetles, insects, worms, etc that Noah had no knowledge of. Some weren't even native to his region.

 

[RDK]

Two major biblical events have very little proof to their existence: The Exodus and the Flood.

Many records show that the Jewish people probably weren't even IN Africa at the time of the pyramids, and a lot of accounts show that the farmers of the region were paid to help build it, so there was no need for an mass freeing of the Jewish slaves. The Great Flood has even less basis. The dimensions of the ark are giving in the bible, but it never states whether the flood waters were fresh or salt. Fresh water would require a much larger ark in order to account for two of every type of whale, shark, and other large salt water creatures. Salt water would require plenty air tight fish tanks because the salt could easily drip into it and wipe out all sorts of fish. Then, what of all the beetles. Since most people who believe the flood was true do not believe in evolution, all the creatures who exist to today had to exist when creation started because any variation of creatures would be an evolutionary change. What happens to all sorts of beetles, insects, worms, etc that Noah had no knowledge of. Some weren't even native to his region.

Yeah, a lot of what Christians are expected to believe is a little ludicrous.

There are other problems aside from the millions of species of insects. Each and every animal on the ark had to be cared for by just 7 people. Most, if not all the animals, probably had special diets that had to be tended to, or even special habitats. What about waste managment? With only 7 people on board, most likely ALL of them would have to be shoveling **** out of the boat at all times just to get the animal poop off the ark.

And then there's the problem of dinosaurs. Yes, they technically could bring juveniles or even eggs, but when they finally got to dry land and let all the animals loose, the baby animals wouldn't have parents to teach them how to hunt, find food, and generally behave how specific animals behave. Most would starve within a week.

After looking at it closely, it seems rather ridiculous.

 

[Quicksand]

Yeah, a lot of what Christians are expected to believe is a little ludicrous.

There are other problems aside from the millions of species of insects. Each and every animal on the ark had to be cared for by just 7 people. Most, if not all the animals, probably had special diets that had to be tended to, or even special habitats. What about waste managment? With only 7 people on board, most likely ALL of them would have to be shoveling **** out of the boat at all times just to get the animal poop off the ark.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

One thing that I find odd that no one takes into account is that if we assume that God did indeed bring about a global flood, then why can't we also assume he was active in the survival / feeding / clean up / etc. of the people and animals on the ark? This is a miracle remember?

And then there's the problem of dinosaurs. Yes, they technically could bring juveniles or even eggs, but when they finally got to dry land and let all the animals loose, the baby animals wouldn't have parents to teach them how to hunt, find food, and generally behave how specific animals behave. Most would starve within a week.

After looking at it closely, it seems rather ridiculous.

Dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago? FYI, I'm not a young-earth creationist if that's what you're assuming.

There really is quite a lot of evidence that a global cataclysm happened about 4000 years ago, the effects of it follow as if it very well could've been a world wide flood.

 

[Crimson King]

[/color]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

The website is quite laughable.

Noah, and his family, would have had to build the ark by themselves. Secondly, even if that were the case and it WAS that big, they cite that there weren't that many animals in existence around the time of the flood which either supports evolution or supports religious ignorance.

 

[cF=)]

survival / feeding / clean up / etc. of the people and animals on the ark?

Hold on, everything that contradicts Noah's ark feasibility was took in charge by God himself?

Too good.

 

[RDK]

[/color]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

One thing that I find odd that no one takes into account is that if we assume that God did indeed bring about a global flood, then why can't we also assume he was active in the survival / feeding / clean up / etc. of the people and animals on the ark? This is a miracle remember?



Dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago? FYI, I'm not a young-earth creationist if that's what you're assuming.

There really is quite a lot of evidence that a global cataclysm happened about 4000 years ago, the effects of it follow as if it very well could've been a world wide flood.

Well if you're going to be that picky, why doesn't God just whisk them into the air until the flood is over instead of making Noah spend hundreds of years building an ark? Or why doesn't he selectively kill everyone BUT Noah and his family?

It's just illogical.

 

[Quicksand]

The website is quite laughable.

Noah, and his family, would have had to build the ark by themselves. Secondly, even if that were the case and it WAS that big, they cite that there weren't that many animals in existence around the time of the flood which either supports evolution or supports religious ignorance.

They had 40 years to do it. Also, it's been calculated that the animals that needed to be on the ark is nowhere near the number needed to have all the animals on earth, i.e. a zebra and a horse can share a common ancestor.

Well if you're going to be that picky, why doesn't God just whisk them into the air until the flood is over instead of making Noah spend hundreds of years building an ark? Or why doesn't he selectively kill everyone BUT Noah and his family?

It's just illogical.

For the sake of the argument we must assume that if the story of the flood was true that the Christian God does indeed exist and is all-powerful. That having been said that means that you have absolutely no right to question what motives that a being who is omnipotent and omniscient has.

Hold on, everything that contradicts Noah's ark feasibility was took in charge by God himself?

Too good.

If the flood is caused by God, why can't other attributes of the already immensely out of the ordinary event also be attributed to God?

 

[Crimson King]

They had 40 years to do it. Also, it's been calculated that the animals that needed to be on the ark is nowhere near the number needed to have all the animals on earth, i.e. a zebra and a horse can share a common ancestor.

That would give credit to evolution. Zebras would have evolved from that ancestor because of some benefit, just as horses would have as well. Also, 40 years is ridiculous. The number 40 is just a term for a long time. If Noah was at least 20 went he began the ark, he woulda been 60 by the time he finished it. Life expectancy wasn't that long. It would have taken all day for 40 years to construct it as well, how would Noah's family had food, money, etc. It just doesn't work. And what of the creatures they are just recently discovering? And the saltwater/freshwater claim? You never did address that one.

 

[Quicksand]

That would give credit to evolution. Zebras would have evolved from that ancestor because of some benefit, just as horses would have as well.

There's nothing unfactual about evolution (or more specifically, adaptation and mutations) - but Darwinism doesn't and can't account for the origins of life.

Also, 40 years is ridiculous. The number 40 is just a term for a long time.

Do you have some article on Hebrew grammar to back this claim up?

If Noah was at least 20 went he began the ark, he woulda been 60 by the time he finished it. Life expectancy wasn't that long. It would have taken all day for 40 years to construct it as well, how would Noah's family had food, money, etc. It just doesn't work. And what of the creatures they are just recently discovering?

Where do you base your claim of "it would have taken all day for 40 years" from? Also, what did they need money for? Everyone was able to build their own tools, all they needed was what nature already had.

And the saltwater/freshwater claim? You never did address that one.

Well, most fish didn't survive. In fact, if you'd been a diver in the oceans before the flood, and then you'd been saved on the Ark and had started diving again after the flood, you would've said something like, "What happened? Where's everything gone?" You see, most marine species were killed during the flood. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question. -Ken Ham

 

[cF=)]

Well, most fish didn't survive.

Poor fish died for our sins...

 

[snex]

For the sake of the argument we must assume that if the story of the flood was true that the Christian God does indeed exist and is all-powerful. That having been said that means that you have absolutely no right to question what motives that a being who is omnipotent and omniscient has.

indeed. unfortunately for you, this very claim can be turned against you. perhaps the entire bible really is inspired by god, but is a big lie that he invented just to make ignorant people jump through hoops for nothing. perhaps when you die, god will choose to send you to hell even though you thought you did everything he asked you to. since god is omnipotent, he doesnt have to keep his promises to you, and you have no right to question him.

 

[Deleted member]

So what if the Bible was a lie? That's not pertinent to the discussion. The thread title is asking how people can believe in God.

Your post is irrelevant.

 

[Digital Watches]

Wait. Snex, do you not see anything ELSE wrong with this?

For the sake of the argument we must assume that if the story of the flood was true that the Christian God does indeed exist and is all-powerful. That having been said that means that you have absolutely no right to question what motives that a being who is omnipotent and omniscient has.

Why must we assume this, how can you prove the story to be true, an why should we work from the standpoint, in a debate on the very existence of said allegedly omnipotent being, that we cannot question it?

You may disguise it all you like, but all you're really doing is arguing from a standpoint that your conclusion can be assumed to be true from the beginning.

 

[Quicksand]

indeed. unfortunately for you, this very claim can be turned against you. perhaps the entire bible really is inspired by god, but is a big lie that he invented just to make ignorant people jump through hoops for nothing. perhaps when you die, god will choose to send you to hell even though you thought you did everything he asked you to. since god is omnipotent, he doesnt have to keep his promises to you, and you have no right to question him.

Since an omnipotent being has nothing to gain from lying, and he's already told us that he will never changed what he's promised, I don't have any worry or need to question him.

By the way, the Bible teaches nothing of a burning hell or eternal torment.

Why must we assume this, how can you prove the story to be true, an why should we work from the standpoint, in a debate on the very existence of said allegedly omnipotent being, that we cannot question it?

You may disguise it all you like, but all you're really doing is arguing from a standpoint that your conclusion can be assumed to be true from the beginning.

Duh?

The whole point is that people are saying that the flood couldn't happen because Noah couldn't have fed all my animals, but at the same time the earth is covered in water because of God's will. So it's an erroneous argument to say that God couldn't use his power to feed some animals when at the same time he has the tremendous power to flood the entire earth - he can accomplish his purpose anyway necessary.

 

[Digital Watches]

Duh?

The whole point is that people are saying that the flood couldn't happen because Noah couldn't have fed all my animals, but at the same time the earth is covered in water because of God's will. So it's an erroneous argument to say that God couldn't use his power to feed some animals when at the same time he has the tremendous power to flood the entire earth - he can accomplish his purpose anyway necessary.

No, people are saying that the flood couldn't happen because it's a ridiculous proposition with no evidence to back it up. As many a Phoenix Wright villain has pointed out, you can make up stories all you want, but we need evidence of some kind to believe such ludicrous claims.

Besides, you can't say "you have to accept that god exists if the flood happened," and then turn around and say "of course the flood could have happened, god is all-powerful." It's circular logic.

 

[Digital Watches]

Yikes, SWF. Way to make me double post.

 

[Zero Beat]

This story does not deserve a thread. There's no need for videos refuting god. It's just a big lie with a powerful and respected backbone, that's all.

Educate yourself in the world of science and maybe you'll get somewhere. Don't quote me with trivial things. As a young boy, I spent 4 years because my mom made me study religion for my confirmation and stuff, even at a young age I noticed this was all bull****. However, the people there were nice. That's one, if not the only plus with religion, and not even, the nuns were bossy *****es.

However, if it's(like in most cases) because you were raised that way, then that's another issue I won't get into.

 

[6footninja]

Yes there is simply no God. According to the Bible the Earth was created around 3-7 thousand years ago. Yet, in 1987 we saw a supernova appear in the sky. Taking it much more time to reach us than such. Simple things, can prove millions wrong. Now to answer HOW you can believe in God. I think its sometimes the absence of enlightenment. Other times, shear ignorance.

 

[Prince of Pain]

The bible, in its inaccuracy, does not prove the existence of a higher power any more than the Harry Potter series proves the existence of Voldemort, but neither does this inaccuracy disprove the existence of a god. To me, 6footninja, you are no better than a Christian extremist telling others they will burn in hell for not converting, merely in reverse. I believe in a more powerful being than humans, and I call said power "god" out of habit, yet I do not doubt the facts shown by science. By my reckoning, god created the universe billions of years ago and let it be, most likely for its entertainment. This obviously does not mean that I think the earth was created only a few thousand years ago (hence the billions) and your point is as foolish as saying all Arabs are terrorists.

 

[IceEmblem]

I think it is not ap to anyone to decide whether or not God exists, If you dont believe in him, thats fine but saying that he doesnt exist is just plain wrong.

 

[Miharu]

I think it is not ap to anyone to decide whether or not God exists, If you dont believe in him, thats fine but saying that he doesnt exist is just plain wrong.

That's pretty hypocritical right there.

So if you believe that God does supposedly does exist, you're allowed to freely state that as fact, while we non-believers have to turn a blind eye to this?

 

[Caturdayz]

I think it is not ap to anyone to decide whether or not God exists, If you dont believe in him, thats fine but saying that he doesnt exist is just plain wrong.

This is incredibly ignorant. I am not sacrilegious but for all intents and purposes God doesn't exist. If you beleive that he does, thats fine you can live in Jesusland and go to church and worship him all that you would like. However, you cannot tell me what to beleive, that is just plain wrong.

 

[Sandy]

This thought came to me the other day.

Atheist do not believe in an afterlife correct?
So what they think is when you die that it ends there.
Christians believe in heaven and hell.

I would rather believe in god and do his will and be wrong when I die and fade into nothing than not believe, be wrong and burn in hell for eternity.

 

[Caturdayz]

You see that would be a good thought, I myself have thought about this for quite some time but it came to me at a relatively young age that I would be fooling no one. If god is a seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent being he would know that I was "faking" my Christianity and I would be sent to hell anyway for trying to lie to this being.

Agnosticism is a wonderful thing, I am not an atheist nor a Christian, while I do agree that Atheism is founded more on fact than Christianity I can see that both have clear problems with their theories, so I chose to wait for further knowledge, so that I can effectively make a decision based on FACTS. If I never get such knowledge than so be it, but I refuse to blindly follow something that is probably not even there.