Snex, it doesn't matter if that happened, you wouldn't believe it if it did. You've already decided what you believe, no matter what everyone else says, or does, you'll still remain the same. Just as most christians in this thread, no matter what you athiests say or do, we'll still remain the same. This is why this thread shouldn't even be open anymore. It's just a big circle, itkeeps going and going and going.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
How Can Anyone Believe in God?
- Thread starter RDK
- Start date
- Status
Snex, it doesn't matter if that happened, you wouldn't believe it if it did. You've already decided what you believe, no matter what everyone else says, or does, you'll still remain the same. Just as most christians in this thread, no matter what you athiests say or do, we'll still remain the same. This is why this thread shouldn't even be open anymore. It's just a big circle, itkeeps going and going and going.
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
What's silly about them? "i" is just a number we define to have a certain property, i.e. i^2 = -1. It's a construct just like all of mathematics. And they are absolutely essential to science.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Let's just say I hate math and my posting of that comic had nothing to do with my hatred towards math.
I just thought it was funny.
/tangent.
I just thought it was funny.
/tangent.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
Delorted, why do you have a turtle neck shirt as your avatar? Is there a story behind that or something?
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
This is why you're outrageously avoiding to do any OBSERVATIONS contradicting the existence of god.
D
Deleted member
Guest
TURTLE NECK SHIRT??? It's a cross.
Justice is a French electronic group that uses a lot of bass. They're on the Ed Rec Label
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZR035Mhd58o&feature=related Here's a song by them
They're really freaking good
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I'm pretty sure the point of debate isn't to convert. Why can't a healthy dialog happen without conversion?
Aesir
Smash Master
I always thought a debate was for the ones who are on the fence so they can see the arguments and decide for themselves. I think if any advocate is swayed by the oppositions that they're probably not very committed to their beliefs.
So Chaco should be expected to explain it, for all you know there's a someone on the fence who's willing to see both sides.
So Chaco should be expected to explain it, for all you know there's a someone on the fence who's willing to see both sides.
The christian view of god is obviously false. It just doesn't make sense to assume that there is some dude with a long white beard granting prayers while sitting on a cloud. Or maybe comes down to earth and talks to people and helps them out like Bruce almighty. There is no good reason to believe its true, other than the fear of eternal ****ation, but if I live a good moral life and still and up in hell because I don't believe it, the same punishment as Hitler who murdered millions, god is obviously an unreasonable scum bag. I mean eternity is a long time, even for Hitler it is to much of a punishment. Give him 100 years for everyone he killed and it still won't come near eternity. God is going to do whatever he wants not matter what you do so why bother? Especially considering nobody knows what he wants and everyone says something different.
However, to get into a more philosophical debate, what about the "god" that people such as Plato and Einstein believed in. Not a dude granting prayers but some sort of force in the universe that is described as god do to lack of a better word for it. Plato sometimes referred to it as the form of the good. The thing from which all matter came from and makes us all connected. Personally I don't know what to think about it, if it wasn't mentioned by such intelligent people I probably would call it interesting and move on. But it is believed by people whose intelligence vastly outweighed the average person so maybe they are on to something. So, I'll just throw that out and see what people think.
However, to get into a more philosophical debate, what about the "god" that people such as Plato and Einstein believed in. Not a dude granting prayers but some sort of force in the universe that is described as god do to lack of a better word for it. Plato sometimes referred to it as the form of the good. The thing from which all matter came from and makes us all connected. Personally I don't know what to think about it, if it wasn't mentioned by such intelligent people I probably would call it interesting and move on. But it is believed by people whose intelligence vastly outweighed the average person so maybe they are on to something. So, I'll just throw that out and see what people think.
Johnthegalactic
Smash Lord
Will all those people who have never heard of Jesus Christ be sent to hell? First we must note that the Bible says God will judge all people righteously.1 It seems there will be a stricter judgment for those who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ than those who have never heard.2 Paul tells us that those who have never heard of the law are not imputed sin under the law.3 Paul also tells us that those who follow the law (e.g., practicing Jews) will be judged by the law.4 The people who have never heard of the law are judged by the law of God which He has placed into their hearts:
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)
Valid point, if you wish to see, read this.
Since God tells us that He has a definitely fixed purpose, and that all His purposes shall be accomplished, it behooves us, as His children, to inquire diligently what those plans are, that we may be found in harmony with them. Notice how emphatically Jehovah affirms the fixedness of His purpose: "Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it be." "The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it?" "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me . . . My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure . . . Yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isa 14:24-27; 46:9-11.) However haphazard or mysterious God's dealings with men may appear, those who believe this testimony of His Word must acknowledge that His original and unalterable plan has been, and still is, progressing systematically to completion.
Therefore, as interested sons of God, and heirs of a promised inheritance, we apply to our Father's Word, that we may understand His purposes from the plans and specifications therein given. There we learn that the plan of God, with reference to man, spans three great periods of time, beginning with man's creation and reaching into the illimitable future. Peter and Paul designate these periods "three worlds."
These three great epochs represent three distinct manifestations of Divine Providence. The first, from creation to the flood, was under the ministration of angels, and is called by Peter "THE WORLD THAT WAS." —2 Pet. 3:6.
The second great epoch, from the flood to the establishment of the kingdom of God, is under the limited control of Satan, "the prince of this world," and is therefore called "THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD." —Gal. 1:4; 2 Pet. 3:7.
The third is to be a "world without end" (Isa. 45:17) under divine administration, the kingdom of God, and is called "THE WORLD TO COME-wherein dwelleth righteousness." —Heb. 2:5; 2 Pet. 3:13.
The first of these periods or "worlds," under the ministration of angels, was a failure; the second, under the rule of Satan, the usurper, has been indeed an "evil world"; but the third will be an era of righteousness and of blessing to all the families of the earth.
The last two of these "worlds" are most particularly mentioned, and the statements relative to them are in strong contrast. The present, or second period, is called "the present evil world," not because there is nothing good in it, but because in it evil is permitted to predominate. "Now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered." (Mal. 3:15.) The third world or epoch is mentioned as "THE WORLD TO COME—wherein dwelleth righteousness," not because there will be no evil in it, but because evil will not predominate. The blotting out of evil will be gradual, requiring all of the first thousand years. Evil will not rule then; it will not prosper; it will no longer be the wicked that will flourish; but "the righteous shall flourish" (Psa. 72:7), the "obedient shall eat the good of the land" (Isa. 1:19), and the "evildoers shall be cut off." —Psa. 37:9.
Thus seen, the next dispensation is to be so dissimilar as to be the very reverse of the present one in almost every particular. Our Lord's words show why there is to be a difference between the present and the future dispensations. It is because He will be the Prince or Ruler of the world to come, that in it righteousness and truth will prosper; while, because Satan is the prince (ruler) of the present evil world, evil prospers and the wicked flourish. It is because, as Jesus said, the prince of this world "hath nothing in Me"-and consequently no interest in His followers except to oppose, tempt, annoy and buffet them (John 14:30; 2 Cor. 12:7)-that in this present evil world or epoch, whosoever will live godly shall suffer persecution, while the wicked flourish like a green bay tree. —2 Tim. 3:12; Psa. 37:35.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and until the era or "world to come" does come, Christ's kingdom will not control the earth. And for this we are taught to hope and pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth." Satan is the .ruler of the darkness of this world," and therefore "darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the people." He now rules and works in the hearts of the children of disobedience. —Eph. 2:2; 6:12.
There must be some very important part of the great Architect's plan for man's salvation not yet fully developed-else the new Prince and the new dispensation would have been long ago introduced. Why it was postponed for an appointed time, and also the manner of the change from the present dominion of evil under Satan to that of righteousness under Christ, are points of interest which will be more fully shown hereafter. Suffice it now to say, that the kingdoms of this world, now subject to Satan, are at the proper time to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. (Rev. 11:15.) The context shows that the transfer will be accomplished by a general time of trouble. In reference to it Jesus said, "No man can enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man, and then he will spoil his house." (Mark 3:22-27.) Thus we are taught that Satan must first be bound, restrained and deposed, before Christ's reign of righteousness and peace can be established. This binding of Satan is accordingly shown to be the first work of the new dispensation.-Rev. 20:2.
It should be remembered that this earth is the basis of all these "worlds" and dispensations, and that though ages pass and dispensations change, still the earth continues-"The earth abideth forever." (Eccl. 1:4.) Carrying out the same figure, Peter calls each of these periods a separate heavens and earth. Here the word heavens symbolizes the higher or spiritual controlling powers, and earth symbolizes human government and social arrangements. Thus the first heavens and earth, or the order and arrangement of things then existing, having served their purpose, ended at the flood. But the physical heavens (sky and atmosphere), and the physical earth, did not pass away: they remained. So likewise the present world (heavens and earth) will pass away with a great noise, fire and melting—confusion, trouble and dissolution. The strong man (Satan), being bound, will struggle to regain his power. The present order or arrangement of government and society, not that of the physical sky and earth, will pass away. The present heavens (powers of spiritual control) must give place to the "new heavens"—Christ's spiritual control. The present earth (human society as now organized under Satan's control) must (symbolically) melt and be dissolved, in the beginning of the "Day of the Lord," which "shall burn as an oven." (Mal. 4:1.) It will be succeeded by "a new earth," i.e., society reorganized in harmony with earth's new Prince-Christ. Righteousness, peace and love will rule among men when present arrangements have given place to the new and better kingdom, the basis of which will be the strictest justice.
Paul was given a glimpse of the next dispensation, or, as he calls it, "the world to come." He says he was "caught away" (physically or mentally, or both, he could not tell, things were so real to his view) down the stream of time to the new condition of things, the "new heaven," hence the "third heaven." He thus saw things as they will be under the spiritual control of Christ, things which he might not disclose. (2 Cor. 12:2-4.) Doubtless these were the same things which John afterward saw, and was permitted to express to the Church in symbols, which may only be understood as they become due. John, in the revelation given to him by our Lord on the Isle of Patmos, was in vision carried down through this Christian age and its changing scenes of church and state, to the end of the present evil world, or epoch, and there in prophetic visions he saw Satan bound, Christ reigning, and the new heaven and the new earth established; for the former heaven and earth were passed away. —Rev. 2 1: 1.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
A healthy debate consists of two or more sides learning from each other. If it's an argument, then it sucks. This is an argument.
And by the way, I'll try to find a link to an actual experiment similar to snex's. It was actually conducted. Most of the prayers died I believe.
And by the way, I'll try to find a link to an actual experiment similar to snex's. It was actually conducted. Most of the prayers died I believe.
I agree, like I said a page back, we're not sticking to the topic really.
And prayer alone won't do wonders, it's prayer along with the medicine and working at your recovery. God doesn't give miracles, he gives oppurtunities for miracles to happen.
That was a good point. But it's hard to argue the religious side of this, because other people will say 'there is no proof, therefore god doesn't exist.'
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Explain the medicine behind Jesus' suposed miracles towards humankind's well being. Like healing eyesight or feeding so many people with fish.
Yeah, I know it's hard to debate against them over a topic like this. When you bring up points, that line is what they throw at you. So, yeah, it's hard. But I'm still trying, and you can help if you wish to. That's why this thread is so one sided...all others leave because continuously the same words are spoken. "There is no proof" Well, if you were one of those kids who believed in Santa Claus. You believed in him, although you never saw him. You never questioned his existence, until you got older. You see Santa Claus is one of those phases when you are younger, but the belief in God isn't. It's something I will hold with me from now on, and something everyone here can have. Even if you do reject it, God still loves everyone equally. So this is my final point. Choose to counter if you wish, but this will most likely be my last post in this debate. I'm against many others, and it would seem that John, and Byronman are getting the same idea from this. What's the point? The only people I see that bring up new points are CK, Alt, and Variola. So with that, I end my posts in this debate.
GhostAnime
Smash Ace
yet before medicine was invented, he didn't?
snex
Smash Master
gee, imagine if newton told this to the skeptics about his equations of motion. "i COULD prove my equations, but even if i did you wouldnt believe me so im not going to. neener neener neener."
what would you say to that? thats right, youd say its a BULL**** excuse to avoid having to admit that newton was afraid to put his ideas to the test. pro-tip - it looks exactly the same when you try to pull the same thing.
i thought i asked for evidence, rather for you to just repeat the same crap you already believe. god hasnt told me anything, so therefore he hasnt told "us" anything. he may have told YOU something, but then youd have evidence to prove that... right? so where is it?Chaco said:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
Hope.
There may be some people that believe in god for other reasons, but I'm inclined to believe that most people believe in a god for hope. They want to believe that there's a strong, kind being that created us all and all of that. I'm personally on the borderline about god--while I want there to be a god out there, there is no actual proof that there is a god. Maybe that's how it's supposed to be, but I am generally a pretty pessimistic person. I like to call it being realistic. If something is highly unlikely, I tell myself it's not true because I don't want to tell myself that it's going to happen only to be disappointed. Even so, I keep the idea of a god in mind because I want a god to exist. But someone has to be wrong. There are tons of different religions, tons of different scientific theories, many of them completely contradicting each other.
So yeah, basically, I want god to exist and thus keep the idea of a god in mind, but I'm inclined to say that one doesn't exist. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not going to tell myself a god exists when a book that was written by man and is completely subjective is the only proof out there.
Honestly, I'm not inclined to say it'd be a good thing if people believed there's no god. If you were to come to people with some sort of evidence and tell them that there is no god, no afterlife, etc., and have something that convinces everyone that this is definitely true, people are going to go crazy, I'd imagine. People want some sort of control, and if the all-powerful god that they've been led to believe exists does not exist, they're likely to go crazy and chaos will erupt. There may be some people that, once they've found out that their sins don't matter, will do whatever they please. Now obviously there are people already who have accepted this and not gone crazy. But the people who've led their entire lives upon this assumption and perhaps never even questioned it...they're likely to have some problems with it.
So my answer to the topic? Hope, and a craving for control.
There may be some people that believe in god for other reasons, but I'm inclined to believe that most people believe in a god for hope. They want to believe that there's a strong, kind being that created us all and all of that. I'm personally on the borderline about god--while I want there to be a god out there, there is no actual proof that there is a god. Maybe that's how it's supposed to be, but I am generally a pretty pessimistic person. I like to call it being realistic. If something is highly unlikely, I tell myself it's not true because I don't want to tell myself that it's going to happen only to be disappointed. Even so, I keep the idea of a god in mind because I want a god to exist. But someone has to be wrong. There are tons of different religions, tons of different scientific theories, many of them completely contradicting each other.
So yeah, basically, I want god to exist and thus keep the idea of a god in mind, but I'm inclined to say that one doesn't exist. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not going to tell myself a god exists when a book that was written by man and is completely subjective is the only proof out there.
Honestly, I'm not inclined to say it'd be a good thing if people believed there's no god. If you were to come to people with some sort of evidence and tell them that there is no god, no afterlife, etc., and have something that convinces everyone that this is definitely true, people are going to go crazy, I'd imagine. People want some sort of control, and if the all-powerful god that they've been led to believe exists does not exist, they're likely to go crazy and chaos will erupt. There may be some people that, once they've found out that their sins don't matter, will do whatever they please. Now obviously there are people already who have accepted this and not gone crazy. But the people who've led their entire lives upon this assumption and perhaps never even questioned it...they're likely to have some problems with it.
So my answer to the topic? Hope, and a craving for control.
snex
Smash Master
imagine if mass numbers of people were absolutely convinced that they had a billion dollars in cash in their basements, and that if they ever had financial troubles, they could just dip into that billion dollars.
no matter how much you think the belief in that billion dollars makes them happy, you are doing them and all of society a disservice by letting them persist in it. they DO NOT have a billion dollars in their basement, and when the **** hits the fan, and they try to access it, they are going to be in a much worse state than they would be if they based their lives on reality to start with.
a person who believes in reality knows theres no billion dollars sitting in his basement, so he wont squander the money he does have. he will have contingency plans for unexpected expenses. he will be a RESPONSIBLE MONEY USER.
the situation with religions and gods is exactly analogous, and because of this it is no surprise that the more atheistic a country is, the happier it is and the less crime there is.
no matter how much you think the belief in that billion dollars makes them happy, you are doing them and all of society a disservice by letting them persist in it. they DO NOT have a billion dollars in their basement, and when the **** hits the fan, and they try to access it, they are going to be in a much worse state than they would be if they based their lives on reality to start with.
a person who believes in reality knows theres no billion dollars sitting in his basement, so he wont squander the money he does have. he will have contingency plans for unexpected expenses. he will be a RESPONSIBLE MONEY USER.
the situation with religions and gods is exactly analogous, and because of this it is no surprise that the more atheistic a country is, the happier it is and the less crime there is.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
But I don't see how that compares to this. We've gone on for milleniums believing in gods of all kinds and things haven't gone completely awry yet. If we all believed that we could summon as much money as we need to get through a situation for milleniums, eventually everyone would become broke.
I don't see how believing in a god is doing them a disservice. It gives them hope. If they want hope, more power to them, who am I to stop them? By believing in god, if none exists and there is no afterlife (not that they're necessarily intertwined), the only thing that would be a problem is that they would not be going where they think. But they're dying, so I don't see how it's an issue.
As for being responsible, how is someone of faith a less responsible person in life? With the comparison you're making, that's what I'm getting out of it.
Nor do I see how not believing in a god would rid of crime and make it happier.
The only people I see being happier are those who believe that already, because they don't want to be shunned for their beliefs.
These are all really beliefs--religion is hard to debate for that reason. While nothing factual points to a god existing, we have no definite proof that a god does not exist.
I don't see your comparison fitting at all.
This will be my third time posting this argument in this thread. I hope someone actually reads it this time:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
I apologize; while I would've liked to be able to read through the entire thread before posting, 82 pages is a lot.
As for your argument, I'm not saying that we should necessarily assume that a god exists. I'm not doing that. I'm just saying that condemning people, saying that they're irresponsible by believing a god exists is just...well, mean. If we had proof he doesn't exist, then you can say people are just being ignorant. But if people want to be hopeful, I don't see why it's our business to be a jerk and call them foolish. They're not going to change their opinion either way, they'll just think of anyone with different beliefs as jerks.
In any case, I never said we should assume that he exists, merely that we shouldn't completely rule out that one does exist and use arguments against letting people believe what they wish.
That's another thing. I'm not sure how it's doing society a disservice, but I'll be ****ed if I'm going to say it's okay to tell people what they can and can't believe.
Firus:
Nobody is proposing that people not be allowed to believe in a religion. Don't try to strawman your way through this discussion.
Also, throwing around vague and nice sounding words like "hope" is not a substitute for an actual argument. There is a big difference between believing something is true and wanting something to be true. Would I WANT there to be an all powerful and all loving god? Sure! That'd be awesome! Do I believe one exists? Certainly not.
Hope is not a reason to believe something. It is a reason to wish for something. Beliefs are to be generated from logic and not hopes. As much as I would really hope that I had Snex's billions basement dollars, I am not going to go around trying to believe it! The money does not exist. Trying to convince myself of something does not somehow make the belief true.
All of this nonsense is just a diversion from the topic at hand: An actual logical reason someone might believe in god. Not some rehashing of Pascal's wager, not some appeal to emotion, not because it's what most people do. An actual logical reason.
Oh, and for those who see this discussion as pointless under the reason of "nobody is going to change their mind", I think that is both disingenuous and rather telling. The highest degree of ignorance someone can achieve is choosing to continue believing in what they do, despite it being proven contradictory.
If MY beliefs were somehow proven to be inconsistent, I would drop them immediately! I would be the first person to drop it all and change if only I were shown to be wrong. Because I am not an ignorant person. I try to seek the truth, and not just claim that I do. There are no "right" or "wrong" people, only "right" and "wrong" beliefs.
Part of being in this debate hall, and indeed in any debate, is the willingness to not be ignorant of the logic that is right in front of your face. So don't try to tell me that you're unwilling to change your beliefs, because that's only telling me that you're an ignorant toad, who is unwilling to partake in honest debate.
Nobody is proposing that people not be allowed to believe in a religion. Don't try to strawman your way through this discussion.
Also, throwing around vague and nice sounding words like "hope" is not a substitute for an actual argument. There is a big difference between believing something is true and wanting something to be true. Would I WANT there to be an all powerful and all loving god? Sure! That'd be awesome! Do I believe one exists? Certainly not.
Hope is not a reason to believe something. It is a reason to wish for something. Beliefs are to be generated from logic and not hopes. As much as I would really hope that I had Snex's billions basement dollars, I am not going to go around trying to believe it! The money does not exist. Trying to convince myself of something does not somehow make the belief true.
All of this nonsense is just a diversion from the topic at hand: An actual logical reason someone might believe in god. Not some rehashing of Pascal's wager, not some appeal to emotion, not because it's what most people do. An actual logical reason.
Oh, and for those who see this discussion as pointless under the reason of "nobody is going to change their mind", I think that is both disingenuous and rather telling. The highest degree of ignorance someone can achieve is choosing to continue believing in what they do, despite it being proven contradictory.
If MY beliefs were somehow proven to be inconsistent, I would drop them immediately! I would be the first person to drop it all and change if only I were shown to be wrong. Because I am not an ignorant person. I try to seek the truth, and not just claim that I do. There are no "right" or "wrong" people, only "right" and "wrong" beliefs.
Part of being in this debate hall, and indeed in any debate, is the willingness to not be ignorant of the logic that is right in front of your face. So don't try to tell me that you're unwilling to change your beliefs, because that's only telling me that you're an ignorant toad, who is unwilling to partake in honest debate.
Firusthehedgehog has a very good point. The topic is asking how can anyone believe in god. They can believe because they want to. It gives them hope, and makes things so much easier for them. Anything bad happens is all part of god's plan. Heaven and Hell gives people the hope that being a good person matters and being bad gets punished eventually. I mean just look at evolution vs. creationism. Creationism is very simple there is nothing complex about it, you can sum up the whole thing in three words, god did it. Evolution takes years of study to fully comprehend.
Although that does not mean god exists. Nor does it mean we should believe, that is just why some people do believe. I completely agree with the pink elephant example. But personally, I think as long as it doesn't bring harm to themselves or others let them believe.
Although that does not mean god exists. Nor does it mean we should believe, that is just why some people do believe. I completely agree with the pink elephant example. But personally, I think as long as it doesn't bring harm to themselves or others let them believe.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
That sounds to me like they're trying to say that they are hindering others by believing this and should not be allowed to do so any longer. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but that's what I got out of it.snex said:
And I feel the same. I WANT there to be a powerful and all-loving god, but I try to be realistic and so I believe one doesn't exist. I was replying to the topic title with that. How can people believe in a god? Because they WANT to believe in a god. That's why they believe in a god. That's what I was saying.AltF4Warrior said:
Hey, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's why other people believe in a god. I'm not trying to divert the topic from finding a logical reasoning for believing in god, I'm saying there is none. It's just hope that keeps them believing that.AltF4Warrior said:
I'm not saying the discussion is pointless. If I were saying that, I wouldn't have posted anything in the topic except for that. Those who believe in a god aren't going to change their opinions is all I'm saying, even if we came up with undeniable proof, people would probably refuse to accept it.AltF4Warrior said:
Again, I'm not saying it's right to continue believing as they are. I'm simply saying that they are doing so.
I wholeheartedly agree. If there is absolute undeniable proof that your belief is incorrect, and you choose to keep believing it, you're choosing to believe in a lie purposely, just because you want to feel better. It's stupid.AltF4Warrior said:
snex
Smash Master
firus, how much more productive would believers be if they actually used reality to solve problems instead of wasting time on prayers? how many centuries has scientific progress been set back because religious dogma got in the way?
dont just look at religion, look at other pseudoscientific beliefs as well. you might ask what the harm is in believing in psychic mediums that can talk to the dead. well the harm is in you giving tons of money to a con-artist when you could have used it on yourself or some other noble cause. the harm is in encouraging people to BE con-artists in the first place. if we had no demand for these "services," thered be no supply of them.
try this website: www.whatstheharm.net
dont just look at religion, look at other pseudoscientific beliefs as well. you might ask what the harm is in believing in psychic mediums that can talk to the dead. well the harm is in you giving tons of money to a con-artist when you could have used it on yourself or some other noble cause. the harm is in encouraging people to BE con-artists in the first place. if we had no demand for these "services," thered be no supply of them.
try this website: www.whatstheharm.net
@Variola
Yeah, that makes sense. The pink elephants statement I mean. But believing in god is like the in the statement "It is wrong to murder." Lots of people accept the idea, but there's no scientific proof. The only thing you can say really is "It makes sense." You can scientifically prove against god, saying that all principals in physics and life come from science. But there comes to a point where it comes full circle. You can't prove those invisible pink elephants. But before the 'Big Bang' and everything inside, those things come from something. Example: The Earth was made from rocks. Where did those rocks come from? How were they created? How did the things that helped them become created come from? How were they formed?
I know that's getting annoying. But, everything has to have a beginning. Right?
Yeah, that makes sense. The pink elephants statement I mean. But believing in god is like the in the statement "It is wrong to murder." Lots of people accept the idea, but there's no scientific proof. The only thing you can say really is "It makes sense." You can scientifically prove against god, saying that all principals in physics and life come from science. But there comes to a point where it comes full circle. You can't prove those invisible pink elephants. But before the 'Big Bang' and everything inside, those things come from something. Example: The Earth was made from rocks. Where did those rocks come from? How were they created? How did the things that helped them become created come from? How were they formed?
I know that's getting annoying. But, everything has to have a beginning. Right?
snex
Smash Master
1) no, "god exists" is NOT like "it is wrong to murder." "god exists" asserts a claim about the way things actually are, whereas "it is wrong to murder" expresses your opinion about how you want things to be. completely different.
2) if everything has to have a beginning then so does any magical explanation you bring up. that being the case, why not limit your answers to what you can actually KNOW? we KNOW the universe exists, so taking a step beyond that without evidence is simply intellectual suicide.
Not necessarily. This was the point I was trying to make to JohnTheGalactic, but AltF4 suggested it first. I just elaborated on it.
I'm also not 100% confident that my assertions are completely accurate, but the gist is that if matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then there is no "beginning". They have simply always existed.
Couldn't post due to database errors, let alone get on...<.<
Alright, so I've attempted to read some of your half baked arguments. I'm going to take this in a new direction, since you so seek. Alt, this is directed towards you. Do you know for an undeniable fact that there is no God? If you know that speak now. If you answer no, do you know for an undeniable fact that we evolved? Because I see no way that we could've, and if you can explain this to me. You'll be the first that can. Let's take this from your point of view. You say there is no God, is that correct? I'm assuming so since your arguing against his existence. So that means God couldn't have created the heavens and the Earth. So, once the Earth is created, there is rock, cold hard rock. Nothing else. Nothing else at all! Where, and I mean in detail did the essence of life come from? We did not come from rock! Animals did not come from rock. Where did they come from? I want you to tell me where they came from. Where? Did they magically warp in, or where they put on this earth through Divine Intervention? You answer me this and I will respect you forever more.
And I ask for no one else's input but Alt's. If that is so allowed, I would come nearer believing his answer more so than any of yours, since he has presumably taken physics.
Physics =/= Biology... I'd like to take a stab at it, but I'll let AltF4 post first.
snex
Smash Master
if you want to know about science, why dont you ask... oh i dunno.. A SCIENTIST? seriously, dont blame a bunch of video game nerds if we cant explain things 1) outside of our fields of expertise, 2) way beyond the education levels of any of us not in a graduate program for that specific subject. the only one to blame for your ignorance is YOU. the information is out there in every library, on every college campus, in every natural history museum. YOU are the one refusing to look.
the simple fact of the matter is this: even if WE cant explain biology to your satisfaction, and even if EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD cant do it, THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE!!!!!!!
get that through your freakin head. ignorance is NOT an argument!
Excuse me for not meeting your requirements. All I did as request Alt, you are being unorthodox and plain out rude. I do not believe I asked you to explain anything. So you have no argument here. Please keep your mouth shut when no one has even said anything to you. So, basically you have just labeled yourself as a self righteous moron. You have given me a laugh, I thank you for that.
And for the record, you just proved your point excellently. Kudos to you.
snex
Smash Master
the only people in this thread making assertions are theists like you. YOU are the ones asserting that god exists, and you are DEMANDING that everybody else disprove him. that is not how it works. YOU come with the assertion, YOU prove that its real. thats how it works everywhere.
i asked for evidence that any gods exist, and i have got none. i asked this pages ago, long before you even entered the thread. this thread is not about modern science, it is about the existence of god. stop trying to derail it.
Should someone who is 26 years old, be acting like you are? I think not. So I have to prove to you, that God exists? Is that correct? This thread is not ran by you, stop acting like it is. I hope CK bans you for this. It can work in the opposite direction as well, it is called countering. I am not demanding, I asked, A-S-K-E-D
for Alt's opinion. Asked for it. So tell me this, where do you get you authority to tell me how this thread is ran. I believe you don't, correct me if I'm wrong, you've done so good right now doing it.
And I believe TLink_King asked near my same questions, except mine were more in depth, and they weren't answered to by you. You make yourself look so stupid, I'm sure your not. Well, technically since you answered me with "GO ASK A SCIENTIST" I guess you are. Because it was not adressed to you.
Here is your sign.
EDIT: Oh wait you did attack TLink_King...wow, just wow.
for Alt's opinion. Asked for it. So tell me this, where do you get you authority to tell me how this thread is ran. I believe you don't, correct me if I'm wrong, you've done so good right now doing it.
And I believe TLink_King asked near my same questions, except mine were more in depth, and they weren't answered to by you. You make yourself look so stupid, I'm sure your not. Well, technically since you answered me with "GO ASK A SCIENTIST" I guess you are. Because it was not adressed to you.
Here is your sign.
EDIT: Oh wait you did attack TLink_King...wow, just wow.
- Status