How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[arrowhead]

innocent individuals, the WHOLE world wsa full of sinners. Noah was only allowed to live because he was pure and truly followed God. If you read the bible. you would know there was no "innocent" people. Maybe innocent animals...I'll give you that. but no innocent people. God however HAS killed innocent people in exodus. But he said he would. and followed through with it. my point wasn't that god has never harmed an innocent person, but that he is true to his word.

god said he would kill innocent people, so that makes it OKAY? wow...

Really, if i believe God created everything, and everything is his fault, then HOORAY! I'm not to blame for anything I do. If I go out, to your house, kill you in cold blood...its not my fault. it's god because he created me right? He is just going to stop everyone who does anything bad! because thats what he does, rather than punish the individuals who live bad life styles. The fact is, god no longer intervenes. If you read the bible or understood the concept of god, which you don't. you would know that. So to say, why would god allow that? Why the hell are people so messed up that he should have to? God doesn't control anything. He gave us BRAINS for a reason. To make decisions. From the beginning man has been tempted by power. He isn't going to stop us. He may have done some things back in the old testament, but now a days. God no longer intervenes. Your statement is weak and stereotypical of christians. That may sound harsh, but its true. Not every christian believes that God is the reason for everything.

god created the universe knowing EVERYTHING that is going to happen in it. he also has the power to change ANYTHING he wants to. but in the end he decides to create one where adam and eve sin, where hitler kills jews, and where we're arguing about this right now. god may no longer intervene, but he doesn't need to. everything was set in stone from the beginning. think of him as a movie director.

which brings me to another point. he doesn't intervene anymore? then why do you still worship him, why do you still pray?

of course not every christian believes that god created everything we know. but as long as it's in the bible, it's a valid concept to attack

wtf, the christian god isn't real. thats a fact? how the hell? you have the answer to everything? please...enlighten me.

the christian god cannot exist if we are considered to have free will. so either how christians view their god is incorrect or one of their fundamental teachings is.

and again, you assume with over half of your argument it seems. I accredit this to my religion, but I'm not a close minded arrogant prick. I've looked into many religions and the idea of their NOT being a god. After looking into it, I STILL believe. so quit stereotyping me for the hundredth time I'm so tired of it.

you said sometimes if you pray right you feel something. this reassures you that there's a god. you don't even consider what you're feeling may be a placebo.

I am well aware that there COULDN'T be a God, but this is a matter of personal preference and feeling that no one can take away from me. Please make a valid point that defeats this. So far the only person who seems to really be coming anywhere close is Crimson King and Marthanoob by saying my thinking is circular.

you don't accept logical arguments against your feelings so it's impossible to defeat it. i could say that my personal preference and feeling is that there isn't a god, but i doubt you'll think of that as a valid argument while still holding onto yours, which is equally weak.

 

[chucklesXcore]

you don't accept logical arguments against your feelings so it's impossible to defeat it. i could say that my personal preference and feeling is that there isn't a god, but i doubt you'll think of that as a valid argument while still holding onto yours, which is equally weak.

the only thing I really need to reply to in this post.

thank you for admitting that you can't defeat it.

and actually, I find that as a valid argument. If you don't feel anything spiritually, who am I to say thats wrong? that's what you feel inside you and I can't claim that it is either wrong or right. we'll never know. this argument is pointless.

I'm glad you finally see my view =]

 

[arrowhead]

the only thing I really need to reply to in this post.

i'm glad you agreed with everything else =)

thank you for admitting that you can't defeat it.

well it's kind of like trying to convince someone unknowingly high on PCP that he's just seeing illusions

and actually, I find that as a valid argument. If you don't feel anything spiritually, who am I to say thats wrong? that's what you feel inside you and I can't claim that it is either wrong or right. we'll never know. this argument is pointless.

it doesn't matter what you or i feel is correct because there's only one correct answer. so far it's safe to say god doesn't exist because there's as much evidence for the existence of a god as there is for unicorns.

 

[chucklesXcore]

i'm glad you agreed with everything else =)


well it's kind of like trying to convince someone unknowingly high on PCP that he's just seeing illusions


it doesn't matter what you or i feel is correct because there's only one correct answer. so far it's safe to say god doesn't exist because there's as much evidence for the existence of a god as there is for unicorns.

actually I didn't =]

but I don't really care to argue with anything else because the last statement is all that mattered, you basically admitted I was right. So thank you again!

And actually its NOTHING like that. A person on drugs is not even anywhere near as logical as someone who isn't. next argument please.

and as for the last one. blah blah blah, yackity smackity. rah rah rah. oh wait, this is the same regurgitated crap I've been reading over and over and over. "The chances of their being a God are as likely as a Unicorn because......I think so"

Give me something fresh thats an actual counter argument and I'll take you seriously.

 

[RDK]

the only thing I really need to reply to in this post.

thank you for admitting that you can't defeat it.

and actually, I find that as a valid argument. If you don't feel anything spiritually, who am I to say thats wrong? that's what you feel inside you and I can't claim that it is either wrong or right. we'll never know. this argument is pointless.

I'm glad you finally see my view =]

Because feeling something spiritually is just a chemical reaction in your brain; nothing more. Feeling spiritual does not mean God exists.

What if I feel that a giant flying spaghetti monster created the universe? That must must mean it's true, seeing as how I feel it's spiritually.

that's what you feel inside you and I can't claim that it is either wrong or right

WTF? This is a ridiculous statement. The burden of proof is on YOU, the believer, to prove that what you believe is true. If you can't come up with an answer beyond a reasonable doubt, then there's no reason to believe it's true.

 

[snex]

Seriously, this doesn't mean anything. Not to offend you, but if someone believes in the concept of a God that means that God can do ANYTHING he wants. (now he doesn't intervene anymore) So if he can do anything, don't you think he can kinda...idk...deny science, physics and everything....yah I think so.

all these scientists who test to try and prove stuff never really prove anything because the concept of a God is one that has complete control of what happens on earth.

and riboflavinbob, I read your post and even you yourself said it doesn't prove anything. Which is the entire point I'm making. Neither of us can prove anything. Its all based on what you believe and why you believe it. I'll say it once again, this thread ISNT "is god real" its "how can anyone believe in God?" well, I repeatedly keep answering that and people seem to try throw logic at someone who is basing it off of what they feel spiritually. I'd like to see something besides logic thrown at me if you got it. Not even so mucn not logic, because everything HAS to be logically, but something logical about why basing things off spirituality is absolutely wrong. I mean Crimson King and Marthanoob, both had some valid points, which while I don't agree with, were at least targeting the point I am making and not a point I'm NOT making.

there are an infinite number of hypothetical entities that can do ANYTHING, so why do you only pick ONE of them to believe in? seriously, thats not an argument, its an evasion. if god can do ANYTHING, then you cant possibly have a good reason to believe in him.

 

[RDK]

His argument is just a pathetic tactic at evading the fact that there's an abundantly low amount of evidence to support a God. And I think even "low" is being generous.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Because feeling something spiritually is just a chemical reaction in your brain; nothing more. Feeling spiritual does not mean God exists.

What if I feel that a giant flying spaghetti monster created the universe? That must must mean it's true, seeing as how I feel it's spiritually.

This isn't a debate on whether or not God exists. This is a debate on how someone can have a legitimate reason to believe in God. which I do. try again. And what scientific facts do you have that prove spiritual feelings(which...aren't physical? so how do chemicals even come into the process? whatever) are just a chemical reaction in your head? hmmm?


WTF? This is a ridiculous statement. The burden of proof is on YOU, the believer, to prove that what you believe is true. If you can't come up with an answer beyond a reasonable doubt, then there's no reason to believe it's true.

really, do you have an answer beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a God?

Didn't think so. Keep thinking, I'm sure you'll come up with something =]

there are an infinite number of hypothetical entities that can do ANYTHING, so why do you only pick ONE of them to believe in? seriously, thats not an argument, its an evasion. if god can do ANYTHING, then you cant possibly have a good reason to believe in him.

what? Why do I only pick one? I pick it because its the one I FEEL spiritually is right. Which IS my argument. How is that evasion. I'm stating the reason I believe is what I feel spiritually. Again, all of you are arguing that God could not be real so why should I believe in him. God COULD be real hypothetically...so why don't YOU believe in him? I could say that, but I'd sound as ridiculous as you all do. Just because something could not turn out to be true doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe in it until its either prove true or false. thanks.

EDIT:

I missed the post above mine. wow. A pathetic tactic?

Do you have no respect for a standpoint differing than your own? There is little evidence there is a God. Is there any evidence there isn't? NO. So my point isn't weak or low. You're being low by not coming up with anything that says why someone has NO right to believe in God. This is "how can anyone believe in God?" Not "Is God real?" I don't know how much I have to stress this. You all just want to stick with the logic "well most likely god isn't real, so its kinda dumb to believe in him lolz". You are all ignorant to the fact there is a such thing as spiritual feeling and it is a legitimate reason to believe. Its respecting what a person feels is right for them.

 

[Aesir]

really, do you have an answer beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a God?

Burden of Proof. Rests upon you.

what? Why do I only pick one? I pick it because its the one I FEEL spiritually is right. Which IS my argument. How is that evasion. I'm stating the reason I believe is what I feel spiritually. Again, all of you are arguing that God could not be real so why should I believe in him. God COULD be real hypothetically...so why don't YOU believe in him? I could say that, but I'd sound as ridiculous as you all do. Just because something could not turn out to be true doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe in it until its either prove true or false. thanks.

What's happening right now is your inability to counter his argument so instead you reverse it. That's a fallacy in debating, the burden of proof rests upon you, you're the one making the claim god exists. It's not our job to disprove your position, as you have to prove it to us.

If I said I was running late for work but a UFO came and dropped me off it wouldn't be your job to discredit it rather it would be my job to prove it really did happen.

 

[RDK]

really, do you have an answer beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a God?

Didn't think so. Keep thinking, I'm sure you'll come up with something =]

I'ts not up to me to prove there isn't a god. That's not how science works. Like I said--it's up to YOU, the believer, to prove it. Burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

And being condescending only works when you have valid points.

 

[chucklesXcore]

I'ts not up to me to prove there isn't a god. That's not how science works. Like I said--it's up to YOU, the believer, to prove it. Burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

And being condescending only works when you have valid points.

I'm not trying to make everyone believe in God though. I believe in him myself. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean I HAVE to prove it. You love someone. You believe you love someone. can you prove that to me? Sometimes there is no way of proving things. Spirituality is one of them. Asking me to prove that is asking for the impossible and a weak counter. You're saying I have to prove God's real well let me stoop as low as you are right now:

You don't believe in God. Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that God isn't real?

Oh wait...you can't.

So asking me to do the same is ridiculous. I am not attacking non-believers. I am defending the right of a person to believe.

Burden of Proof. Rests upon you.


What's happening right now is your inability to counter his argument so instead you reverse it. That's a fallacy in debating, the burden of proof rests upon you, you're the one making the claim god exists. It's not our job to disprove your position, as you have to prove it to us.

If I said I was running late for work but a UFO came and dropped me off it wouldn't be your job to discredit it rather it would be my job to prove it really did happen.

I'm not reversing anything. He's not even hitting my argument whatsoever. His argument is about something that usually has nothing to do with mine. I base things off spirituality, and he bases things off logic, those don't go hand in hand. You fail to grasp that. Thats not fallacy, thats you not understanding the concept behind spirituality. How do you prove something so personal.

What do you want me to go into vivid detail about what I feel when I pray. There's not much to say. When I pray I feel calmer, safer, and I feel that someone is actually up there listening to me. This sounds crazy, illogical, and cannot be proven. But you can't prove its not true. Its my personal reason for believing and just because you DON'T feel it yourself doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe.

I'm saying I have the personal right to believe in a God because of what I feel that no one can take away. If your saying a person has no right to believe in God I still want you to come up with something that proves that.

That's what I'm looking for. Nothing else. I'm not here to debate whether or not God is real. AGAIN, defending the right of a person to believe.

 

[snex]

what? Why do I only pick one? I pick it because its the one I FEEL spiritually is right. Which IS my argument. How is that evasion. I'm stating the reason I believe is what I feel spiritually. Again, all of you are arguing that God could not be real so why should I believe in him. God COULD be real hypothetically...so why don't YOU believe in him? I could say that, but I'd sound as ridiculous as you all do. Just because something could not turn out to be true doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe in it until its either prove true or false. thanks.

feeling something is true is not a good reason to believe that it is true. the only good reason to believe something is true is evidence. people have feelings all the time that turn out to be dead wrong. what makes you think you are immune to this?

just think about it for a second... what if you picked the wrong god? youd be going to hell then, wouldnt you? all because you chose to go with a feeling and ignore the requirement for evidence. as you yourself stated, god gave you a brain. and your brain can examine evidence for claims and reject claims that lack it. so why arent you using your brain?

 

[Aesir]

I'm not reversing anything. He's not even hitting my argument whatsoever. His argument is about something that usually has nothing to do with mine. I base things off spirituality, and he bases things off logic, those don't go hand in hand. You fail to grasp that. Thats not fallacy, thats you not understanding the concept behind spirituality. How do you prove something so personal.

I know hwat spirituality is lol.

Again you're basing your argument off of something very subjective and unprovable. When you're trying to prove something exists with evidence that can't be validated how are we going to take you seriously?

What do you want me to go into vivid detail about what I feel when I pray. There's not much to say. When I pray I feel calmer, safer, and I feel that someone is actually up there listening to me. This sounds crazy, illogical, and cannot be proven. But you can't prove its not true. Its my personal reason for believing and just because you DON'T feel it yourself doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe.

You very well may feel that we're not saying you aren't, but by saying that's evidence for god again can't be validated.

Thus you haven't proven us that god exists, you've only proven what you feel.

I'm saying I have the personal right to believe in a God because of what I feel that no one can take away. If your saying a person has no right to believe in God I still want you to come up with something that proves that.

No ones saying that, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But the fact that you believe it opens it up for criticism god/religion does not have a veil of immunity to criticism; just like any idea it has ever right to be ridiculed and prodded at. No one cares if it's your personal belief, however when you share it you like I've mentioned before open yourself up for criticism

 

[arrowhead]

actually I didn't =]

if you can't counter my arguments, then you agree they're correct.

but I don't really care to argue with anything else because the last statement is all that mattered, you basically admitted I was right. So thank you again!

uh, no. please tell me how you came to that ridiculous conclusion.

And actually its NOTHING like that. A person on drugs is not even anywhere near as logical as someone who isn't. next argument please.

because christians are logical. because YOU are logical, huh?

and as for the last one. blah blah blah, yackity smackity. rah rah rah. oh wait, this is the same regurgitated crap I've been reading over and over and over. "The chances of their being a God are as likely as a Unicorn because......I think so"

the same regurgitated crap you don't have a satisfactory response to. seriously, debate or stop posting.

 

[chucklesXcore]

feeling something is true is not a good reason to believe that it is true. the only good reason to believe something is true is evidence. people have feelings all the time that turn out to be dead wrong. what makes you think you are immune to this?

just think about it for a second... what if you picked the wrong god? youd be going to hell then, wouldnt you? all because you chose to go with a feeling and ignore the requirement for evidence. as you yourself stated, god gave you a brain. and your brain can examine evidence for claims and reject claims that lack it. so why arent you using your brain?

Look you take a chance, if there isn't a God. Oh freakin well. I lived a good moral standing life and had comfort and stood up for something I felt was right. Which I have that right to believe because of what I feel. It may not be the smartest reason to believe, but who are you to say its not a legitimate reason. Its not the strongest, but it is a legitimate reason which is all I'm arguing. You can say its weak all you want, but in the end a person can say "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me" and what can you say back to that? nothing except "well thats not very smart...but ok" Not trying to sound harsh, I hear what you are saying about how its really skeptical, but just because its skeptical doesn't mean its false.

I know hwat spirituality is lol.

really now? how does it feel? do you actually feel spirituality? Because as a non-believer(which i have to assume you are if your debating me on this) you claim you are NOT feeling anything. So you may know what it is, but you do not know what it feels like. Which is why I feel a person has a right to believe.

Again you're basing your argument off of something very subjective and unprovable. When you're trying to prove something exists with evidence that can't be validated how are we going to take you seriously?

I'm not trying to prove something exists. Please get that.

You very well may feel that we're not saying you aren't, but by saying that's evidence for god again can't be validated.


Thus you haven't proven us that god exists, you've only proven what you feel.

exactly. What I feel is a legitimate reason to believe and anyone's reason to believe. its a right.

No ones saying that, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But the fact that you believe it opens it up for criticism god/religion does not have a veil of immunity to criticism; just like any idea it has ever right to be ridiculed and prodded at. No one cares if it's your personal belief, however when you share it you like I've mentioned before open yourself up for criticism

I feel this is a legitimate argument right here on your part. I will say back, that I am down with people having a differing view and criticizing it all they want, but it doesn't seem like its just criticism to me in this thread. It seems very much like an all out attack by everyone to say that you can't believe in God because its not the most logical reason, when some people believe it or not DON'T care about logic the same way YOU do. Some people do care about what they feel and thats why they believe.

EDIT: to the post above me, again, I have no need to counter your arguments because we're not debating whether or not God is real. We're debating why someone has a right to believe in God. Second, I am debating, you are trying to convince me God isn't real with "Its not logical because most likely there isn't a god" Which isn't fact and is a really really weak argument. that's not even an argument. thats trying to convince someone with a "because I said so" or "because I think this"argument. Thats why I didn't and don't reply to things like that. You're not arguing anything you're trying to shove a view down my throat and expect me to accept it.

 

[RDK]

I'm not trying to make everyone believe in God though. I believe in him myself. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean I HAVE to prove it.

That's fine and dandy, but don't come in here and claim that there is a God just because you believe there to be one, and don't expect anyone else to share your opinion just based on your sprituality. That's foolishness.

If that's the case, then why did you even come in here?

You love someone. You believe you love someone. can you prove that to me?

The title of the thread isn't "How Can Anyone Believe In Love?". And even if it was, proving that I love someone and proving that God exists are two completely different things. Love is an emotion; it's chemical. Yes, I can prove if I love someone.

Sometimes there is no way of proving things. Spirituality is one of them.

I didn't ask you to prove spirituality, I asked you to prove God.

Asking me to prove that is asking for the impossible and a weak counter.

If it's impossible, then I guess God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. And no, it's not a weak counter, it's how science works. Look up the scientific method.

You're saying I have to prove God's real well let me stoop as low as you are right now:

You don't believe in God. Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that God isn't real?

Like I said about 5 times before: it's not up to me to prove it; the burden of proof is on YOU, the believer. What do you not understand?

So asking me to do the same is ridiculous. I am not attacking non-believers. I am defending the right of a person to believe.

I was never attacking your "right to believe"! I asked you to prove God. You can believe whatever you want, even though it's creationist garbage.

I'm not reversing anything. He's not even hitting my argument whatsoever. His argument is about something that usually has nothing to do with mine. I base things off spirituality, and he bases things off logic, those don't go hand in hand. You fail to grasp that. Thats not fallacy, thats you not understanding the concept behind spirituality. How do you prove something so personal.

Emotions / sprituality =/= truth. You can't prove existence of a god by saying you believe there is one. Go back to my flying spaghetti monster example.

 

[Aesir]

really now? how does it feel? do you actually feel spirituality? Because as a non-believer(which i have to assume you are if your debating me on this) you claim you are NOT feeling anything. So you may know what it is, but you do not know what it feels like. Which is why I feel a person has a right to believe.

I was raised Greek Orthodox and use to be a JW, I know all about spirituality I've been a theist longer then I can remember.

Just because I'm a non-believer now doesn't erase the memories I had as a believer.

I'm not seeing the whole point of saying "it's my right to believe" as no one is trying to take that away from you.

 

[chucklesXcore]

That's fine and dandy, but don't come in here and claim that there is a God just because you believe there to be one, and don't expect anyone else to share your opinion just based on your sprituality. That's foolishness.

If that's the case, then why did you even come in here?



The title of the thread isn't "How Can Anyone Believe In Love?". And even if it was, proving that I love someone and proving that God exists are two completely different things. Love is an emotion; it's chemical. Yes, I can prove if I love someone.



I didn't ask you to prove spirituality, I asked you to prove God.



If it's impossible, then I guess God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. And no, it's not a weak counter, it's how science works. Look up the scientific method.



Like I said about 5 times before: it's not up to me to prove it; the burden of proof is on YOU, the believer. What do you not understand?



I was never attacking your "right to believe"! I asked you to prove God. You can believe whatever you want, even though it's creationist garbage.



Emotions / sprituality =/= truth. You can't prove existence of a god by saying you believe there is one. Go back to my flying spaghetti monster example.

Again, why do I have to prove God? Give me a reason. I'm not saying God is real to everyone. I'm not claiming that when someone believes in God it can be based off what they feel and as long as they don't try to pass this off as fact they should be allowed to believe. I claim that when I pray I feel a God. Do I know if there is a God for a fact? No I don't. I have been admitting that since the beginning. So I don't know why you all keep making it seem like I'm a christian snob forcing my views on everyone. I'm not.

EDIT: Aesir, then why post in this thread and tell me to prove God? If I have a right to believe then accept it. I believe. You don't. I've answered the question this thread title asks. This isn't a debate on whether or God is real. If you want to debate me on that....you can try hitting me up in a PM or wait and see if I post in a topic that is something along the lines of "is god real?" Because as far as I can tell this topic is ALL about a person's right to believe. So if you're not attacking that, then you have the same view I have.

 

[Deleted member]

Pew pew!!!

 

[arrowhead]

EDIT: to the post above me, again, I have no need to counter your arguments because we're not debating whether or not God is real. We're debating why someone has a right to believe in God.

i don't know what you've been reading, but i've been debating about the existence of god this whole time

Second, I am debating, you are trying to convince me God isn't real with "Its not logical because most likely there isn't a god" Which isn't fact and is a really really weak argument.

yes, and no. i've also been telling you how the christian god does not exist. so far, you have nothing valid to show me that my arguments about this are invalid.

that's not even an argument. thats trying to convince someone with a "because I said so" or "because I think this"argument. Thats why I didn't and don't reply to things like that.

if that's such a horrible argument, why do you not believe in unicorns?

Because as far as I can tell this topic is ALL about a person's right to believe.

you haven't read the first post

 

[RDK]

Again, why do I have to prove God? Give me a reason. I'm not saying God is real to everyone. I'm not claiming that when someone believes in God it can be based off what they feel and as long as they don't try to pass this off as fact they should be allowed to believe. I claim that when I pray I feel a God. Do I know if there is a God for a fact? No I don't. I have been admitting that since the beginning. So I don't know why you all keep making it seem like I'm a christian snob forcing my views on everyone. I'm not.

EDIT: Aesir, then why post in this thread and tell me to prove God? If I have a right to believe then accept it. I believe. You don't. I've answered the question this thread title asks. This isn't a debate on whether or God is real. If you want to debate me on that....you can try hitting me up in a PM or wait and see if I post in a topic that is something along the lines of "is god real?" Because as far as I can tell this topic is ALL about a person's right to believe. So if you're not attacking that, then you have the same view I have.

The topic isn't about people's right to believe in something. It's about how it's foolish to believe in God.

And like I said; you can believe whatever you want, but I think we can all agree it would be a better world if people actually started believing the truth for a change.

 

[chucklesXcore]

The topic isn't about people's right to believe in something. It's about how it's foolish to believe in God.

And like I said; you can believe whatever you want, but I think we can all agree it would be a better world if people actually started believing the truth for a change.

and your view is the truth oh wise one?

 

[snex]

Look you take a chance, if there isn't a God. Oh freakin well. I lived a good moral standing life and had comfort and stood up for something I felt was right. Which I have that right to believe because of what I feel. It may not be the smartest reason to believe, but who are you to say its not a legitimate reason. Its not the strongest, but it is a legitimate reason which is all I'm arguing. You can say its weak all you want, but in the end a person can say "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me" and what can you say back to that? nothing except "well thats not very smart...but ok" Not trying to sound harsh, I hear what you are saying about how its really skeptical, but just because its skeptical doesn't mean its false.

the problem is that your stance can be used to justify ANY belief. want to believe that evolution never happened? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to believe that the sun goes around the earth? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to crash airplanes into skyscrapers? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to molest children? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

if its not right in the above cases, its not right for you either. a god may exist, but you need a GOOD reason to believe it. not feel-good crap that can be manipulated by anybody.

 

[chucklesXcore]

the problem is that your stance can be used to justify ANY belief. want to believe that evolution never happened? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to believe that the sun goes around the earth? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to crash airplanes into skyscrapers? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

want to molest children? just claim "I believe because this is what I feel is right for me"

if its not right in the above cases, its not right for you either. a god may exist, but you need a GOOD reason to believe it. not feel-good crap that can be manipulated by anybody.

how can you even begin to compare feeling a god to wanting to molest children....those are two very different feelings...one is an urge one is a spiritual feeling.

 

[RDK]

how can you even begin to compare feeling a god to wanting to molest children....those are two very different feelings...one is an urge one is a spiritual feeling.

Both are types of emotions. They're rooted in chemical reactions. That's what you're not understanding. Just because you feel something to be true does not make it so.

I keep pointing you to the spaghetti monster analogy, but you keep disregarding. If you have nothing else to say, just leave. You keep ignoring 90% of our arguments.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Both are types of emotions. They're rooted in chemical reactions. That's what you're not understanding. Just because you feel something to be true does not make it so.

I keep pointing you to the spaghetti monster analogy, but you keep disregarding. If you have nothing else to say, just leave. You keep ignoring 90% of our arguments.

spiritual feeling is 100% chemical? spiritual? yah......got that.

/sarcasm.

prove this to me with statistics. facts. and I'll buy it.

 

[Deleted member]

And Ceiling Cat said, let there be quotes!

It's about how it's foolish to believe in God.

Not if you look at this topic with Pascalian logic!

 

[Aesir]

Lol @ Pascals Wager, troll much?

 

[RDK]

spiritual feeling is 100% chemical? spiritual? yah......got that.

/sarcasm.

prove this to me with statistics. facts. and I'll buy it.

We're made up of chemicals. Our feelings and emotions are products of chemical reactions. That's an accepted fact by basically everyone who took high school biology classes.

And Ceiling Cat said, let there be quotes!



Not if you look at this topic with Pascalian logic!

Silly Delorted. Still pushing the Pascal's Wager bit? :embarrass

 

[chucklesXcore]

We're made up of chemicals. Our feelings and emotions are products of chemical reactions. That's an accepted fact by basically everyone who took high school biology classes.

I agree with that, but I consider spiritual feelings to be on a whole different plane and different from this. What do you have to say back to that? and no, I'm not trying to be a smart ***.

 

[RDK]

I agree with that, but I consider spiritual feelings to be on a whole different plane and different from this. What do you have to say back to that? and no, I'm not trying to be a smart ***.

Then I say to you prove spiritual feelings exist. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove that they exist, then there's really no reason to believe so.

 

[Deleted member]

Silly alcohol, making me post all weird

I need to clear my heahdf. I mean head. I need to clear my head.

You said it was foolish to believe in God. If you look at it from a mathematical perspective it's clear you have nothing to lose. That's why I bring up Pascal. When you say foolish it makes me think you have the wrong choice of words.

Believing in a God isn't inherently foolish. Perhaps making laws because of religious biases are. Perhaps having prejudices against certain qualities in human life because of religion is foolish. But again if you're just talking about belief in a God and not necessarily religion, there's really nothing that foolish about it, just maybe a little nonlogical

See I only call you guys out on the small little stupid things because you have the other areas on your atheistic Rolodex. Don't drink and debate. pew pew.


WAIT I just realized! It's like that show the Mole. Right now there's only one girl and the rest of the people remaining are guys. Now at the end of the show the quiz coems on and asks you if the Mole is male of female. OBVIIOUSLY Youre gonna go with male because that has the highest perrcentage of being correct, no??? Like you gotta look at odds and payouts. The Mole is obviously Craig by the way. This analogy sucks.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Then I say to you prove spiritual feelings exist. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove that they exist, then there's really no reason to believe so.

but if you think of the concept of spiritual feelings, how exactly would you go about proving that?

you couldn't. Just because you can't PROVE something doesn't mean its not real.

 

[Aesir]

That analogy was definitely awful.

Anyway you can respond to me when you're sober if you want:

I find the belief in god rather foolish, to me it's the Santa Clause and Easter Bunny for grown ups. Obviously if an Adult believed in those things by societies standards he would be seen as foolish, however bring in god and it's alright, you can't argue it, it's a veil of protection.

Which is a double standard, also Pascals Wager isn't flawless in the religious argument. By choosing the wager to believe in god you open up another wager, which god? There's roughly 3000 known gods in human history which one? you have a 1 out of 3000 chance to get the right answer. So in essence the Wager wasn't a very good Wager. I guess you can't blame Pascal for this Wager though, he lived in a more simpler time.

There's also the problem with devoting your time energy and money to god, it's a waste really, if everyone believed in god many scientific advances would probably not have happened.

The Wager is outdated.

chuckles: Just because you can't disprove something, doesn't mean it's there either.

 

[chucklesXcore]

chuckles: Just because you can't disprove something, doesn't mean it's there either.

exactly. it can go both ways. I can admit I COULD be wrong. Why can't everyone else just do the same, you feel and your logic tells you that you are right. Alright. I really do respect that. The concept of a God, while unlikely logically, is still possible. Maybe not the christian God, but right now there is still no explanation for how the universe came to be. which i feel gives a person a legitimate choice. its not like its set in stone there isn't a creator. Maybe the christian God is wrong. Maybe there is a creator, but we know nothing about him and the ones we made up could be all wrong. We may have created our own "god", but the fact is there could be a God out there, and thats what I believe I feel. Do I personally feel its the one I've read about and stuff, yah. Does that make it true. no. because I won't know until I die.

 

[Deleted member]

You don't get it. If you're offered a free lottery ticket, no matter the odds or the chances, you'd have to be pretty skeptical about the whole scenario to turn down potential with a no-risk situation.

For some reason people can't understand the notion of believing in a higher power without subjecting to a religion. If you are non-religious yet believe in a God, you have no physical idea of the power you're inclined to intuit, so if you were to wager simply that there was a God your odds would be much higher than simply saying there was none. Singling out specific Gods obviously would reduce your odds. It's like going to a betting track and betting that a horse will in fact win the race.

RDK still hasn't shown why it's foolish to believe in a God if you're not imposing religious views on people. If it's a casual thing you don't think much of, and you have made the general wager, you aren't being foolish, you're just not logical.

The wager isn't the be all and end all, and trust me, it's not even something I really take to heart either. It's just his choice of words that don't work. Foolish? No. Not logical? Yes.

I don't even know why we're arguing, it's clear that in the beginning Ceiling Cat created da Urfs and da skiez but did not eated them.

 

[Aesir]

You don't get it. If you're offered a free lottery ticket, no matter the odds or the chances, you'd have to be pretty skeptical about the whole scenario to turn down potential with a no-risk situation.

For some reason people can't understand the notion of believing in a higher power without subjecting to a religion. If you are non-religious yet believe in a God, you have no physical idea of the power you're inclined to intuit, so if you were to wager simply that there was a God your odds would be much higher than simply saying there was none. Singling out specific Gods obviously would reduce your odds. It's like going to a betting track and betting that a horse will in fact win the race.

It's understandable it just fails to acknowledge something so basic.

You say you can believe in god with out a religion, well what if the real god is a god with a specific dogma that needs to be followed what then? This is why the Wager is just one big punch line.

What you're suggesting at least from what I gather is a form of Deism, which is all fine and good. No matter what you're still running the risk of being wrong and suffering for eternity. Most gods that have a place for non-believers generally have a specific code/ritual to follow.


So by stating " I believe in god" in an attempt to follow Pascals Wager, you're still making a huge risk. For all we know, the real god is Allah and you'll be ****ed anyway.

 

[AltF4]

Jeez, this makes me want to write some kind of a sticky guide...

ChucklesXcore:

You seem to have a misunderstanding about provability, falsifiability, and their implications. You see, nothing can be proven. Period. Science is a weeding out process. Theories are proposed which try to explain phenomenon in the world, and if they are incorrect, are falsified.

Something can only ever be falsified, never proven. In the "real world" we say things are proven commonly, but strictly speaking this is improper. It would be more accurate to say "There are no more rival theories, and this one is highly believed to be true." But that's more of a mouthful.

In order to be meaningful, a theory MUST be falsifiable. Otherwise it is completely useless, and "truth" and "falsehood" in this context are equally meaningless, if the theory cannot ever be proven false. Take, for instance, a classic example: The Inverted Spectrum Hypothesis.

The ISH essentially says "Imagine if the colors you saw were the inverse of whatever I was seeing. So when I say 'the sky is blue' you would actually see a green sky! But of course you would know that color as 'blue' and would refer to it as such."

The ISH is specifically concocted in such a way that it can never be falsified. There is no way to ever prove that it is false. And as a result, it can have no relevance to us whatsoever. Whether or not the ISH is true is irrelevant. It being true is exactly the same as it being false. If there were some way to prove the theory false, then it must necessarily have observable effects.

Theories which are falsifiable are called "Scientific" theories. Ones which are not falsifiable are called "Philosophical" theories.


So when you say "You cannot disprove god." You're demoting your god to the realm of philosophic theory. You are saying that your god has no observable effects, and that it existing is exactly the same as it not existing. In effect, you are admitting defeat by claiming that your god cannot be disproven.

 

[RDK]

You don't get it. If you're offered a free lottery ticket, no matter the odds or the chances, you'd have to be pretty skeptical about the whole scenario to turn down potential with a no-risk situation.

But this is where your analogy is terrible--this is assuming the lottery even exists anyway. Comparing this to wagering that God exists is like waiting until you die to find out if there even is a lottery in the first place. You're assuming that there is one from the outset.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Jeez, this makes me want to write some kind of a sticky guide...

ChucklesXcore:

You seem to have a misunderstanding about provability, falsifiability, and their implications. You see, nothing can be proven. Period. Science is a weeding out process. Theories are proposed which try to explain phenomenon in the world, and if they are incorrect, are falsified.

Something can only ever be falsified, never proven. In the "real world" we say things are proven commonly, but strictly speaking this is improper. It would be more accurate to say "There are no more rival theories, and this one is highly believed to be true." But that's more of a mouthful.

In order to be meaningful, a theory MUST be falsifiable. Otherwise it is completely useless, and "truth" and "falsehood" in this context are equally meaningless, if the theory cannot ever be proven false. Take, for instance, a classic example: The Inverted Spectrum Hypothesis.

The ISH essentially says "Imagine if the colors you saw were the inverse of whatever I was seeing. So when I say 'the sky is blue' you would actually see a green sky! But of course you would know that color as 'blue' and would refer to it as such."

The ISH is specifically concocted in such a way that it can never be falsified. There is no way to ever prove that it is false. And as a result, it can have no relevance to us whatsoever. Whether or not the ISH is true is irrelevant. It being true is exactly the same as it being false. If there were some way to prove the theory false, then it must necessarily have observable effects.

Theories which are falsifiable are called "Scientific" theories. Ones which are not falsifiable are called "Philosophical" theories.


So when you say "You cannot disprove god." You're demoting your god to the realm of philosophic theory. You are saying that your god has no observable effects, and that it existing is exactly the same as it not existing. In effect, you are admitting defeat by claiming that your god cannot be disproven.

About time, someone with a serious amount of wit said something in here. I will say that this is a very respectful and honest post. Thank God....

That said, after thinking about it, I truly understand your logic and way of thinking. However, God has had effects, but those observable affects are debated by people. And even if everyone believed God's effects were real and actually happened (the flood, the plagues, miracles, etc.) I think it would be a stretch to call them "scientific" just because they could be falsifiable. Most of the deny natural laws of science. I know what you mean by falsifiable. There are theories and yes, it usually comes down to the most widely accepted theory being passed off as the right one, even though it might not technically be. Its usually "safe" to say it is.

I feel in this case though, its so debatable on whether or not God's implied effects actually happened because of how long ago they did that we will never have a way to prove if they did or didn't. While your logic says "you can never prove it" which to you means its just a philosophy. I guess to an extent I believe in the philosophy that the events that are mentioned in the bible really did happen. I can't prove that, but it could have. How is that admitting defeat? Are all philosophies wrong? I don't think so. It just means its not scientific. Its really hard for me to clear up what I'm trying to get across what I'm trying to say. So forgive me if half of this doesn't make much sense.