Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[tommykins]

Well, I believe God exists. The thing I don't understand is why people have to ridicule Christianity. I mean, maybe if you had done research and constructively criticised it, sure. But it's just stupid when someone blatantly flamed Christianity.

Flaming time.

No you're stupid.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

You sir, are an idiot, you shame the good 09er name on these forums.

Sire, you must surely be jesting!

 

[gibbo153]

seriously stfu, it's tards like you that make us 09ers look bad.

To clarify, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

your a massive gronk

you just made the same crap call twice.

run at me dweeb

 

[gibbo153]

...Are you bloody serious?

Okay how about this -

The reason I don't believe in God is the same reason as to why I don't believe in fairies, pixies or Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

bad reasoning.

ps i hope your tom downey
that would be funny

No you're stupid.

that was almost as bad as Nikolas's attempts

 

[tommykins]

bad reasoning.

ps i hope your tom downey
that would be funny

ROFL - how is that bad reasoning? How DARE YOU tell me I have bad reasoning? Y Care to explain why? Or just ignore any kind of 'thought' put forward?

And he is an idiot, because all he said was "I belive in God' - never said why.

PS. No, I'm not Tom Downie.

 

[gibbo153]

ROFL - how is that bad reasoning? How DARE YOU tell me I have bad reasoning? Y Care to explain why? Or just ignore any kind of 'thought' put forward?

And he is an idiot, because all he said was "I belive in God' - never said why.

PS. No, I'm not Tom Downie.

ease up. me and youngminii just want this to be kept civilised.
by bad reasoning i suggest you can't compare belief in a greater entity on the same level as belief in a patronising commercial invention made to sell chocolate.

i don't come to discredit thoughts as nikolas does, just to keep the discussion as a discussion

ps. ok good haha. which tom are you?

 

[tommykins]

ease up. me and youngminii just want this to be kept civilised.
by bad reasoning i suggest you can't compare belief in a greater entity on the same level as belief in a patronising commercial invention made to sell chocolate.

i don't come to discredit thoughts as nikolas does, just to keep the discussion as a discussion

ps. ok good haha. which tom are you?

why can't i? it's the same circular reasoning as you have. The story of a 'God' creating the universe is no different from a man who gives presents to each and every child in the world during Christmas. Difference in validity? none.
a 'miracle' takes place - you say 'God did it' , I say the 'flying spaghetti monster' did it. What's the difference?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Religion is a simple system of fucking inheritance. Those who are religious and quote all the bullshit from the bible as a sense of justification, truly have no idea who or what God is because they will forever remain ignorant.

 

[gibbo153]

i spose the validity comes from actually finding that god exists. you can say the spaghetti monster exists, but i spose it has less validity because it can't be found to exist really. i spose the claim itself is in theory the same validity.

to josep,
i don't believe in religion for the sake of religion. i have the faith i do because of choice, not because of family or inherited beliefs. i have a great understanding of what and who god is. not just because of comprimised religious inheritance.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

but if you were born in Turkey instead you would be believing in a whole load of other bullshit. You might state that it was your choice to practice your current religion but in reality you, your beliefs and your 'understandings' of God have always been influenced.

 

[tommykins]

i spose the validity comes from actually finding that god exists. you can say the spaghetti monster exists, but i spose it has less validity because it can't be found to exist really. i spose the claim itself is in theory the same validity.

No, in theory AND practicality they both have the same validity.

Therefore, that's my reasoning for remaining agnostic (whilst leaning towards atheism).

 

[gibbo153]

i spose thats true in a way. i sometimes wonder if that would be the case. but i also suppose that the only real fulfillment can come from god. i think that even if i was of another religion, i wouldnt be completely fulfilled and probably would fall away from that religion.

i know its easy to say that from the position i'm in now. but being a christian, i know that this belief cancells out the possiblity of another religion being true. i am not the sort of person who commits to something really, for a long time i refused to believe god existed, but after experiencing god i know its true. if i was raised in another religion, a false god couldnt break through the pessimism and reluctance to believe in something i can't see.

 

[gibbo153]

No, in theory AND practicality they both have the same validity.

Therefore, that's my reasoning for remaining agnostic (whilst leaning towards atheism).

but your argument is flawed unless you have some sort of ability to prove that god did not perform miracles. unless you can prove that, then they are not of equal validity in practical terms

 

[tommykins]

i spose thats true in a way. i sometimes wonder if that would be the case. but i also suppose that the only real fulfillment can come from god. i think that even if i was of another religion, i wouldnt be completely fulfilled and probably would fall away from that religion.

i know its easy to say that from the position i'm in now. but being a christian, i know that this belief cancells out the possiblity of another religion being true. i am not the sort of person who commits to something really, for a long time i refused to believe god existed, but after experiencing god i know its true. if i was raised in another religion, a false god couldnt break through the pessimism and reluctance to believe in something i can't see.

Nothing but mindless babble.

 

[tommykins]

but your argument is flawed unless you have some sort of ability to prove that god did not perform miracles. unless you can prove that, then they are not of equal validity in practical terms

You' have the burden of proof as you're claiming God made these miracles.

And you cannot prove a negative.

Better luck next time.

 

[gibbo153]

Nothing but mindless babble.

i dont accept claims like that.

 

[gibbo153]

You' have the burden of proof as you're claiming God made these miracles.

And you cannot prove a negative.

Better luck next time.

do i have the burden of proof? i know god is real. your the one who will have to face the implications of not believing if it is. its your eternity

 

[tommykins]

do i have the burden of proof? i know god is real. your the one who will have to face the implications of not believing if it is. its your eternity

I know the spaghetti flying monster is real. Your the one who will have to face the implications of not believing if it is. It is your eternity.

 

[gibbo153]

I know the spaghetti flying monster is real. Your the one who will have to face the implications of not believing if it is. It is your eternity.

such wit.

i suggest that you hide behind the flawed defence that god's existence cannot be 'scientifically' proven. even agnostic scientists who conclude that god cannot be proven also accept that there is a possibility of god existing.

how can you say that all the christian people who have ever lived, have been wrong? incredible thinkers like C.S Lewis having faith in the god of the bible. do you claim that these people are ignorant of the inability to scientifically prove the presence of god. of course not. you cant refute that there must be something more in the argument than scientific proof.

 

[tommykins]

such wit.

I know right? It's as valid as your statement

i suggest that you hide behind the flawed defence that god's existence cannot be 'scientifically' proven. even agnostic scientists who conclude that god cannot be proven also accept that there is a possibility of god existing.

I said i'm agnostic, never said God OUTRIGHT doesn't exist. Just that his existence thus far is highly unlikely from the arguments put forth.

how can you say that all the christian people who have ever lived, have been wrong? incredible thinkers like C.S Lewis having faith in the god of the bible.

Good on him, I'm going to let someone dictate a belief for me

do you claim that these people are ignorant of the inability to scientifically prove the presence of god. of course not. you cant refute that there must be something more in the argument than scientific proof.

Einstein believed in 'God' as in 'science', not the outright omnipotent/omniscient God that you claim exists.

HOW DARE YOU REFUTE EINSTEIN.