Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[Tangent]

i think it is wrong to force ur beliefs on people. if u believe in god and religion, thats great, if u dont, then thats also great-i just dont want someone invading my comfort zone asking if i have heard about god and trying to persuade me to an alternate view

 

[greekgun]

i think it is wrong to force ur beliefs on people. if u believe in god and religion, thats great, if u dont, then thats also great-i just dont want someone invading my comfort zone asking if i have heard about god and trying to persuade me to an alternate view

this

 

[Tangent]

but this thread is great, it lets people express their views through debating, so we see both side of the arguements. it also helps that the arguements are well structured, show lots of background info and alot of evidence. there isnt many places outside the internet that this happenes-albeit this is the first thread i ahve come across that has gone into this much depth, its great.

+its fun

 

[moll.]

You can't believe something just because you think one position is better than the other. If someone pays you $1,000,000 to believe that the sky is green you can pretend to believe it to get the $1,000,000 but you can't truly believe it because you have no evidence that it is and strong evidence that it is not. This wouldn't work with a god. If there were a god he would know that you were pretending and you would go to hell anyway because you do not truly believe.

You can't just decide to believe something - it doesn't work that way. Just because you want to believe something doesn't mean you will be able to convince yourself that it's true.

It is better to stay focused on what you do believe and not what is better to believe or what you want to believe.

Did you miss the entire point of my thread? I am an atheist for god's sake. Don't give me your anti-theistic clap-trap. Tell someone who cares.
I said if we were wrong and there was actually a God, there's nothing to worry about. I never said that we are wrong, nor did I ever state Pascal's (idiotic) Wager.

 

[greekgun]

Did you miss the entire point of my thread? I am an atheist for god's sake. Don't give me your anti-theistic clap-trap. Tell someone who cares.
I said if we were wrong and there was actually a God, there's nothing to worry about. I never said that we are wrong, nor did I ever state Pascal's (idiotic) Wager.

instead of all of that u should have just facepalmed it.

 

[moll.]

instead of all of that u should have just facepalmed it.

You get neg repped for annoying me.

 

[UndeadSamurai01]

Did you miss the entire point of my thread? I am an atheist for god's sake. Don't give me your anti-theistic clap-trap. Tell someone who cares.
I said if we were wrong and there was actually a God, there's nothing to worry about. I never said that we are wrong, nor did I ever state Pascal's (idiotic) Wager.

You misunderstood me entirely. I wasn't contradicting you I was in fact adding weight to your side of the argument as an agnostic leaning towards atheism I am on your side until I see enough evidence to believe otherwise.

While you didn't mention Pascal's wager you did make vague reference to it because it was essentially the what you were arguing against.

 

[big8oyjames]

speaking of Jehovah witness, they used to come to our house once a week to try and convert my mum. LOL. anyways, my mum didnt have it in her to say go away so she would take all the scripture and the bibles just to be nice.....


after 9/11 we never saw a Jehovah witness at our door.

 

[greekgun]

You get neg repped for annoying me.

mkay watever. ill return ur love.

 

[bell531]

@OP - yes, IMO

 

[rant]

Throughout the history of man, we as a people have searched for the answer.

The quest for the Holy Grail, the Lost Ark of the Covenant, wrinkle-free pants: all journeys fraught with deaths, broken hearts, and wine stains. As a people, we have argued and bickered till our minds were torn near in two. Our desperate love for truth, our logic, verbosity, intelligence and cool-headedness has crushed our very souls and we have stopped searching.

I am proud to bear witness to this stunning example of human resiliency in the face of great adversity. A more perfect piece of work cannot be found. Within this masterpiece of a response, this great art, there is encapsulated centuries of ignorance and bigotry that so represents the modern theist. bell531 proves himself as one of the modern era great prophets, despite facing adversity and a public that refuses to acknowledge his prowess

Perhaps someday the mainstream will be able to appreciate bell531 and his body of work, but for now we must be content to stumble upon these gems in the desert wasteland that is NCAP~

@OP - yes

Someday.

 

[UndeadSamurai01]

EO, the existence of a man or a book doesn't suggest that a god exists, it merely suggests that the religion and its prophet did exist at such a date. For the record, nobody is disputing that a man known as Jesus may have lived.

Also, you seem to be of the opinion that Science claims to provide the/an answer to everything - it makes no such claim. Science is merely the pursuit of knowledge, and one of it's key notions is that there is always more to learn. However, I should add that Science and religion/christianity (in this instance) do not exist in stark contrast to the other - that distinction only only exists for those who take a literal interpretation of the bible to heart.

That's why I can't do religion - it's too inflexible.

For example if a scientist saw some major evidence that a god existed, even if he hated the idea of a god it would be his duty to seriously consider the possibility.

If however a religious person saw indisputable evidence that their religion was false it would be their duty to ignore it and continue believing in their false religion.

I simply cannot accept the second way of thinking - it requires cognitive dissonance.

 

[Lukybear]

Throughout the history of man, we as a people have searched for the answer.

The quest for the Holy Grail, the Lost Ark of the Covenant, wrinkle-free pants: all journeys fraught with deaths, broken hearts, and wine stains. As a people, we have argued and bickered till our minds were torn near in two. Our desperate love for truth, our logic, verbosity, intelligence and cool-headedness has crushed our very souls and we have stopped searching.

I am proud to bear witness to this stunning example of human resiliency in the face of great adversity. A more perfect piece of work cannot be found. Within this masterpiece of a response, this great art, there is encapsulated centuries of ignorance and bigotry that so represents the modern theist. bell531 proves himself as one of the modern era great prophets, despite facing adversity and a public that refuses to acknowledge his prowess

Perhaps someday the mainstream will be able to appreciate bell531 and his body of work, but for now we must be content to stumble upon these gems in the desert wasteland that is NCAP~

This piece of lingustic derangement is distasteful. It is irrational and without arguement. You simply attack another theist, and make ignorant claims with no proof. Sadly I must admit, it is great prose, but lacks substance and merely is a facade for your ignorance.

The truth of it all is this. The existence of God cannot be simply tested via philosphy, science or by any other means. There is no ABSOLUTE test for God. And the only purpose, this is my hypothesis, that you've written this insensitve garbage, was to show off, or just for the pure dislike of theism.

And the fact that you must attack another harmless member, rather then his logic (or lack of) is purely disgusting.

 

[rant]

i could have just as easily written 'citation needed' and moved on, but yes, i must admit i am wont to show off.

it's about backing up arguments; that's why Iron is the only boser/individual whose religious opinions i actually respect, everyone else has an ecclesiastic hole they can burrow into when the going gets tough: 'human minds can't comprehend god', 'all part of god's plan!!!!!!!' etcetera

PERHAPS by your definitions of god, he can't be tested for existence, but boiling a 14,000+ post thread down into a single 'yes' shakes me to the core, it truly does. This thread is about debate and argument, not one word answers thx

I must admit, it is great prose

 

[Kwayera]

This piece of lingustic derangement is distasteful. It is irrational and without arguement. You simply attack another theist, and make ignorant claims with no proof. Sadly I must admit, it is great prose, but lacks substance and merely is a facade for your ignorance.

The truth of it all is this. The existence of God cannot be simply tested via philosphy, science or by any other means. There is no ABSOLUTE test for God. And the only purpose, this is my hypothesis, that you've written this insensitve garbage, was to show off, or just for the pure dislike of theism.

Then why believe in it?

And the fact that you must attack another harmless member, rather then his logic (or lack of) is purely disgusting.

Attacking an opinion is not a crime. It's a consequence of having that opinion. An assumption of basic logic is not an unreasonable one.

 

[moll.]

This piece of lingustic derangement is distasteful. It is irrational and without arguement. You simply attack another theist, and make ignorant claims with no proof. Sadly I must admit, it is great prose, but lacks substance and merely is a facade for your ignorance.

The truth of it all is this. The existence of God cannot be simply tested via philosphy, science or by any other means. There is no ABSOLUTE test for God. And the only purpose, this is my hypothesis, that you've written this insensitve garbage, was to show off, or just for the pure dislike of theism.

And the fact that you must attack another harmless member, rather then his logic (or lack of) is purely disgusting.

All of the bolded parts apply to bell153 more than rant.

 

[tommykins]

All of the bolded parts apply to bell153 more than rant.

also applies to himself

 

[Lukybear]

i could have just as easily written 'citation needed' and moved on, but yes, i must admit i am wont to show off.

it's about backing up arguments; that's why Iron is the only boser/individual whose religious opinions i actually respect, everyone else has an ecclesiastic hole they can burrow into when the going gets tough: 'human minds can't comprehend god', 'all part of god's plan!!!!!!!' etcetera

PERHAPS by your definitions of god, he can't be tested for existence, but boiling a 14,000+ post thread down into a single 'yes' shakes me to the core, it truly does. This thread is about debate and argument, not one word answers thx

How ironic. Boiling a 14 000+post thread into an meaningless assortments of words is also... you know... At least he didnt attack anybody.

Then why believe in it?

Honestly I dont know why I belive in a thing that cannot be tested. Perhaps I am not very rational. Perhaps its the divine hand of God intervening. But the answer to this question matters not. The result is the same, pure Faith.

Similarly, I can ask you why you belive in Darwinism, science, and a myriad of other logical reasoning. In other words WHY reality? The answer to this question is a philosophical void, that cannot be filled by science or rationality. But it matters not. You stil continue to function in this world even tho it may be all ficticious.

Attacking an opinion is not a crime. It's a consequence of having that opinion. An assumption of basic logic is not an unreasonable one.

Attacking another person based upon his logic is not a crime. But rather very ignorant. I think its called Ad Hominen??

 

[Continuum]

Honestly I dont know why I belive in a thing that cannot be tested. Perhaps I am not very rational. Perhaps its the divine hand of God intervening. But the answer to this question matters not. The result is the same, pure Faith.

Similarly, I can ask you why you belive in Darwinism, science, and a myriad of other logical reasoning. In other words WHY reality? The answer to this question is a philosophical void, that cannot be filled by science or rationality. But it matters not. You stil continue to function in this world even tho it may be all ficticious.

Of course it's faith. By definition, religion requires faith.

People believe in Darwinism and science because they are conclusions people have come up with using the scientific process. They are the best scientific explanation which people use to describe natural phenomena. As such, they are dynamic in that they can be improved or completely replace need be. Yet science is also not afraid to outright state that they do not know - science doesn't attempt to explain everything, it only attempts to explain what it understands.

Simply because we can't currently explain the metaphysical and philosophical concerns of God and an array of other things does not mean it won't be able to in the future. Those who say that science can never explain something like that are only making predictions based on speculative evidence. What concrete evidence do you have to say that, in the future, we won't be able to do so? One cannot simply reply to this by saying 'its logically that we would not be able to do so', since logic is simply whatever our individual mind thinks is rational. Logic can be wrong - look at the Greeks, everything being made up of 4 elements was logical in their eyes but completely wrong by the standards of today.

As such, science may or may not necessarily lead to a 'void' - one can never really know at the present time. On the other hand, religion does indeed fill this void in human knowledge, but one has to question: with what? It may offer an explanation or better understanding of God but is it the undiluted truth? I'll use Christianity as an example, since its the most common organised religion today. The Bible is at the core of Christianity but from an objective and historic point of view, completely devoid of faith, it does have holes. The Gospels were written atleast half a century after the supposed appearance of Jesus, with the latter two books around one century. Not to mention that these dates may be completely off as well, since the only actual surviving and complete copies of them were several centuries after Jesus' appearance. Ask a historian and they will tell you that there is no hard evidence to concretely prove that Jesus did the things claimed in the Bible - there is speculative evidence but even with this, there are various inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Furthermore, does proving that Jesus existed and did the things he did really prove anything other than him being able to do extraordinary things? Does it really prove the existence of God? What if it's just some guy time travelling and using some futuristic technology to look like he was sent by God? Unless you can prove that the Holy Spirit (God) came down and miraculously made Virgin Mary give birth to Jesus, or likewise with John the Baptist, you can never really know. As such, this is where faith comes in, faith that what the Bible states is true, faith that Jesus did walk the earth and did the things he was claimed to have done, faith that he will come again and so forth. One cannot claim that Christianity is the truth without faith, since from an objective point of view, there is little hard and concrete evidence to say as such. This is much the same as with all other religions.

I truly believe that agnosticism is the only real stance society can adopt. Just as religion cannot concretely prove that there is God, one cannot concretely disprove God. is there actually proof that God does not exist, other than logical reasoning which, as we have already established, is unable to prove something by itself alone? No, there isn't. A lack of supporting scientific evidence for something like God does not mean that there isn't a God, it means just what it's meant to mean - that there is no support evidence. It does not add weight to the argument that God does not exist. This is my greatest annoyance with atheism - they try to use science to develop their argument, when they really shouldn't be. As such, people put science and atheism hand in hand, when they really shouldn't be. Like religion, atheism also requires faith in that there is no God, since as of now, there really is nothing to say as such.

So yeah, I believe that neither religion nor atheism is the undisputed truth. Personally, I would group them together since they are essentially the same in that they both require faith, but I won't since atheists don't see it as such. I respect that people can see religion as being the truth but that's only because they have faith. That said, I can't say the same for atheists. All the atheists I know say that there is no God as well as claim they have no faith, which I reckon is complete bullshit. Religion and atheism attempts to explain the unexplained by offering possible explanations, which becomes truth only to an individual with faith - not the undisputed truth applicable to all individuals. Science and agnosticism is upfront and adopts the stance of 'society currently does not know, it does not attempt to hide our current ignorance of such issues under a veil of being known and understood, even if only partially.

 

[moll.]

tl;dr