A case for religion, and against AA.

[PingviN]

So, I simply don't engage in debating the existence of God, just like I don't engage in debates with flat earthers. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of a creator.

No, your doctrine is overwhelming, the evidence is just not there to support it. Like you said, you don't use facts to form an opinion, you use your religious dogma.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No, your doctrine is overwhelming, the evidence is just not there to support it. Like you said, you don't use facts to form an opinion, you use your religious dogma.

regardless faith is still faith....that is the one word that Atheists world wide do not understand..............sad but true!!

 

[jackstar7]

regardless faith is still faith....that is the one word that Atheists world wide do not understand..............sad but true!!

Define the word for us.

My definition is: belief not founded in empirical evidence.


And by that definition, Rob doesn't have faith because he sees evidence in reality that points to a creator...

 

[jhbball]

regardless faith is still faith....that is the one word that Atheists world wide do not understand..............sad but true!!

We understand exactly what faith is, which is why we don't use it as a crutch.

 

[witeken]

Well, according to my sacred text (the Bible), God has always used humans to tell others about him. So if I leaned from some who carry God's message, I have no issue with that.

That's because people invented (your) god. It's not a surprise that that's how the almighty god communicates, because there are no divine, almighty powers in the natural world to be used.

Science has fortified my belief in God though, or a higher power, if you will. If it takes intelligence to have something as simple as a book, or complex has a CPU, then how much more is intelligence required to have the earth or the very complex human brain?

No, science only denies the existence of god. Science discovers and uses the laws of nature to explain and predict things. That's because the world functions by the laws of nature, not by supposed supernatural stuff. People realized that 500 years ago because of Newton, and that catapulted us into our technological civilization, based on facts instead of faith.

Even more, science doesn't only suggest (and probably sort of proofs when you compare religion vs. technology) that supernatural things do not exist, you can also use the tools of science to explain why people invented god. It isn't hard, and it makes perfect sense; if your god exists, how would you, for example, otherwise explain why all other religions exist and aren't real?


It's always amusing when people use science to try to disprove a scientifically supported idea, and I mean your question. Your failed assumption is that a book is simple and the earth or the human brain is complex. It really is the other way around. The result of the big bang was a huge amount of particles, interacting by the laws of nature. It takes 1 physical process to created stars and galaxies: gravity. Even though the sun might seem complex, it's the easiest thing to form by the laws of nature. It then takes many supernovae to create the particles that make up us -- carbon, oxygen,... --, and after those are formed, planets like the earth can form around stars (I think about 1/2 stars have planets). But then it takes much more processes to create life with 1 cell, animals, and then the conditions must be good for natural selection to let intelligent life develop (life with much neurons or whatever computational thing other life (not on earth) uses, with language, with hands to manipulate the environment,...), and only then can books be formed by those intelligent life forms after all those processes, and only then can science and technology develop and create a CPU, and then if takes even more time for a very fast CPU to be made. A book or a CPU can't just randomly form, that would really be magic, so it's a complex thing to form naturally, even though it may seem simple. The fact that it could be made, doesn't mean that it can be created by simply natural laws, but might take more complex things like life -- which is apparently possible in this universe, else you wouldn't exist.

This is also reflected by the abundance of those things: there are extremely many stars, slightly less stars have planets, less planets have life, less planets with life have more complex life, even less intelligent life and even less have CPUs.

In short, arguing the existence of God/higher power is just as asinine as arguing that the earth is flat.

So, I simply don't engage in debating the existence of God, just like I don't engage in debates with flat earthers. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of a creator.

For us, time will tell. There are many, though.

You just have to realize that you could be wrong. Or do you think you're extremely omnisciently intelligent? It isn't bad to change your opinions, you should always be open for the truth.

 

[witeken]

regardless faith is still faith....that is the one word that Atheists world wide do not understand..............sad but true!!

It really takes a huge amount of faith to believe your parents were correct, their parents were correct,... that god indeed exists, just because some random guy -- Jesus -- 2000 years ago used an argument from authority ("I'm the son of God") to prove that God exists, and to think that another person who is Muslim or ... isn't correct with his faith that his parents were correct, the parents of his parents,... that Allah or ... exists.

Unsubstantiated faith that isn't necessary at all in 2014, where we have more powerful methods than to think that your parents are correct because they're your parents and indoctrinated you your religion.

That doesn't convince me, and it certainly isn't sad that not everyone uses that flawed logic.

 

[PingviN]

regardless faith is still faith....that is the one word that Atheists world wide do not understand..............sad but true!!

I fully understand what faith is. As an atheist I don't think that blind faith is neither impressive nor worthy of respect.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is absolutely incorrect.

Nope, it's very correct.

Even your argumentum ad populum fallacy doesn't prove God exists

Of course it doesn't...God doesn't need people to believe to prove his existence anyway.

The issue has been settled for centuries. What religion(s) are trying to understand is if God has a Will for mankind, and what that Will is. We're centuries past the debate about God's existence. Try keeping up with the times.

because most people reject your god.

I reject you. Does that mean you don't exist? Nope.

Fallacies in logic only deal with language, not reality. You'd be wise to learn the difference.

No, you have science if you want to teach kids facts. Science made religion totally obsolete.

Exactly! I use science to show how intellect is needed to account for the usefulness and complexity in our physical world. In fact, it complements God quite well.

There's no need to have faith anymore.

Right. Science has given me evidence. So I don't have to simply "believe" anymore. No faith required.

Also, religion really is interested in survival because that's why religion still exists. It's a religious natural selection of the best indoctrinating religions.

Well, Jesus did say heaven and Earth will pass away, but his word will not. God, through Jesus, is making sure his word will always exists.

You're really making my point for me.

You really have to separate religion and atheism, they're not the same.

I used to think this, but atheism has become religious in nature.

It's not abnormal to be an atheist and has nothing to do with culture or where you're born, but for being religious you need a certain culture and being born in a christian,... family. If god does exists, people would automatically start believing in him, even when they're an adult or if they believe in the wrong god.

It's very normal to be an atheist, just like its normal to be a fireman, or a police officer.

Culture plays a big role in beliefs, period. I never believed in Santa because my mom never brought that into our home. In that sense, I was an a-Santaist because we never talked about him.

My upbringing had everything to do with rejecting Santa just as being brought up in a atheist home as everything to do with atheism has a youth.

 

[Retro Rob]

And this is proven by the stats: less and less people believe God exists (just 500-1000 years ago it was 100%) because they got educated and learned to think for themselves and be critical.

Lol -- it was NEVER 100%. People simply kept doubts quiet, and when asked, they simply gave the popular answer.

Poll data today reflects that people lie about their belief in God. You should know this, but you're too busy try to make a case that there is this mass Exodus of true believers from the throngs of belief.

Last I checked, about 4 billion people (about half the world's population) belong to both Christianity and Islam -- that's not even counting the other religions who have some belief in God, or a god of sorts.

That's more people than it was 500-1000 years ago.

 

[witeken]

Nope, it's very correct.

You can't just say something is very correct and walk away without proving it is correct. If you can't prove it (scientifically), it isn't correct.

Of course it doesn't...God doesn't need people to believe to prove his existence anyway.

Sure, but the fact that -- if he exists -- he knows he exists doesn't prove to us that he exist. You must do that, or a scientist preferably, or he himself.

The issue has been settled for centuries. What religion(s) are trying to understand is if God has a Will for mankind, and what that Will is. We're centuries past the debate about God's existence. Try keeping up with the times.

It isn't settled until there is proof. You are actually 'advantaged': we can't proof god doesn't exist so this nonsense debate only stops until everyone grows up or you theists proof your point.

I reject you. Does that mean you don't exist? Nope.

You don't know for sure if I exist until you prove it, see the scientific evidence. If you reject me, I could give you evidence, if this text isn't enough for you.

Fallacies in logic only deal with language, not reality. You'd be wise to learn the difference.

I already know the difference. Playing games with language is how theist's proofs of god work (ontological for example), but not in reality.

Exactly! I use science to show how intellect is needed to account for the usefulness and complexity in our physical world. In fact, it complements God quite well.

You can't use or interpret science the way you like to support your opinion. Science is used to proof your opinion...knowledge.

Science strongly suggests god doesn't exists; humans invented thousands of gods to deal with reality because that's easier than to figure out what's actually going on. But nature has a much bigger imagination than humans: the sun doesn't orbit the earth to create night/day cycles, but the earth is round and it spins. Just like using slaves was much easier than to invent and build machines to make life easier.

Right. Science has given me evidence. So I don't have to simply "believe" anymore. No faith required.

Science doesn't give you evidence. It gives you evidence because you spin reality to make it look like it's evidence, while really it are all natural processes that govern the universe.

If faith wasn't required, Christianity would be the only religion that existed, because we would all knew God was real. You don't know if god exists; there's no scientific evidence, so you must have faith. If you think you don't, you're only lying to yourself.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It really takes a huge amount of faith to believe your parents were correct, their parents were correct,... that god indeed exists, just because some random guy -- Jesus -- 2000 years ago used an argument from authority ("I'm the son of God") to prove that God exists, and to think that another person who is Muslim or ... isn't correct with his faith that his parents were correct, the parents of his parents,... that Allah or ... exists.

Unsubstantiated faith that isn't necessary at all in 2014, where we have more powerful methods than to think that your parents are correct because they're your parents and indoctrinated you your religion.

That doesn't convince me, and it certainly isn't sad that not everyone uses that flawed logic.

so how is my faith suppose to convince you?
You think that everybody who believes in God are going to try to convince the masses? why cant somebody believe in God and NOT try to convince you there is a God?

You say there is no need for Faith in todays world? I find that statement to be comical at best and idiotic or moronic at worse.

 

[witeken]

Lol -- it was NEVER 100%. People simply kept doubts quiet, and when asked, they simply gave the popular answer.

Poll data today reflects that people lie about their belief in God. You should know this, but you're too busy try to make a case that there is this mass Exodus of true believers from the throngs of belief.

Last I checked, about 4 billion people (about half the world's population) belong to both Christianity and Islam -- that's not even counting the other religions who have some belief in God, or a god of sorts.

That's more people than it was 500-1000 years ago.

As far as I know, Christianity reigned 500-1000 years ago, atheism was very rare. People were indoctrinated, went to church,... and there was no science for people to use to make them think otherwise.

Today people are educated and being learned to think for themselves, so less people really believe in god anymore, even if they are a christian because they became one when they were literally 1 month old.

 

[witeken]

so how is my faith suppose to convince you?
You think that everybody who believes in God are going to try to convince the masses? why cant somebody believe in God and NOT try to convince you there is a God?

I just mean the fact that you believe in God because your parents believe in him. Why would I believe my parents? The fact that my parents are christian doesn't convince me at all.

You say there is no need for Faith in todays world? I find that statement to be comical at best and idiotic or moronic at worse.

Why?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Rob
Nope, it's very correct.

You can't just say something is very correct and walk away without proving it is correct. If you can't prove it (scientifically), it isn't correct.


Quote:
Of course it doesn't...God doesn't need people to believe to prove his existence anyway.

Sure, but the fact that -- if he exists -- he knows he exists doesn't prove to us that he exist. You must do that, or a scientist preferably, or he himself.


Quote:
The issue has been settled for centuries. What religion(s) are trying to understand is if God has a Will for mankind, and what that Will is. We're centuries past the debate about God's existence. Try keeping up with the times.

It isn't settled until there is proof. You are actually 'advantaged': we can't proof god doesn't exist so this nonsense debate only stops until everyone grows up or you theists proof your point.


Quote:
I reject you. Does that mean you don't exist? Nope.

You don't know for sure if I exist until you prove it, see the scientific evidence. If you reject me, I could give you evidence, if this text isn't enough for you.


Quote:
Fallacies in logic only deal with language, not reality. You'd be wise to learn the difference.

I already know the difference. Playing games with language is how theist's proofs of god work (ontological for example), but not in reality.



Quote:
Exactly! I use science to show how intellect is needed to account for the usefulness and complexity in our physical world. In fact, it complements God quite well.

You can't use or interpret science the way you like to support your opinion. Science is used to proof your opinion...knowledge.

Science strongly suggests god doesn't exists; humans invented thousands of gods to deal with reality because that's easier than to figure out what's actually going on. But nature has a much bigger imagination than humans: the sun doesn't orbit the earth to create night/day cycles, but the earth is round and it spins. Just like using slaves was much easier than to invent and build machines to make life easier.


Quote:
Right. Science has given me evidence. So I don't have to simply "believe" anymore. No faith required.

Science doesn't give you evidence. It gives you evidence because you spin reality to make it look like it's evidence, while really it are all natural processes that govern the universe.

If faith wasn't required, Christianity would be the only religion that existed, because we would all knew God was real. You don't know if god exists; there's no scientific evidence, so you must have faith. If you think you don't, you're only lying to yourself.

Why do people whose beliefs are contrary to yours have to prove anything to you? If you do not want to believe or if you just do not believe that is your business. Beliefs are a personal thing and since I am not or we are not trying to convert you to our beliefs why do we need to prove out beliefs to anybody?

You on the other hand along with most Atheists think or believe that they need to save the world from people who believe in God.......Atheism slowly but surely is beginning to sound like a religion..huh??

The problem is where you want proof from people who believe in God that there is a God...

Most people who believe in God are not concerned that you believe there is no God !!

As such they know that you cannot prove there is no God and they know that you being an Atheist will try to get them to prove there is a God......so why even be concerned with your Beliefs?? Its a free country..you believe what you will and others will believe what they will!!

Atheists don`t need to be on a mission to save the world from those that believe in God....wow--sounds like atheism is slowly becoming a religion...hmmmm

 

[JEDIYoda]

I just mean the fact that you believe in God because your parents believe in him.

That's nice if they did....have not parents down through the ages brought their children up as they were brought up? What is wrong with that?
What is wrong with when I see somebody that I might have prayed for as a child with my parents being the example get healed....me believing in the power of prayer??

You seem to believe that its a bad thing for parents to influence their children......

Just because you may have changed your mind about religion or God after you grew up or while you were growing up, that does not make what your parents believed wrong! It means that you decided to follow a different path...a very simple concept!

 

[Retro Rob]

You can't just say something is very correct and walk away without proving it is correct. If you can't prove it (scientifically), it isn't correct.

Neither can you. It's all subjective, what's correct incorrect, right or wrong.

Sure, but the fact that -- if he exists -- he knows he exists doesn't prove to us that he exist. You must do that, or a scientist preferably, or he himself.

He himself would have to prove it. I can't, because I am human and neither can science.

It isn't settled until there is proof. You are actually 'advantaged': we can't proof god doesn't exist so this nonsense debate only stops until everyone grows up or you theists proof your point.

This is really simple. In order for anything to be useful, intelligent minds (scientists) are behind the experiments, constantly manipulating and tweaking variables to give us useful products.

Our place in the solar system, tilt, distance from the Sun, and subsequent intelligent life fully capable and inclined towards purpose and meaning is basically all the evidence we need.

You're over-complicating things...buy making up stipulations that have to be met in order to believe in a Creator God. Speak for yourself. I don't need scientific proof. God isn't a scientific being, obviously.

God doesn't exist strictly within the realm of something he created. In other words, he doesn't have to exist within the confines of science, IF HE CREATED SCIENCE...which he did by establishing constant, physical laws.

Science should really be thanking God.

You don't know for sure if I exist until you prove it, see the scientific evidence. If you reject me, I could give you evidence, if this text isn't enough for you.

I don't need to know for sure. Evidence is in that you're responding. If you didn't exist, you wouldn't be typing.

Science strongly suggests god doesn't exists

Is that the same science that strongly suggested that continents didn't drift?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/?no-ist

I think you'd better be a bit more skeptical, and less sheepish.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You know that there are such groups with different beliefs. Stop being coy.

your not being coy?? so list the thousands of groups that would disagree with me....I am waiting...

 

[JD50]

Back to God of the Gaps huh?

 

[sandorski]

your not being coy?? so list the thousands of groups that would disagree with me....I am waiting...

Are Blood Transfusions forbidden according to scripture?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are Blood Transfusions forbidden according to scripture?

You are the one who claimed there are thousands of groups that would disagree with me. Please list them...or are you dodging your claim?

 

[jackstar7]

You are the one who claimed there are thousands of groups that would disagree with me. Please list them...or are you dodging your claim?

1. Branch Davidians.

Now you go.

 

[sandorski]

You are the one who claimed there are thousands of groups that would disagree with me. Please list them...or are you dodging your claim?

What's your position?

 

[JEDIYoda]

1. Branch Davidians.

Now you go.

There are hardly 1000`s of branch Davidians...all you have to do is google it to see,,,hadly at best several hundred even...so where are the thousands??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Define the word for us.

My definition is: belief not founded in empirical evidence.


And by that definition, Rob doesn't have faith because he sees evidence in reality that points to a creator...

why do you need a definition?
You do understand that ones definition of faith will differ from another.....

You can define faith however you choose or you can even belittle those who believe in the binlical definition of faith....your understanding of the word faith only affects you!

 

[MongGrel]

Nope, it's very correct.



Of course it doesn't...God doesn't need people to believe to prove his existence anyway.

The issue has been settled for centuries. What religion(s) are trying to understand is if God has a Will for mankind, and what that Will is. We're centuries past the debate about God's existence. Try keeping up with the times.



I reject you. Does that mean you don't exist? Nope.

Fallacies in logic only deal with language, not reality. You'd be wise to learn the difference.



Exactly! I use science to show how intellect is needed to account for the usefulness and complexity in our physical world. In fact, it complements God quite well.



Right. Science has given me evidence. So I don't have to simply "believe" anymore. No faith required.



Well, Jesus did say heaven and Earth will pass away, but his word will not. God, through Jesus, is making sure his word will always exists.

You're really making my point for me.



I used to think this, but atheism has become religious in nature.




It's very normal to be an atheist, just like its normal to be a fireman, or a police officer.

Culture plays a big role in beliefs, period. I never believed in Santa because my mom never brought that into our home. In that sense, I was an a-Santaist because we never talked about him.

My upbringing had everything to do with rejecting Santa just as being brought up in a atheist home as everything to do with atheism has a youth.

THere are so many things in here I could run over like a train, but not in the mood tonight.

Might have to have a discussion on the weekend.