A case for religion, and against AA.

[PingviN]

actually the stark differences to not negate the similarities...do they??

They do not negate the similarities, but you're being arbitrary when you call atheism a religion.
What you're doing is basically calling a cow a horse because they both have four legs, one head, are both animals that can be found on farms. That doesn't make a cow a horse, it just means they have certain similarities between them.

 

[witeken]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being absolute in your beliefs. Even if an atheist was absolutely certain a god or Yahweh didn't exists, so what? As long as it isn't required that I share that belief, I'm cool with it.

Absolute beliefs are only good when there is no or hardly any chance thet you're wrong. You can be certain that e=mc² is true, evolution, but god... not at all. Your absolute believe is questioned by millions of people with valid claims.

FWIW, I don't doubt God exists and I belief what the Bible says as regards his existence. The difference being, that I don't require you to accept that, nor do I even expect you to.

The Bible? That book is thousands of years old, made by retarded farmers. Any science book about any subject that is a few decades old is already outdated. Not likely either that they knew anything that we today don't even have the slightest clue about.

You must doubt that god exists. I mean: you must be as critical and objective as you can be. Maybe god doesn't exist or you obey the wrong god... you shouldn't fool yourself. Here's a great video about this: Can you solve this?

 

[Retro Rob]

Absolute beliefs are only good when there is no or hardly any chance thet you're wrong. You can be certain that e=mc² is true, evolution, but god... not at all. Your absolute believe is questioned by millions of people with valid claims.

So what?

I guess you missed the point of my post. I don't care if millions of people question anything as I said I don't require people to believe or accept them -- that doesn't mean the belief itself is open to question, though.

People can question whatever they want.

The Bible? That book is thousands of years old, made by retarded farmers. Any science book about any subject that is a few decades old is already outdated. Not likely either that they knew anything that we today don't even have the slightest clue about.

Doesn't matter. Newton didn't know anything near what we know today, doesn't make him any less of a scientist, or his theories nonsense.

You're making terrible arguments.

You must doubt that god exists.

No, I do not.

I mean: you must be as critical and objective as you can be.

How do you know that I haven't been? You're assuming that since I believe God exists, I have not been objective. You need to get out more and stop listening to whomever it is you're listening to.

There is nothing unscientific about believing in God, or believing he exists. If you look at my quote sig, deGrasse Tyson confirmed that.

 

[witeken]

So what?

I guess you missed the point of my post. I don't care if millions of people question anything as I said I don't require people to believe or accept them -- that doesn't mean the belief itself is open to question, though.

People can question whatever they want.

Sure, but if so many people come up with valid arguments, you can't just keep saying you don't doubt his existence, because you should. I believe we could one day travel to other stars, because it's allowed by the laws of physics and I'm optimistic about our abilities to do that, but if there would be any and I would hear all those valid arguments, I would reevaluate my believes about this subject.

This is the same with everything. Your world view must conform to reality, the other way isn't possible. So if your believes are strongly questioned by everyone who isn't a christian, it's logical to question your world view.

How do you know that I haven't been? You're assuming that since I believe God exists, I have not been objective. You need to get out more and stop listening to whomever it is you're listening to.

Because reality has a well-known atheism bias. But if you think you're objective, go ahead and show us, you could change the world if objectivity really points towards your religion.

 

[justoh]

resistance is futile

 

[Retro Rob]

Sure, but if so many people come up with valid arguments, you can't just keep saying you don't doubt his existence, because you should.

I don't doubt his existence. I can find Billions of Christians that can make valid arguments too. Does that mean you should change your mind?

I believe we could one day travel to other stars, because it's allowed by the laws of physics and I'm optimistic about our abilities to do that, but if there would be any and I would hear all those valid arguments, I would reevaluate my believes about this subject.

I do too. However, since our abilities and inabilities to travel to stars can be empirically tested, that's a different thing. We have no way to prove/disprove the existence of God. So that means we can only believe or lack-belief, since there is no scientific evidence either way.

So if your believes are strongly questioned by everyone who isn't a christian, it's logical to question your world view.

This is a stupid argument. I should question my beliefs simply because others question them, and ironically, they're non-believers!

Your lack of belief is questioned by everyone who's not an atheist, so its logical to question your world view.

 

[PingviN]

Your lack of belief is questioned by everyone who's not an atheist, so its logical to question your world view.

Which atheists do, all the time. You put forward a valid argument ("we cannot know therefor God exists and I have no reason not to say God exists" is not one of those) and we'll look at it. New scientific evidence is never discarded because we think we know something.

 

[norseamd]

Which atheists do, all the time. You put forward a valid argument ("we cannot know therefor God exists and I have no reason not to say God exists" is not one of those) and we'll look at it. New scientific evidence is never discarded because we think we know something.

lol

we do not even need to get into religion to deal with this quote

 

[Retro Rob]

Which atheists do, all the time. You put forward a valid argument ("we cannot know therefor God exists and I have no reason not to say God exists" is not one of those) and we'll look at it. New scientific evidence is never discarded because we think we know something.

"We'll look at it"?

I hope you mean scientists and not atheists.

 

[witeken]

I don't doubt his existence. I can find Billions of Christians that can make valid arguments too. Does that mean you should change your mind?

I haven't heard them, or maybe your definition of a valid argument is different than mine, but then it's probably wrong.

I do too. However, since our abilities and inabilities to travel to stars can be empirically tested, that's a different thing. We have no way to prove/disprove the existence of God. So that means we can only believe or lack-belief, since there is no scientific evidence either way.

You don't doubt his existence, but it's impossible to (dis)prove it. What. Are you an agnostic gnostic theist?

And if we can't (dis)prove anything, then why do even consider his existence, why did someone come up with it? Because he couldn't prove it or anything, he shouldn't have come up with the idea of a god, since nothing would suggest there was one.

And why actually care? This sounds like Russell's teapot (but worse): it might be somewhere out there, but no one cares because it has literally no impact on the world.

 

[witeken]

"We'll look at it"?

I hope you mean scientists and not atheists.

Prove for god would be.. the biggest scientific discovery ever. The whole world would look at it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Prove for god would be.. the biggest scientific discovery ever. The whole world would look at it.

We already have an abundance of evidence in the sheer existence of the Universe and the human world.

We don't need to use our senses...God is a spirit. As I stated before, I'm not concerned about the existence of God as I am learning about him. The argument has been settled.

I am quite surprised that I am still talking about it.

 

[Phanuel]

We already have an abundance of evidence in the sheer existence of the Universe and the human world.

We don't need to use our senses...God is a spirit. As I stated before, I'm not concerned about the existence of God as I am learning about him. The argument has been settled.

I am quite surprised that I am still talking about it.

None of that is actual evidence. It's just your feelings and opinions based upon being raised in a culture that shares them.

You have no actual hard evidence. Nor any method of producing hard evidence or repeatable experiments.

But none of this matters to you in trying to prove your case since in your mind it's already proven and the rest of us just haven't woken up to the "truth" that you already hold to be self evident.

It's insulting really, along with Jediyoda's repetitive insulting and belittling of dissenting views and resorting to childish insults when he is unable to provide a counter argument or supporting view for his arguments.

 

[Retro Rob]

None of that is actual evidence. It's just your feelings and opinions based upon being raised in a culture that shares them.

You have no actual hard evidence. Nor any method of producing hard evidence or repeatable experiments.

But none of this matters to you in trying to prove your case since in your mind it's already proven and the rest of us just haven't woken up to the "truth" that you already hold to be self evident.

It's insulting really, along with Jediyoda's repetitive insulting and belittling of dissenting views and resorting to childish insults when he is unable to provide a counter argument or supporting view for his arguments.

Lol, the funny thing about this post and others like it is that non-believers think they have a monopoly over the same physical evidence we all interpret depending on where we stand on the issue.

If deGrasse Tyson's quote about there being one-third of scientists who believe in God, then that's roughly 36 percent of them who have no problem accepting that God created the Universe, and life, using evolution as his tool.

Without science, I would have a harder time believing in a creator, but life with its many intricacies and complexities help me to better appreciate the wisdom of God.

This is why I enjoy science.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Prove for god would be.. the biggest scientific discovery ever. The whole world would look at it.

even when proof smacks Atheists right upside the head ....they will forever question the proof or the person who found the proof or the motives of that individual.........nothing would be accomplished! Nobody would change their mind.....it would become a never ending cluster.......so no it would not be the biggest scientific discovery........

 

[JEDIYoda]

They do not negate the similarities, but you're being arbitrary when you call atheism a religion.
What you're doing is basically calling a cow a horse because they both have four legs, one head, are both animals that can be found on farms. That doesn't make a cow a horse, it just means they have certain similarities between them.

you heard the saying is if looks like.....if it smells like......then it must be....

 

[witeken]

We already have an abundance of evidence in the sheer existence of the Universe and the human world.

Nope... this is a fact.

We don't need to use our senses...God is a spirit.

What does that mean? Yet another uninspirational invention like supernatural?

As I stated before, I'm not concerned about the existence of God as I am learning about him. The argument has been settled.

What did you learn about him? Care to teach us about him?

I am quite surprised that I am still talking about it.

Maybe because you're wrong?

 

[Retro Rob]

even when proof smacks Atheists right upside the head ....they will forever question the proof or the person who found the proof or the motives of that individual.........nothing would be accomplished! Nobody would change their mind.....it would become a never ending cluster.......so no it would not be the biggest scientific discovery........

This, basically.

If God did prove himself today, they'd say "how do you know its the Christian God, and not the thousands of other gods...you have to prove its not those gods, first!".

Then, if God says he's Yahweh, they'd object and say: "Well, how do we know that its the exact God in the Bible....how do we know God inspired the dubious writers of the Bible?"

If he says he did, then they'd say: "Well anyone could claim to be Moses...how we know that its not someone else who claimed to be Moses?".

..and so on and so on. This is how they full-proof their arguments, buy pushing the question further and further back.

 

[alzan]

Their...There..that`s the best you can do.....get over it...this I not a doctoral thesis where spelling counts....

actually the stark differences to not negate the similarities...do they??

No the differences do not negate the similarities, but to assert the similarities while ignoring the differences is intellectually dishonest. As PingVin said, it's just arbitrary word games.

even when proof smacks Atheists right upside the head ....they will forever question the proof or the person who found the proof or the motives of that individual.........nothing would be accomplished! Nobody would change their mind.....it would become a never ending cluster.......so no it would not be the biggest scientific discovery........

And this "proof" that smacks non-theists upside the head is...?

This, basically.

If God did prove himself today, they'd say "how do you know its the Christian God, and not the thousands of other gods...you have to prove its not those gods, first!".

Then, if God says he's Yahweh, they'd object and say: "Well, how do we know that its the exact God in the Bible....how do we know God inspired the dubious writers of the Bible?"

If he says he did, then they'd say: "Well anyone could claim to be Moses...how we know that its not someone else who claimed to be Moses?".

..and so on and so on. This is how they full-proof their arguments, buy pushing the question further and further back.

So non-theists should just accept a given occurrence that is claimed to be proof of G-d's existence, no questioning allowed?

 

[witeken]

Lol, the funny thing about this post and others like it is that non-believers think they have a monopoly over the same physical evidence we all interpret depending on where we stand on the issue.

We don't just randomly "interpret" stuff. Science gives you hard facts, which, like evolution, could be explained (interpreted) in different ways. But we want to know the best interpretation, the real one.

If deGrasse Tyson's quote about there being one-third of scientists who believe in God, then that's roughly 36 percent of them who have no problem accepting that God created the Universe, and life, using evolution as his tool.

One of the many good things about science if that there's no need for arguments from authority. I hope you see even 36% is still less than 50%, and it just doesn't mean anything. A scientist who believes in god doesn't make god science.

Without science, I would have a harder time believing in a creator, but life with its many intricacies and complexities help me to better appreciate the wisdom of God.

This is why I enjoy science.

Do you actually understand science? But if you enjoy science, then I think you might also enjoy Lawrence Krauss' books "Fear Of Physics: A Guide For The Perplexed" and "A Universe From Nothing".

The thing about science is that it explains how everything works with consistent rules, without any magic or so.

 

[Retro Rob]

So non-theists should just accept a given occurrence that is claimed to be proof of G-d's existence, no questioning allowed?

No, those type of questions are designed to push the issue so far back into the past that you'd be bound to run into an unanswerable one -- that's done on purpose, by design.

It's the equivalent of the "who created the creator, and who created that creator" ad infinitum question.

When people are incredulous, these are the exactly the type of questions used so that they can feel comfortable in not-believing.

 

[witeken]

even when proof smacks Atheists right upside the head ....they will forever question the proof or the person who found the proof or the motives of that individual.........nothing would be accomplished! Nobody would change their mind.....it would become a never ending cluster.......so no it would not be the biggest scientific discovery........

An unambiguous scientific proof makes things facts.

 

[witeken]

This, basically.

If God did prove himself today, they'd say "how do you know its the Christian God, and not the thousands of other gods...you have to prove its not those gods, first!".

Then, if God says he's Yahweh, they'd object and say: "Well, how do we know that its the exact God in the Bible....how do we know God inspired the dubious writers of the Bible?"

If he says he did, then they'd say: "Well anyone could claim to be Moses...how we know that its not someone else who claimed to be Moses?".

..and so on and so on. This is how they full-proof their arguments, buy pushing the question further and further back.

If god did what you say, god's existence would become a fact. Why'd he lie about it, doesn't he want to be obeyed and all that stuff? But it isn't bad to keep asking him questions to know more about him and be certain, if he for some reason finally decides to stop hiding. You would probably do that too.

 

[witeken]

It's the equivalent of the "who created the creator, and who created that creator" ad infinitum question.

That's a valid question because you can't just magically out of nothing create a creator.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a valid question because you can't just magically out of nothing create a creator.

And you can't magically out of nothing create a Universe.