Arguments for God's Existance

REPLY to DAN (sorry for double post, didn't think it would be a huge deal, just want to seperate responses)

I did not say that we cannot comprehend God at all, I just said things like eternity. Man did not create Infinity. He did not, the idea has always been there, where did it come from. As far as you and I know, it has always been there. It is in time, it is in the number line, going one way, going the negative way, and going every single number in between. Can you and I really comprehend what that means? No, we cannot. Whenever I think of being in heaven forever, or being anywhere forever, its really actually hard to comprehend, just try it.

So basically here is what yours and mines arguement (dan) has looked like:

- You asked for scientific proofs, I gave you them.
- I asked you for one thing true about evolution, you replied it was a theory.
- You start to question the actual religious side of this, which is very sticky, because when you don't even believe in a God and you go here, I hate it, because you always can find something wrong with it, and I have to explain that you have to believe in a God first to understand why. Its a really tight spot, not that we don't have the information, but because we reply to it in reference to a God, which is the answer we believe, and you say well I don't believe there is a God, so that can't be true.
- I have seen you repeated use circular reasoning.

Look at all the evidence, my friend, where does it point? Think of all the scientific points I gave you. Irreducible complexity, fine tunings and such. let's get back to the science part here, and once you establish that there is even a possiblity for a God, then we can discuss things like morals and such. We are officially focusing on scientific proofs only, which is what you claim backs up your theory and the only thing you operate by anyway.

Which brings me to another question, why do you (and Wizzup) feel the need to try to question God's character? I though science backed up your theory? It seems to me, and probably all the other creationalists involved, that you are running out of scientific evidence, which is what you claim drives your mindset, so you are desperate and have to ask things about God's nature that we are not really capable of understanding.


ONE LAST THING TO WIZZUP AND DAN:

Why doesn't God just let us comprehend Him? If we could, what would make Him higher than us? Ever single time I think of God, and things that He can do that I can't understand, I say "WOW what an amazing God". It is a constant reminder that God has authority over us and is not equal to us. That is your answer, do not reply to it, because we are only focusing on science now.

To any one who wants scientific proof or things to answer for me, http://www.srl-forums.com/forum/show...00&postcount=7

as i said, the second part wasnt meant to be factual or conclusive. I just meant it as an example of what i think many Christians think and have as reasoning for their belief in God. Along with the fact that i am very bad at explaining things, especially in writing.

Though i think that pretty much anything that you can come up with to "prove" that Jesus even existed, let alone die on the cross, will be fairly biased as well.

No, I try my best not to be biased, and I comment on it when I am. These reasons, are not biased. They have to do with witnesses that saw him, reasons the roman guards would want to keep it quiet, all the stories about the body, because it is not and will never be in the tomb, so there are many stories about it. I prove all of those stories wrong. It is then your decision to decide if the man, who did in fact perform miraculous works, whether you think he is God or not,for it is not just in the Bible, and all that stuff I said together combined means that he did arise from the cross. Without actually being there, I don't think we can gain much more proof?

Beside the point though, you did not respond to anything, like that, so I guess I will just wait for Wizzup?, or anybody else to respond to two posts up.

i didn't see your post above mine. I was writing my previous reply when you posted, i assume.


in our msn argument, as i remember it, all i was given as proof was (i think) cambrian explosion(i think i deemed that theoretical). Then we went into less scientific areas. and then you tried using Fine-Tuned Universe. I told you i didnt quite understand that, and you stopped talking to me :p.

The problem with arguing with you is that you seem to be a little hypocritical (at least on msn you are). You want scientific facts and then you ask me about where morals came from. Then when im trying to explain things, you tell me that i ask too many questions without answering any of yours. You seem to be the one asking most of the questions. So the argument becomes lopsided. You'll probably come up with something else to tell me im the one who's being hypocritical, so i think i'm going to stop arguing. As people have told you before(i think/hope), this argument is a moo point. Its like a cow's opinion. It doesnt matter.....it's moo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Cardin

i didn't see your post above mine. I was writing my previous reply when you posted, i assume.


in our msn argument, as i remember it, all i was given as proof was (i think) cambrian explosion(i think i deemed that theoretical). Then we went into less scientific areas. and then you tried using Fine-Tuned Universe. I told you i didnt quite understand that, and you stopped talking to me :p.

The problem with arguing with you is that you seem to be a little hypocritical (at least on msn you are). You want scientific facts and then you ask me about where morals came from. Then when im trying to explain things, you tell me that i ask too many questions without answering any of yours. You seem to be the one asking most of the questions. So the argument becomes lopsided. You'll probably come up with something else to tell me im the one who's being hypocritical, so i think i'm going to stop arguing. As people have told you before(i think/hope), this argument is a moo point. Its like a cow's opinion. It doesnt matter.....it's moo.

---

I thought it was spelled "moot"? :p'

And btw, this whole conversation is very interesting =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Cardin

i didn't see your post above mine. I was writing my previous reply when you posted, i assume.


in our msn argument, as i remember it, all i was given as proof was (i think) cambrian explosion(i think i deemed that theoretical). Then we went into less scientific areas. and then you tried using Fine-Tuned Universe. I told you i didnt quite understand that, and you stopped talking to me :p.

The problem with arguing with you is that you seem to be a little hypocritical (at least on msn you are). You want scientific facts and then you ask me about where morals came from. Then when im trying to explain things, you tell me that i ask too many questions without answering any of yours. You seem to be the one asking most of the questions. So the argument becomes lopsided. You'll probably come up with something else to tell me im the one who's being hypocritical, so i think i'm going to stop arguing. As people have told you before(i think/hope), this argument is a moo point. Its like a cow's opinion. It doesnt matter.....it's moo.

---

So do I infinitry :). No I would not deem you hypocritical.

However, you must realize

• I deal with multiple people at a time discussing this, so it gets confusing.
• I think we can reach a conclusion by just being rational and deducing, which is the scientific nature of science itself.
• The only time I will ever cut you off when you are answering a question is when you are purposely going out of your way to try to find an answer that is really vague, or something that is not even close to being logical, which is not being true to yourself, which means you really don't want to find the real truth.

I know people so many people with that mindset. Here is how it goes everytime.

• They never want to believe in a God. He is not possible. Evolution is fact. So we start a discussion.
• We talk about it. They try to use moral cliches, talking about things that aren't even truth to them (God's nature, etc) as their argueing points (how ironic, the people that don't believe in God feel He is one of their strongest argueing points). I answer these to the best of my ability, ones that I honestly live with everyday, like the reason for pain and stuff. Most of the time, its because humans have done these things to themselves (like starving kids in Africa), not God.
• They then ask me scientific questions. I answer them, completely and fully. There is no religious bias, there is no unproven statements. All facts.
• I start questioning their theory scientifically speaking. And remember these are all things I have never gotten an answer for, thus why they are my arguement. But i get one of three answers. 1. They give me a bogus answer, which I immediately dismiss. 2. They claim ignorance and say scientists know but they don't. Well if you don't know, how can you believe it!! Find out for yourselves!! 3. They say just because there are holes in the theory, they should believe them.If the theory has holes, what makes you believe that theory! Why should you believe in an idea that doesn't make sense. If and when science figures it out, GREAT. But until then use logic and realize your theory stands on nothing!
• Then I start to ask them questions about things like morality, which they cannot answer or claim ignorance..

You see, I, in a sense, have the right to talk about morals and such, because I believe they exist. They are part of my arguement. They cannot be a part of your arguement because they are true to you. You cannot truely have morals, because what is right for you might not be right for me. So you cannot say I am wrong about God anyway, according to your theory, because everything is relative.

Anyways, CPU is almost out of power, but do you see what I deal with everyday? And not only that, I get the same questions every single day, new people, people look at me in scorn because I believe there is a creator, people think I am stupid. Do you see the problem I might have with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

[*] I start questioning their theory scientifically speaking. And remember these are all things I have never gotten an answer for, thus why they are my arguement. But i get one of three answers. 1. They give me a bogus answer, which I immediately dismiss. 2. They claim ignorance and say scientists know but they don't. Well if you don't know, how can you believe it!! Find out for yourselves!! 3. They say just because there are holes in the theory, they should believe them.If the theory has holes, what makes you believe that theory! Why should you believe in an idea that doesn't make sense. If and when science figures it out, GREAT. But until then use logic and realize your theory stands on nothing! [/list]

---

I have an answer for this.
i assume you're talking about something like What started the big bang

In the past, humans had less knowledge, they believed the Sun was the flaming chariot of Apollo,
they believed that thunderstorms were the wraith of Possidion.

when humans didn't understand something, they said that God did it.

now humans have more knowledge, we know the sun is merely a star that we orbit, and that thunderstorms are caused by complex whether stuff.


we have seen from history that as human knowledge advances, make all these gods obsolete.


Today, we don't understand so well how the universe started, you can ask "What started the big bang" and no-one can answer you.
But thats absolutely no reason to say that God did it, if we look at history, we can see that one day, we will have an answer that doesn't involve God.

Like one thing we've learned from history is to never vote for the Nazi party.

I cant believe some humans are still repeating the mistake from the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

Anyways, CPU is almost out of power, but do you see what I deal with everyday? And not only that, I get the same questions every single day, new people, people look at me in scorn because I believe there is a creator, people think I am stupid. Do you see the problem I might have with this?

---

you do realise that no-one is forcing you to talk about this, on this site, the Discussion and Debates section is a small place at the bottom of the forum. you could just write scar scripts if you wanted.

in real life, perhaps you could take a more secular attitude. In some countries like France and Britain, religion is a personal matter that you leave at the door when you go out, no-one needs to know which religion, if any, you follow.

it seems like in America they don't have this secular attitude, its all "I believe in God!, I believe in God!. And in case you didn't get that the first time, I believe in God!"

although I'm merely speculating here, i get the impression that you provoke people in real life about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

I have an answer for this.
i assume you're talking about something like What started the big bang

In the past, humans had less knowledge, they believed the Sun was the flaming chariot of Apollo,
they believed that thunderstorms were the wraith of Possidion.

when humans didn't understand something, they said that God did it.

now humans have more knowledge, we know the sun is merely a star that we orbit, and that thunderstorms are caused by complex whether stuff.


we have seen from history that as human knowledge advances, make all these gods obsolete.


Today, we don't understand so well how the universe started, you can ask "What started the big bang" and no-one can answer you.
But thats absolutely no reason to say that God did it, if we look at history, we can see that one day, we will have an answer that doesn't involve God.

Like one thing we've learned from history is to never vote for the Nazi party.

I cant believe some humans are still repeating the mistake from the past.






you do realise that no-one is forcing you to talk about this, on this site, the Discussion and Debates section is a small place at the bottom of the forum. you could just write scar scripts if you wanted.

in real life, perhaps you could take a more secular attitude. In some countries like France and Britain, religion is a personal matter that you leave at the door when you go out, no-one needs to know which religion, if any, you follow.

it seems like in America they don't have this secular attitude, its all "I believe in God!, I believe in God!. And in case you didn't get that the first time, I believe in God!"

although I'm merely speculating here, i get the impression that you provoke people in real life about it.

---

Actually, unless approached, I don't provoke anyone about it. I don't even know if anyone in real life knows I am a huge advocate of intellegent design. Of course history has shown this, but in those cases, there was no proof in my direction and lack of proof in yours. there was just we had no idea, so we guessed, not using any logic at all. I have listed all my points a thousand times but again.

DNA's complexity shows design, no doubt about it.
Irreducible complexity is a huge thing that evolutionists can't get over.
The Cambrian explosion is a huge scientific fact that scientists can't prove.
(its funny I had a good point but I keep loosing my thought while watching a TV show).

The thing is Yakman, that your supposed to base what you believe on facts. So far, when I ask the question "Tell me one thing that is relevant to the Evoltionary theory that is true". Every single one has ignored the question or said they don't know. Can you think of one? What then do you base your theory on? Why believe that? Figure it out for yourself, don't just listen to what your scientists say. Use reason, they do it everyday on detective shows and guess what happens in the end, the criminals confess. Therefore evidence does help you to come to the right conclusion.

Then after you try (or can) give me one thing right, please tell me whats wrong with everything I listed? Those are all relevant to my theory, are scietifically proven, and are rational? I have never gotten an answer to one. Will you claim ignorance or claim you know them? But see, you really can't know them, because you must be God to answer them, which brings me back to thats what makes Him higher than us.

My point being, the nature of science is not to make a theory and then believe it when there is no evidence. If that theory later on gets proved right, fine. I, myself, will believe it. I will believe there is no God, If that happens. But you see, I am not hypocritical, because holding to my belief, it will not happen. That is not how science works my friend. You do not believe in things that are contradicted by scientific fact. You hold to the theory that is best supported by scietific theory

:( i dont want to get sucked into this again, but since i think you're talking to me, i can justify it.

You have stated multiple times that for you to explain some of the things that you want to explain, that people would have to think from the standing point of a creationalist to understand it. So really they have just as much right as you to be talking about morals. The only problem with that, is that you also keep saying that you want the other people to keep it to science. So if you're trying to limit the other person's side of the argument, then you cannot continue to talk about that side. I think it would be quite stupid if you were to argue with someone about why clowns are funny, without being able to mention clowns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

when I ask the question "Tell me one thing that is relevant to the Evoltionary theory that is true". Every single one has ignored the question or said they don't know. Can you think of one?

---

I've got one, well, quite a few actually.
i posted it on this thread before, i have taken the liberty of copy/pasting it onto this post for you.

it uses fossils as evidence here.


***** copy/pasting starts here *****

ok i will, lets start with that creature which has feathers, and also has teeth,
its a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds,
modern day birds dont have teeth, they have beaks.

it has the name Archaeopteryx
about 10 complete body fossils of it have been discovered, and large numbers of parts of its body,

(you might be wondering, "how do they know that this tooth belonged to that bird", well the answer is that the scientists that study this know to look very carefully at all the detail, more often then not, a biologists can tell the species just by looking at a tooth, other things are easier, like feathers are very likely to have a pattern in species)

a picture of one is here

note: although you cant see it in the picture, that bird defiantly has teeth.
paleontologists don't look at pictures like we just did, they look at fossils with magnifying glasses, and they defiantly saw teeth

you cant possibly say all 30 or so fossils found are fake, not when they were found by many different people in many different places.
these clearly show a transition between flying dinosaurs and birds.

an artists impression is here
thats only an artists impression, fossils have no way of telling us what colour its wings were or anything, but we can make educated guesses.






now fossils are rare things, less then 1% of dead animals are preserved like this, we are lucky to have as many fossils as we do,
we dont have many complete fossil records of one specie turning into another, like we have archaeopteryx, but we dont have a fossil of the stage after, as far as i know

one complete fossil record we have is the horse, which is my second piece of evidence for today,
we have a complete record showing how to horse went from a small dog-like creature with 5 toes in each leg, to the modern day horse we see today,

a graphical illustration of these finding is found here

if you want to check all this fossils individually, i can offer you their separate wikipedia pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merychippus

sorry for the link spamming, i dont have much to say about these fossils except they are one of the complete fossil records we have,
if you're ever in London, you can have a look at them for yourself in London's Natural History Museum


and sorry to bring this argument away from God, but in my defense, it was Jason2gs who brought up evolution,

and to my atheist fellows, a good page to read up on transitional fossils is here

***** copy/pasting ends here *****

I'm sorry i didn't find it necessary to read all 17 [ish] pages of posts here so i may repeat what some of you have said.

Religion is the expression of the need of something[or where] bigger than yourself. It is scientifically proven that in circumstances of unknown, a belief in some type of higher being will manifest itself. I use the word "scientifically" here both honestly and sarcastically. I partially agree with a comment on the first page that science is also a *form* of religion. Before you huff and puff and start writing your massive counter-argument, hear me out: Religion is an explanation of the unknown using a higher being to explain 'how' or 'why.' Science is similar. It explains the unknown with experiments, facts, laws and theories. Both science and religion change and evolve, and the 'beliefs' in both grow inversely. We all know about the changes in both: Just a 300 years ago Protestants and most other Christians beleived in pre-destination; God has already chosen wether you will go to hell or join Him in heaven, and i don't even need to show the changes in science. Religion has also represented the moral values and sence of 'good' that most of us have regardless of religion [except that some of the religions have taken that to the next level saying that non-beleivers are morally wrong]

As far as wether God exists.... i don't know what to believe. I'd like to believe that i have somewhere better to go because it gives me a goal in life, however i'd also like to believe that my soul is recycled to another form here on earth to make another go and doing something good, but who's to say that's what happens? There's no proof that God or some other higher being{s} exist, no proof that they don't, hell, there's no proof for me that every single person who posts here isn't a computer program that is designed to confuse the crap out of me, and yet there's no proof that you are and nobody has the right to change what i think but me. What we [myself included] believe is created by things we see. If i saw something that i thought only God could have done, then i'd believe in Him. If i saw something that i thought showed that God could not exist, then i wouldn't believe in Him.
I will, however, defer to an adapted version of the beliefs of America's founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and all of those who were present at the convention in Philadelphia in 1776. Their beleif was that God made this universe with just one touch. He set in motion the physics and {now}scientific laws that resulted in us as a species. We probably weren't his ultimate goal, but, like my brother, it just kinda happened. One of the things that we gained as we evolved was Reason and subsequently Logic. We have the Reason and Logic to see and discover the laws that God gave His universe at its inception. They beleived that should His laws and physics allow us to survive, expand, and learn to a time when we were advanced enough to discover how He created His universe, and thus be able to repeat His experiment, only then would He stick His hand back in to our universe to do as he please, and most likely stop us from doing as He did. He probably has done this to organisms in other parts of the universe, they believed, showing they believed that they couldn't possibly be the only life in such a chasm. They believed until then, they should act morally and responsably, or 'good' as it may be, and always LEARN.
Who's to say they were right or wrong? certainly not me, nor you, nor anyone else. But their belief in these values has shaped not only this country but the entire world.

Arguments over 'does god exist' and or 'is science right' shows that: the starter of said argument either doesn't know what to believe and genuinely wants some discussion and help to decide, or it shows they believe one way or the other and just want to get people to join his or her belief. I am seeing this current starter as the second, as his/her posts on the first page basically tore apart every single other post that contained any believe at all. feel free to rip my beliefs as i probably won't be back to check it out.

People of faith are not supposed to use the physical proof of God as the reason why they believe.

When you see a statue cry blood in front of you, when you see a halo of light in the clouds over a church, when a rosary turns to gold in your grandmother's hands in the holy lands, when saints who have been dead for hundreds of years do not decay one bit and look as if they are sleeping, and when other miracles present themselves is how you have proof.

These miracles do not happen for those who don't believe, so they will continue to say they don't exist or can be explained.

Miracles are the best argument for his existence.

miracles are just things that we categorize as unexplainable at the current time.

Though i do agree with you saying that people of faith shouldnt use physical proof to "prove" God, since this reminds me of a good point made by a very good friend of mine, Douglas Adams

This first part is talking about the babel fish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as final and clinching proof of the nonexistance of God.

the argument goes something like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God

I refuse to prove that i exist for proof denies faith, and without faith i am nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by man

but the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you dont exist. QED.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God

Oh dear, I hadnt thought of that.

---

and God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by man

Oh, that was easy

---

then man goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

I'm sorry i didn't find it necessary to read all 17 [ish] pages of posts here so i may repeat what some of you have said.

Religion is the expression of the need of something[or where] bigger than yourself. It is scientifically proven that in circumstances of unknown, a belief in some type of higher being will manifest itself. I use the word "scientifically" here both honestly and sarcastically. I partially agree with a comment on the first page that science is also a *form* of religion. Before you huff and puff and start writing your massive counter-argument, hear me out: Religion is an explanation of the unknown using a higher being to explain 'how' or 'why.' Science is similar. It explains the unknown with experiments, facts, laws and theories. Both science and religion change and evolve, and the 'beliefs' in both grow inversely. We all know about the changes in both: Just a 300 years ago Protestants and most other Christians beleived in pre-destination; God has already chosen wether you will go to hell or join Him in heaven, and i don't even need to show the changes in science. Religion has also represented the moral values and sence of 'good' that most of us have regardless of religion [except that some of the religions have taken that to the next level saying that non-beleivers are morally wrong]

As far as wether God exists.... i don't know what to believe. I'd like to believe that i have somewhere better to go because it gives me a goal in life, however i'd also like to believe that my soul is recycled to another form here on earth to make another go and doing something good, but who's to say that's what happens? There's no proof that God or some other higher being{s} exist, no proof that they don't, hell, there's no proof for me that every single person who posts here isn't a computer program that is designed to confuse the crap out of me, and yet there's no proof that you are and nobody has the right to change what i think but me. What we [myself included] believe is created by things we see. If i saw something that i thought only God could have done, then i'd believe in Him. If i saw something that i thought showed that God could not exist, then i wouldn't believe in Him.
I will, however, defer to an adapted version of the beliefs of America's founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and all of those who were present at the convention in Philadelphia in 1776. Their beleif was that God made this universe with just one touch. He set in motion the physics and {now}scientific laws that resulted in us as a species. We probably weren't his ultimate goal, but, like my brother, it just kinda happened. One of the things that we gained as we evolved was Reason and subsequently Logic. We have the Reason and Logic to see and discover the laws that God gave His universe at its inception. They beleived that should His laws and physics allow us to survive, expand, and learn to a time when we were advanced enough to discover how He created His universe, and thus be able to repeat His experiment, only then would He stick His hand back in to our universe to do as he please, and most likely stop us from doing as He did. He probably has done this to organisms in other parts of the universe, they believed, showing they believed that they couldn't possibly be the only life in such a chasm. They believed until then, they should act morally and responsably, or 'good' as it may be, and always LEARN.
Who's to say they were right or wrong? certainly not me, nor you, nor anyone else. But their belief in these values has shaped not only this country but the entire world.

Arguments over 'does god exist' and or 'is science right' shows that: the starter of said argument either doesn't know what to believe and genuinely wants some discussion and help to decide, or it shows they believe one way or the other and just want to get people to join his or her belief. I am seeing this current starter as the second, as his/her posts on the first page basically tore apart every single other post that contained any believe at all. feel free to rip my beliefs as i probably won't be back to check it out.

---

Haha, that is a well thought-out argument, my friend. And it is very similar to what I believe.

Everyone is stating that "God doesn't exist. We used to think the Sun was a god. Now we know it is just a flaming ball of fusion," and similar things. But why can't we say that God made it that way? Things don't just happen. There is no way that we just happened to spawn from the same thing that tigers spawned from. If you look, science always tries to find the reason behind something occurring. So if we move by our brain sending jolts along our nervous system, how does our brain think? And once that is proven, why do our brains think?

It seems to me that the only reasonable source of origin is God ;)

And btw, I agree that God shouldn't get proved by physical means. It is by faith and how he works in you that makes you believe.

Miracles: Ever thought of bribes or hypnosis? They are not completely irrational.

These pointless threads about religion are starting to get to me...

IMO everyone should just accept the fact that no one really knows if God exists or not, and If people want to believe in him, let them. Who cares? Evidence or no evidence people will always believe there is a higher power. Let them. And if you want to believe in science? Go ahead!

In the words of T3H 0wNz0r Tupac- "That's just the way it is."

amen brother

Except the tupac part, i dont like him :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalanca

IMO everyone should just accept the fact that no one really knows if God exists or not, and If people want to believe in him, let them. Who cares? Evidence or no evidence people will always believe there is a higher power. Let them. And if you want to believe in science? Go ahead!

---

belief in god caused the troubles in Isreal, the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Croat/Serbo massacres, the 11th september attacks and 7th july in london.

you've got politians who believe in god doing nothing about global warming/climate change because they believe it will lead to judgement day.

there is the oppression of women, the spanish inquisition, the suicide bombers, the slaughter of millions. All commited in the name of God.

if you want to stop deaths in the world, getting rid of religion is probably the easiest way, much easier then a cure for cancer or finding food for millions of starving people.

imagine no religion, the world would be much better off.

no, a live-and-let-live attitude will not work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

belief in god caused the troubles in Isreal, the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Croat/Serbo massacres, the 11th september attacks and 7th july in london.

you've got politians who believe in god doing nothing about global warming/climate change because they believe it will lead to judgement day.

there is the oppression of women, the spanish inquisition, the suicide bombers, the slaughter of millions. All commited in the name of God.

if you want to stop deaths in the world, getting rid of religion is probably the easiest way, much easier then a cure for cancer or finding food for millions of starving people.

imagine no religion, the world would be much better off.

no, a live-and-let-live attitude will not work.

---

If you want to reap the benefits of the afterlife, you have to live in physical torment.

And Einstein's energy formula resulted in the atomic bomb...which resulted in many people dying in Hiroshima. Are we better off without science?

Belief in God did not cause any of those events you described, yakman, save the opression[sp?] of women, which i cant make any type of excuse for. Men are arrogant [including myself i must say] and think they are the strongest and most powerful beings and used the adam and eve story [and similar ones] against women. Crimes against women such as the acid burnings in some muslim countries is caused by hatred, anger and intolerance by the men who think they are all-powerful. that is not religion-based. there are muslims in this country who do not try to put down women, burn them, or rape them simply because they can. the women converting and the female children are told what is expected of them [no more than that of amish women] and they can choose to leave. it is that simple and definately not opressive.
the other events you described are not so simply described as caused by religion. they are caused by hatred and intolerance of other religions: christians agains jews, muslims against everybody, india and others against buddhists, shinto and other japanese religions against chinese folk beliefs, its all caused by intolerance that has escelated. evangelical groups are a perfect example of what should be happening. my friend's church is one of such and beleives that they should spread the word of jesus and that only believing in him will get one in to heaven. they tell people this, and tell them that only they can choose to join or not to and nobody is going to force them. how is that wrong?
on to your final statements:

Quote:

---

if you want to stop deaths in the world, getting rid of religion is probably the easiest way, much easier then a cure for cancer or finding food for millions of starving people.

imagine no religion, the world would be much better off.

no, a live-and-let-live attitude will not work.

---

That, sir, is a statement of intolerance, no better than the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center, nor the Spanish Inquisition nor the Crusades [which, by the way, i was concerned how it didn't get mentioned] nor the burning by acid of women. You are telling me that the ONLY reason for death in this world is my religion. The ONLY way to stop death is to stop religion. The ONLY good place is a place where helping one's self is the highest priority. The ONLY good place is a place where morals don't exist due to the previous. That is a statement of intolerance of ALL religions, not the people who use it as a weapon. Think about that for a little while before you come up with your next pitifully hypocritical post... There are many religions and ways of beliefs that don't have people who kill in their name. Why must they go as well? just because you think it'd be better? i think it'd be better if it was me and my girlfriend in a grassfield with nobody and nothing else. do i think it'll help? no, and therefore it's not right.

and yes, a live and let live attitude will work but only in a region of tolerance by all religions. let me use this analogy: Whirlpool and GE both make washing machines. One may be more energy efficient, one may wash more clothes. Both are for sale, and you believe you are ready to purchase one. These two companies advertise to you and talk to you and try to convince you how one of their products are better for you than the other. Yet they still coexist, they both gain customers and lose customers but they don't fight. they don't go around killing eachother's CEOs or presidents. they live and let live...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

belief in god caused the troubles in Isreal, the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Croat/Serbo massacres, the 11th september attacks and 7th july in london.

you've got politians who believe in god doing nothing about global warming/climate change because they believe it will lead to judgement day.

there is the oppression of women, the spanish inquisition, the suicide bombers, the slaughter of millions. All commited in the name of God.

if you want to stop deaths in the world, getting rid of religion is probably the easiest way, much easier then a cure for cancer or finding food for millions of starving people.

imagine no religion, the world would be much better off.

no, a live-and-let-live attitude will not work.

---

Thats true, I guess some people need to justify their acts of violence by saying it was in Gods name.

Hoever there are also people that refrain from crime and acts of violence in the name of God, thinking that they won't go to hell because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

Belief in God did not cause any of those events you described, yakman, save the opression[sp?] of women,

---

i disagree,

why else do countless palestinians blow themselves up in a marketplace?
for glory? for 72 virgins?

why else did 4 men leave their children, their wives (one of whom was pregnant) and their friends to be forced into hiding, and their entire community, which now faces a backlash.
(im talking about 7/7 in london)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

the other events you described are not so simply described as caused by religion. they are caused by hatred and intolerance of other religions: christians agains jews, muslims against everybody, india and others against buddhists, shinto and other japanese religions against chinese folk beliefs, its all caused by intolerance that has escelated. evangelical groups are a perfect example of what should be happening. my friend's church is one of such and beleives that they should spread the word of jesus and that only believing in him will get one in to heaven. they tell people this, and tell them that only they can choose to join or not to and nobody is going to force them. how is that wrong?
on to your final statements:

---

exactly, so the best way to remove intolerance and hatred of other religions is to remove religions altogether.


like in the croat/serbo/bosnian conflicts, there are three peoples who are exactly the same, except one is catholic, one is muslim, one is orthodox.
Religion here acts as a way to separating people and making them hate each other.

"you guys have christmas on the 25th of december, we have it on the 7th of january, therefore im going to kill you now"

make sense?

as iv said before these people are exactly the same, they have the same skin colour, same language, same everything except for their religion.


a very similar story in northern ireland, two peoples exactly the same except one is catholic and the other protestant.


if there was no religion here, the peoples would have long ago intermarried and they would stop being three or two peoples, and become one people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

That, sir, is a statement of intolerance, no better than the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center, nor the Spanish Inquisition nor the Crusades [which, by the way, i was concerned how it didn't get mentioned] nor the burning by acid of women. You are telling me that the ONLY reason for death in this world is my religion. The ONLY way to stop death is to stop religion. The ONLY good place is a place where helping one's self is the highest priority. The ONLY good place is a place where morals don't exist due to the previous. That is a statement of intolerance of ALL religions, not the people who use it as a weapon. Think about that for a little while before you come up with your next pitifully hypocritical post... There are many religions and ways of beliefs that don't have people who kill in their name. Why must they go as well? just because you think it'd be better? i think it'd be better if it was me and my girlfriend in a grassfield with nobody and nothing else. do i think it'll help? no, and therefore it's not right.

---

this is an epic strawman argument.

although its party my fault for not saying "if you want to stop some deaths in the world..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

---

the idea that you can stop all deaths is clearly... not right.
i don't know though, maybe you have the religious idea that you'll survive your own death, life after death or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

The ONLY good place is a place where helping one's self is the highest priority. The ONLY good place is a place where morals don't exist due to the previous.

---

i refute this,
religion does not cause or create morals, morals are already there.
here is why.

when you read a holy book, for example the bible, there are many good passages, and also many bad passages (saturday workers get stoned to death, homosexuality is a crime, women are less the men)

there is nothing which says which parts are good and which are bad. humans have to make up their own minds.
in the vast majority of cases, people pick the ones which are moral, people already have morals, and use them to ignore the bad parts of holy books.

therefore morals do not come from religion, humans already have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBomber2

and yes, a live and let live attitude will work but only in a region of tolerance by all religions. let me use this analogy: Whirlpool and GE both make washing machines. One may be more energy efficient, one may wash more clothes. Both are for sale, and you believe you are ready to purchase one. These two companies advertise to you and talk to you and try to convince you how one of their products are better for you than the other. Yet they still coexist, they both gain customers and lose customers but they don't fight. they don't go around killing eachother's CEOs or presidents. they live and let live...

---

i disagree with this analogy, if they fought each other, they would be prosecuted by the laws of that country. Their best strategy in life would be to not fight.

also, you do realise that in any hard times, prejudges and intolerance will arise,
in unemployment or war, there will always be someone saying "its the jews fault"

lol i'm sorry but i did laugh at the last part. finally you have made a good point, too, and are mostly right. as i am at school, i can not post further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat

If you can relate God to that, then you don't need to question whether God exists or not, because there's simply no way of proving or disproving it.

Schrodingers_cat is talking about its impossible to know a subatomic particles position and velocity at the same time. In fact, it doesn't even have a position or velocity until someone measures it.

it means you have know 100% the position, but then you'd know 0% of the velocity, and vis versa.
you could know 50% of each if you wanted.

this has been proved, and is the generally accepted idea, it is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle


for this to work with God, you'd have to prove that it is impossible to prove or disprove whether God exists or not.
this proof hasn't been made yet

The fighting over power in the new "Democracy" of Iraq is a good example of how religion hurts people too. The Sunnis and the Shiites are both killing each other in order to try to scare them out of supporting their own subreligion. They're both Muslim, it's the little differences that still make them want to kill eachother. Catholics vs. Lutherans all over again.

People People, why argue if you beleave in him , You do not need proof its called faith , if you dont get over it and respect there beleaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NiCbaZ

People People, why argue if you beleave in him , You do not need proof its called faith , if you dont get over it and respect there beleaves.

---

you can use faith to justify absolutely anything,
i have faith that i am Napoleon, i have faith that i am Jesus, i have faith that there are voices in my head telling me to kill you.

normally these kinds of people get treatment.

in this day and age, people decide things in reasonable, logical ways.
what would happen if you went to a magistrate and said "I have faith that this person killed my wife, but theres no evidence"


as for respect,
why is it that religion alone gets this special status where you're not even allowed to talk about it?

if you want to debate about someones political beliefs, you're allowed to and neither side feels disrespected. political beliefs are always up to scrutiny.

but if you want to debate about someones religious beliefs, its considered a complete taboo and you're told to shut up and be respectful
absolutely not!

religious beliefs are no different from any kind of beliefs.

Why aren't we allowed to talk about it?

And yakman, you are completely off on what faith is. Faith is simply believing in something with all your being when there is no obvious proof. If someone has faith that they are Hitler, let them be (of course, unless they decide to kill off the jews again 0_O)

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. There are completely no signs that it will, but because it is so apparent in my life, I believe it will.

Don't tell me because it happens every day that it guarantees the sun will come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

you can use faith to justify absolutely anything,
i have faith that i am Napoleon, i have faith that i am Jesus, i have faith that there are voices in my head telling me to kill you.

normally these kinds of people get treatment.

in this day and age, people decide things in reasonable, logical ways.
what would happen if you went to a magistrate and said "I have faith that this person killed my wife, but theres no evidence"


as for respect,
why is it that religion alone gets this special status where you're not even allowed to talk about it?

if you want to debate about someones political beliefs, you're allowed to and neither side feels disrespected. political beliefs are always up to scrutiny.

but if you want to debate about someones religious beliefs, its considered a complete taboo and you're told to shut up and be respectful
absolutely not!

religious beliefs are no different from any kind of beliefs.

---

You remind me of Richard Dawkins :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infintry001

Why aren't we allowed to talk about it?

And yakman, you are completely off on what faith is. Faith is simply believing in something with all your being when there is no obvious proof. If someone has faith that they are Hitler, let them be (of course, unless they decide to kill off the jews again 0_O)

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. There are completely no signs that it will, but because it is so apparent in my life, I believe it will.

Don't tell me because it happens every day that it guarantees the sun will come up.

---

Bad example. There's overwhelming proof that the sun will "rise" everyday. It doesn't need faith.


Anyways.. I thought this needed a bump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

Schrodingers_cat is talking about its impossible to know a subatomic particles position and velocity at the same time. In fact, it doesn't even have a position or velocity until someone measures it.

it means you have know 100% the position, but then you'd know 0% of the velocity, and vis versa.
you could know 50% of each if you wanted.

this has been proved, and is the generally accepted idea, it is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle


for this to work with God, you'd have to prove that it is impossible to prove or disprove whether God exists or not.
this proof hasn't been made yet

---

Did you just summarise Schrodinger's Cat for us...?

i kind of skipped the part about the cat and talked about the physics behind it.

(I actually had something else typed up but it got deleted. Here's something similar, I hope)

It is more than possible that divine figures were simply created to provide a constructive outlet, as well as enforce the laws necessary for the continuation of the ruling family/group. Many of the laws, for example, found in the Bible, have real reasons behind them. The "real reasons" might be a bit remote now, seeing how far we are displaced from them in time, but the laws themselves are still somewhat pertinent in a non-religious sense. This would make it seem that laws arise from reason instead of divinity, that everything has a purpose or a cause and is not just "there".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bullzeye95

You remind me of Richard Dawkins :p

Bad example. There's overwhelming proof that the sun will "rise" everyday. It doesn't need faith.


Anyways.. I thought this needed a bump.

---

Well do you have a brain? You ever seen it? Touched it? Smelt it? Heard it?
Then how the hell do you know you have a brain?

Have you ever seen an electron? Touched it (don't give me crap like OH EVERYTHING I TOUCH HAZ ELECTIONZ)? Smelt it? Heard it?

The list goes on.

Note: My keyword is you, not science textbooks.

And that, is what we call faith.

I'm too lazy and have no time to read the entire thread, so yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramage

Well do you have a brain? You ever seen it? Touched it? Smelt it? Heard it?
Then how the hell do you know you have a brain?

Have you ever seen an electron? Touched it (don't give me crap like OH EVERYTHING I TOUCH HAZ ELECTIONZ)? Smelt it? Heard it?

The list goes on.

Note: My keyword is you, not science textbooks.

And that, is what we call faith.

I'm too lazy and have no time to read the entire thread, so yeah.

---

You gave things that have been absolutely proven.
1. Of course I have a brain. I could see it in an MRI if I wanted to. No, I have never touched it. If I did, I would be dead or a very screwed up person right now. And does a brain have a smell or noises? =/
2. AFAIK electrons are too small to be "seen," since photons aren't small enough to pick them up. If you don't want me to say that everything I touch has electrons, then why ask if I have touched one? They don't have a smell or sound, I don't think.. But we use electricity everyday for countless things, so obviously there are electrons.
I don't need faith for either of those things. I undoubtedly have a brain, and there are undoubtedly electrons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bullzeye95

You gave things that have been absolutely proven.
1. Of course I have a brain. I could see it in an MRI if I wanted to. No, I have never touched it. If I did, I would be dead or a very screwed up person right now. And does a brain have a smell or noises? =/
2. AFAIK electrons are too small to be "seen," since photons aren't small enough to pick them up. If you don't want me to say that everything I touch has electrons, then why ask if I have touched one? They don't have a smell or sound, I don't think.. But we use electricity everyday for countless things, so obviously there are electrons.
I don't need faith for either of those things. I undoubtedly have a brain, and there are undoubtedly electrons.

---

I realize my argument was flawed as soon as I posted it, but then I saw what you said..

An MRI scan does not say that a brain is there, for all you know, it could be a piece of cabbage. Yeah so you've never touched, smelt, heard it; but then people start bitching about "IF GOD EXIZT, HOW COME I CANT SEE, HEAR, SMELL... HIM?"

Where should I start about your electron statement..

You admit you can't see electrons, then how the hell do you know it exists? (According to the logic of many people who say why they should believe something if they can't see it)

Electricity is not just electrons, it's also about the voltage which is induced by a magnetic field and an electric one

Electrons emit radio waves which convert to sound ;)

If I show an electron through your eye, nothing would happen. You can't "touch" an electron because it goes right through you since it's so small.

Undoubtedly? Think again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramage

I realize my argument was flawed as soon as I posted it, but then I saw what you said..

An MRI scan does not say that a brain is there, for all you know, it could be a piece of cabbage. Yeah so you've never touched, smelt, heard it; but then people start bitching about "IF GOD EXIZT, HOW COME I CANT SEE, HEAR, SMELL... HIM?"

Where should I start about your electron statement..

You admit you can't see electrons, then how the hell do you know it exists? (According to the logic of many people who say why they should believe something if they can't see it)

Electricity is not just electrons, it's also about the voltage which is induced by a magnetic field and an electric one

Electrons emit radio waves which convert to sound ;)

If I show an electron through your eye, nothing would happen. You can't "touch" an electron because it goes right through you since it's so small.

Undoubtedly? Think again.

---

The magnetic field in electricity is from the electrons, which have a negative charge.

The thing with this is though, electrons are something that can be discovered verified by people who have never talked to each other and have different understandings of the universe. Even among Christians it's hard to find two people who have identical views of what God and Jesus are.

Also, electrons don't discriminate ;)

I dont agree with the stereotypes that have been made about people who have faith in a higher being. Yes, religion has caused much death and destruction in the world... but that is all that you are looking at.

The majority of people who have a religion do not wish to kill people of other religions. They do not start holy wars, or suicide bomb buildings. The religious fanatics who do these things create a negative image for the rest of the world to see.

I'd also like to point out that the human race will always have something to be intolerant about. There will always be a reason to create war. There will always be a reason to cause death, destruction, and sorrow. Why? Because some people in this world are just bad people. People like that find things to cling to in order to justify what they do. If religion would cease to exist, the death would still just be there, but would be attributed to something else.

Basically the entire episode about Atheism on South Park sums up my view point. Very very funny :) "Science damn you!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Widget

The magnetic field in electricity is from the electrons, which have a negative charge.

The thing with this is though, electrons are something that can be discovered verified by people who have never talked to each other and have different understandings of the universe. Even among Christians it's hard to find two people who have identical views of what God and Jesus are.

Also, electrons don't discriminate ;)

---

Yeah well the Bible was written by many people who also never talked to each other but witnessed the miracles an the stories ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramage

Yeah well the Bible was written by many people who also never talked to each other but witnessed the miracles an the stories ;)

---

They read each others stories, did they not? Unless they somehow managed to find a bunch of books from various thousands of years apart and make a chronological collection out of it :p