Poll: When did you start to question the existence of a God?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 72

Thread: When did you start to question the existence of God?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    S
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I never really believed in a God. My parents were atheist/mild agnostics and never forced a belief upon me, even though I went to a Church-of-England primary school (which is effectively just a primary school with a Protestant principal). Even at 6, the big bang theory seemed more logical to me. Eventually we all gave up praying in assemblies and would change the lyrics in hymns.

    "Cucumber, my lord. Cucumber..."

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire, U.S.A
    Posts
    586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm kind of in trecools position, except my parents don't force it on me. im not surer what to believe, but if there somehow is a god, then im fucked if i didn't believe, so it doesn't hurt, as long as you don't spend your life praying 24/76.
    Sell botted goods at mid to high prices!!! Else we lose our profit AND ruin the game!!!!

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    S
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by g0tp0t View Post
    I'm kind of in trecools position, except my parents don't force it on me. im not surer what to believe, but if there somehow is a god, then im fucked if i didn't believe, so it doesn't hurt, as long as you don't spend your life praying 24/76.
    The "you're better off believing just in case" is a pretty weak position to be in, considering there are about 10 different religions I can take off the top of my head that all claim they have the answer to getting into Heaven, Paradise, or even to reach Moksha.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mastaraymond View Post
    Born as an atheist. Really, my parents never believed in god's existence and it wasn't taught me at school either.
    ^ this.
    lol

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trecool999 View Post
    The "you're better off believing just in case" is a pretty weak position to be in, considering there are about 10 different religions I can take off the top of my head that all claim they have the answer to getting into Heaven, Paradise, or even to reach Moksha.
    Don't want to go off topic, but isn't that one of the primary arguments for faith in global warming?

    "If it's true and we do nothing, we're screwed. If it's false and we do something we're better off anyway..."

    Heck, you could change the original question to "When did you start to question global warming" and end up with people giving the same sorts of answers either way.

    More religion than science, as far as I'm concerned.
    Last edited by tarajunky; 04-09-2010 at 09:45 PM.


  6. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Inside the Matrix...yes it has me, and it has you too.
    Posts
    1,896
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    Don't want to go off topic, but isn't that one of the primary arguments for faith in global warming?

    "If it's true and we do nothing, we're screwed. If it's false and we do something we're better off anyway..."
    There's a difference.
    Global warming is a fact.
    Faith is a guess, everyone can agree with that i think.
    NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    S
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    Don't want to go off topic, but isn't that one of the primary arguments for faith in global warming?

    "If it's true and we do nothing, we're screwed. If it's false and we do something we're better off anyway..."

    Heck, you could change the original question to "When did you start to question global warming" and end up with people giving the same sorts of answers either way.

    More religion than science, as far as I'm concerned.
    Lets put this in computing terms...
    Global warming is a boolean: true or false. Is it happening, or is it not? (Though we know it is so we have that part anyway)
    Belief in God is an Integer of hundreds of values: If I believe in Hinduism, I may be wrong. I will then turn to Christianity, but what if that's wrong too? Maybe Islam is right? No, I think Zeus is the real God, so I'll believe in that.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Is there also truth in homoeopathy? Are you ignorant for saying there is no truth in the idea of 'medicine' which contains NO molecules of the active ingredient.
    What about creationism? Am I ignorant for thinking that it's nothing more a simplistic skyhookery hand-waving explanation invented by bronze age goat farmers with no place in the 21st century?
    Astrology? Am I ignorant when I find its 'predictions' vague, simplistic and outright wrong? Am I blind when I point out that twins born on the same date do not have the same future?


    Philosophy helps us in many ways. Moral philosophy for example has great applications for lawmakers. Political philosophy is the basis of our governments. There are countless other ways where philosophy has demonstrated its truth and beauty.
    Science is actually a branch of philosophy, the first scientists were called 'natural philosophers'. Computers, medicine, moon landings and prediction of solar eclipses to millisecond accuracy all testify to the truth of science.

    It is up to any discipline to demonstrate its own claim to the truth. Astrology, creationism and homoeopathy have failed in this sense.

    What has religion done to convince us that it has some claim to the truth? The material claims of religion have been mostly falsified, there is no reason to think religious revelation brings truth in this way.
    On the moral questions? Well I'm reminded of a debate about catholicism I saw recently. On being asked why slavery wasn't condemned by the church until secular forces abolished it, the priest said that everyone else was doing slavery and the catholics didn't know it was wrong yet. "Well what are you FOR then?" said the questioner, if the religion can't act as the moral exemplar in a morally lacking world, if it can't do the right thing when everyone else keeps slaves, how can it claim to be the path to moral enlightenment?
    Did the catholic church act morally when it covered up child abuse by its priests? When it put its public image above the welfare of children entrusted in its care?

    Moses supposedly climbed Mount Sinai and had words with God, he brought back great moral insights, amazing ideas which nobody had ever thought of before. Things like "Do not steal" and "Do not kill".
    One wonders how the Jews managed to survive generations of slavery and 40 years wandering in the desert without realising that killing each other was wrong...


    Is there anything at all which demonstrates that religion is anything more then a social organisation that comforts us from our fear of the dying and at times tries to gain power in this world.

    Religion demands faith because it has nothing else to rest on.



    Aside:
    "you're better off believing just in case" is better know as Pascal's Wager. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't rely on something as weak as that, but real science published in peer-reviewed journals. Sorry if it's uncomfortable but I'm afraid it happens to be true and I don't like it any more then you do.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trecool999 View Post
    Well that's some pretty circular logic.

    The laws of physics are not set in stone. We cannot say the laws of physics are 100% accurate, because we know they're not. Why does time slow down when we get closer to the speed of light? What makes light so special? What even is time?

    Watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
    correct me if im wrong, but once something is concidered a "law" of science, it is 99.999% correct.

    and those questions dont have much relationship to what i was saying
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Awkward, it's like Einstein's theory of relativity. It's scientifically accepted, but it's not deemed a fact, as there are chances in some sort of odd circumstances that it would be false.

    Same goes for the theory of evolution. The actual general theory contains many "laws" about it, but it's still the theory of evolution, not the law.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    those are all theorys, not laws. which has nothing to do with what im trying to say lol
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Again, there are laws inside the theory.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    but the theory itself about relativity or evolution is irrelavent, im am talking about the law of physics specificly, by isaac newton i beileve (lol)
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    And those laws have been false in some cases. There was some star or something that was bigger than the laws of physics said it could be.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    post link pl0x
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Bleh. I'm high. Rather not. Sorry.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    ok, this debate can wait
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If a preacher gets up and predicts that there will be tornadoes and droughts and hurricanes because it is the end of times or to fulfill Biblical prophesy, he is mercilessly mocked by the same people that run and cower when Al Gore predicts the same thing...

    Truly bizarre.

    Since this thread has obvious left the tracks, I suppose I'll answer my own question. When did I start to question Anthopogenic Global Warming? I guess it was when I stumbled across a peer review scientific paper that apparently contradicted everything that the theory was founded on.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

    According to the AGW theory, we're in a unique and unprecedented warming event that is directly caused by human activity. That paper shows that even in the last 1000 years the warming is not unprecedented, or extreme.

    If AGW is purely a scientific theory, and truly can be refuted, that study refutes it. Since it has somehow survived that paper, it's very clear to me that it has long since passed into the realm of religion, where empirical refutation is not possible.


  19. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    S
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Even if AGW is fact (which it isn't), isn't it better to start preparing for it now anyway? It's a little late to start saying, "Oh shit, I think we messed up. Better start trying...". It's not like reducing the number of cars on the road is going to stop it. Only slow it down, which isn't much help.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,163
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    19 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tarajunky View Post
    If a preacher gets up and predicts that there will be tornadoes and droughts and hurricanes because it is the end of times or to fulfill Biblical prophesy, he is mercilessly mocked by the same people that run and cower when Al Gore predicts the same thing...

    Truly bizarre.

    Since this thread has obvious left the tracks, I suppose I'll answer my own question. When did I start to question Anthopogenic Global Warming? I guess it was when I stumbled across a peer review scientific paper that apparently contradicted everything that the theory was founded on.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

    According to the AGW theory, we're in a unique and unprecedented warming event that is directly caused by human activity. That paper shows that even in the last 1000 years the warming is not unprecedented, or extreme.

    If AGW is purely a scientific theory, and truly can be refuted, that study refutes it. Since it has somehow survived that paper, it's very clear to me that it has long since passed into the realm of religion, where empirical refutation is not possible.
    When you find evidence that goes agaisnt a scientific theory accepted by millions you accept it even though most scientists agree with it. When youre shown evidence that goes agaisnt the idea of religious experiences also accepted by millions (says they exist but arent "religious" but a product of unlocking the full potential of our own mind) you refuse wholeheartedly to believe a word of it. Why is that? That's not faith, its arrogance and ego - in the same way people believe in global warming without doing research or even considering the other side.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://deoxy.org/8_larvals.htm
    Larvals do not like to receive information unless the facts fit into their 3rd Circuit reality net and immediately reward their emotional status. Democrats were delighted to hear the facts about Nixon, but Republicans were irritated and resistant.
    In other words, most people will just believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence and facts because it makes them feel good, which is priority no. 1 to them - not finding the truth.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    tarajunky, you speak of AGW becoming like a religion. This means you clearly understand and accept what me and many others have been telling you in threads like these, that religion isn't a proper way of finding truth.

    I don't understand how you can criticise AGW for being like a religion when you hold religious beliefs yourself. You've shown that you understand that a religious attitude is wrong.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't have a problem with science or religion. I do have a problem with religion masquerading as science, especially when tens of trillions of dollars are at stake.


  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    13,692
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)

    Default

    Upon seeing this picture:



    The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
    I also get email notifications of private messages, though.

    Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
    Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )


    My (Blog | Website)

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    villavu.com
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizzup? View Post
    Upon seeing this picture: ...
    Clearly Jesus is saving the clansmen in this picture.
    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Wizzup, those KKK men are not real Christians.
    Doesn't matter that they furiously study the bible, doesn't matter that they believe in Jesus, doesn't matter that they have never missed church, pray every night before they go to sleep and bring up their children in the faith.
    They still arn't real Christians(tm).

    You are badmouthing those people but they do a lot of good too. They are always helping their church and their community, they give a lot of their money to charity and they have upmost respect for the morals given to us on Mount Sinai. Do you do any of that stuff? thought not dirty atheist...


    (seriously now)
    @tarajunky
    science is in the business of finding the truth about the universe. Religion does this as well and it also deals with moral truth and provides a social club for a community.
    If two methods for finding the physical truth get different results, at most one can be correct. Now some varieties of religion hold that a man walked on water, turned water into wine, made a dead person rise again, was crucified but then rose him after 3 days. Other variates hold that the moon was split in half then made whole again. The catholic variety for instance, holds that sperm can pass through the latex that condoms are made from.

    I don't know why you can't see that religion makes factual physical claims about the universe as well which are not backed up by empirical or logical investigations. If you discard AGW on the basis that it's a religion, you have to discard your Christianity too. You can't have it both ways.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •