• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Unless you're an agnostic (or deist... or otherwise have some nuanced non-determinist view of god) I feel atheists will always have as great a disagreement with you - whether you take the bible literally or not. If there is this supreme being out there, who is a conscious determinate actor on human life... I'd be willing to accept it's possible the bible is somehow divinely inspired by such a being. An influential god just throws the whole debate out the window, whether you're a 'moderate' christian or a fundamentalist, if you believe in anything that I'd call God you've still got an equal problem with me.

The only reason in reality I prefer less fundamentalist believers is because they're less likely to negatively affect me/annoy me... It's got nothing really to do with their reasoning per-say.
 
Last edited:

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Malfoy said:
phatchance: Why are you calling people "capitalist neocons"? What does that have to do with anything?

Slidey: I think the reason some think you guys are militant atheists is that you guys tend to attack all religious people. Sometimes it feels like just by virtue of believing in God, reasonable people (who just "happen" to believe in God) are treated in the same manner as fundamentalists/biblical literalists. It's a little too dogmatic in this thread sometimes, in my opinion, but I do appreciate that everyone has their own belief systems and structures (and to be honest I find a lot of the philosophical arguments fascinating.)
Personally, militant scientist is more appropriate. I'm fairly indifferent to people as long as they give science credit where credit is due. As such I have little beef with mainstream Catholics, for instance.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Malfoy said:
I think the reason some think you guys are militant atheists is that you guys tend to attack all religious people. Sometimes it feels like just by virtue of believing in God, reasonable people (who just "happen" to believe in God) are treated in the same manner as fundamentalists/biblical literalists. It's a little too dogmatic in this thread sometimes, in my opinion, but I do appreciate that everyone has their own belief systems and structures (and to be honest I find a lot of the philosophical arguments fascinating.)
I'm sure it doesn't come out in this thread, but I do know a small number of theists whose belief systems I respect. They are people who I have had debates with and have shown that they can defend their beliefs at a fundamental level. It's unreflective theism that I dislike and which I feel needs to be challenged, in particular when a belief system is littered with contradiction.
 

phatchance

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
88
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Maybe if you capitalist neocons weren't so busy burning books in the name of science the bourgeoise wouldn't need to revolt.

Sure, if you want to pretend, Schroedinger, that you're standing on some lofty moral peak, and that the objectives of many of those people partaking in this discussion aren't the religious persecution of others then go for it. However, by choosing to criticise and attack others belief systems, and by attempting to analyse a faith based (non-scientific) system, through a scientific (non-religious) framework all you are doing is creating tension and argument and getting nowhere.

Is it possible your own insecurity and lack of immortal surety makes you strike out at others who are confident and happy in the resolution of their lives? Is it some sick and deluded tall poppy syndrome that makes it ok to persecute others for their belief systems? Does fear of the unknown or the uncertain, force you to attempt to conquer it, knowing that your arguments in this thread will never make a difference?

Yes my personal philosophic standpoint on life is a bit of a mishmash of ideologies and there are a hundred million valid scientific arguments that could counter each point, but it's the system of moral belief I've arrived at, having given just as much thought to these things as you ever have, albeit, probably with a more open minded approach. Often when you believe everything scientific you are told, you end up harbouring just as many misconceptions as those people with religious beliefs, I know a lot of the science I learnt and accepted as a child turned out to be a flawed, incomplete view of the whole. I'm sure there will be massive shifts in scientific thinking in the next hundred years that lay waste to a lot of what you accept as fact at this point, there are so many arguments and counter arguments about what the universe might be, or where we come from, that your system of belief is no more resolute than the bible.

My main point is that you capitalist neocons are burning books and you deserve to go to hell for it, you neocon bastards.

- The bourgeoise
 

phatchance

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
88
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Just as a side note for you other capitalist neocons, what is gained by attempting to destroy religion in liberalised Western society? You can claim that religion is used as a tool to provide justification for war, but with or without religion these wars would remain, it's the human condition that creates war, not religion itself. In a general sense religion is a text promoting non-violence, acceptance of others, justice and family values, it's only the perversion of misinterpretation that has made it a tool of negative energy, why do you want people to believe there is not a super moral judgement system beyond the grave encouraging them to do well by others?

Why don't you make a 500 page thread criticising racism or class division? What is it about the idea of religion that polarises otherwise liberal and accepting people into becoming book burning capitalist neocons hell bent on the destruction and gas chambering of innocent people?
 

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
phatchance said:
Is it possible your own insecurity and lack of immortal surety makes you strike out at others who are confident and happy in the resolution of their lives? Is it some sick and deluded tall poppy syndrome that makes it ok to persecute others for their belief systems? Does fear of the unknown or the uncertain, force you to attempt to conquer it, knowing that your arguments in this thread will never make a difference?
Nah
 

phatchance

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
88
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Schroedinger said:
I am a neocon, capitalist bastard with no counter arguments to your extremely valid points Phatchance, I apologise for harbouring prejudice and bias. Let's go find some puppies to kick.
Agreed.
 

phatchance

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
88
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I addressed your criticisms of my understanding of quantum observance, I didn't say consciousness was necessary for observance, I said something was necessary for observance, and that this necessitated the existence of a God. God being the creator and initial observer of our universe. I never pretended to rationalise God as a thinking, moving, perceivable being. I simply raised the point that the necessitation for an initial observation made a very good case for the concept of God, that arguing against a God is counter-intuitive to our knowledge of observance and probability wave collapse.

To be honest I have a better than average grasp on a lot of different philosophical schools of thought, I never claimed to be a genius, I just expressed my personal interpretation of the universe, one of uncertainty. How can you on one hand accuse me of reflecting nihilistic values or a political economic school of thought, then on the other glove claim I have no understanding of philosophy?

Stop being a capitalist neocon you bourgeoisie son of a bitch.
 

phatchance

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
88
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Also how about you stop the personal attacks you communist scum, why can't you target my arguments, why do you have to keep attacking my person? You're such a loser for doing that.
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
phatchance said:
I addressed your criticisms of my understanding of quantum observance, I didn't say consciousness was necessary for observance, I said something was necessary for observance, and that this necessitated the existence of a God. God being the creator and initial observer of our universe. I never pretended to rationalise God as a thinking, moving, perceivable being. I simply raised the point that the necessitation for an initial observation made a very good case for the concept of God, that arguing against a God is counter-intuitive to our knowledge of observance and probability wave collapse.

To be honest I have a better than average grasp on a lot of different philosophical schools of thought, I never claimed to be a genius, I just expressed my personal interpretation of the universe, one of uncertainty. How can you on one hand accuse me of reflecting nihilistic values or a political economic school of thought, then on the other glove claim I have no understanding of philosophy?

Stop being a capitalist neocon you bourgeoisie son of a bitch.
You need to brush up on your Marxist school of thought then, I have no idea where you're getting this communism rubbish from....
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
You can't argue against our beliefs so instead you're going to lash out at us on some other level... It's pretty lame phatchance.

Maybe if you capitalist neocons weren't so busy burning books in the name of science the bourgeoise wouldn't need to revolt.
Capitalist neocon? If anything I'm an ordoliberal economically and a liberal socially...

and that the objectives of many of those people partaking in this discussion aren't the religious persecution of others then go for it.
I don't wish the persecution of anyone and neither do MOST people in this thread , you're talking out of your hide here... There are a couple of more extreme atheists and a couple of the more extreme theists, remember though the atheists extremism isn't a part of their 'religion', it's more a part of their personal political views.

However, by choosing to criticise and attack others belief systems, and by attempting to analyse a faith based (non-scientific) system, through a scientific (non-religious) framework all you are doing is creating tension and argument and getting nowhere.
Why do you always critique our critiques with a critique then insist that all such actions are 'pointless'. I honestly don't believe that free and open exchange of ideas with people who disagree with you is ever a pointless undertaking, it does seem (at least to me) to lead to a modification of premises even if you stick with the same logical conclusions, which is great... I'm very happy that people in this thread have improved their basic theological arguments over time.

Is it possible your own insecurity and lack of immortal surety makes you strike out at others who are confident and happy in the resolution of their lives?
Yeah that's possible, but I imagine our reasons for wishing to discuss such topics (idk what you mean by strike out... we're just talking) with people is similar to why theists do, it's a search for the truth.

Is it some sick and deluded tall poppy syndrome that makes it ok to persecute others for their belief systems?
...No. Is it your frustration at your inability to form a strong argument in favour of religious belief that leads you to instead attack our characters? Yes.

Does fear of the unknown or the uncertain, force you to attempt to conquer it, knowing that your arguments in this thread will never make a difference?
Again with the nihilism... If you think arguments here don't make a difference to people even on a personal level of intellectual interest then why are you bothering to communicate yourself? Personally I've really enjoyed it when new avenues of interest have been opened up, when some aspect of my beliefs has been shown to be weak and I've been forced to re-evaluate it by my own mind (they don't force the change)...

It's an enriching experience to engage in discussion/debate with others.

Yes my personal philosophic standpoint on life is a bit of a mishmash of ideologies and there are a hundred million valid scientific arguments that could counter each point
You seem to be conflating science with philosophy, I really don't think it works that way.

but it's the system of moral belief I've arrived at, having given just as much thought to these things as you ever have, albeit, probably with a more open minded approach.
You seem to consider that just as much 'thought' is put in given time. However I would say it also depends on how much reading has been down, what the base level of intelligence of the individuals is, what they read and how much time they spend on the particular topic.

As for open minded, I am open minded. What makes you think I'm not?

Often when you believe everything scientific you are told, you end up harbouring just as many misconceptions as those people with religious beliefs
I don't know what you're talking about exactly... If there's a misconception in science, science will move to clear it up. I'm also not that comfortable that you keep pitting science against religion, it's silly for a religious person to be anti-science, science is not your enemy.

I know a lot of the science I learnt and accepted as a child turned out to be a flawed, incomplete view of the whole.
How did you learn it was flawed? You probably had an opposing scientific view given to you that you felt offered better evidence. Though I do see you left something about 'incomplete view of the whole', obviously science is incomplete and there are even areas of life where I don't think science offers answers, that's why often in this thread you'd see we present philosophical arguments not just science.

'm sure there will be massive shifts in scientific thinking in the next hundred years that lay waste to a lot of what you accept as fact at this point,
Maybe? For starters, I don't think too often we lay waste to entire large-scale theories... for example while much of evolution has changed, the general thesis has remained the same. I'd also like you to consider how fast the rate of scientific discovery is happening these days and how minimal our need for revision (at least, for the layman) has been.

there are so many arguments and counter arguments about what the universe might be, or where we come from, that your system of belief is no more resolute than the bible.
Sounds like Solipsism to me...

My main point is that you capitalist neocons are burning books and you deserve to go to hell for it, you neocon bastards.

- The bourgeoise
Ok.
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
phatchance said:
Also how about you stop the personal attacks you communist scum, why can't you target my arguments, why do you have to keep attacking my person? You're such a loser for doing that.
Oh man THE CONTRADICTORY NATURE OF YOUR POSTINGS IS MAKING ME DIZZY
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I addressed your criticisms of my understanding of quantum observance, I didn't say consciousness was necessary for observance, I said something was necessary for observance, and that this necessitated the existence of a God. God being the creator and initial observer of our universe. I never pretended to rationalise God as a thinking, moving, perceivable being. I simply raised the point that the necessitation for an initial observation made a very good case for the concept of God, that arguing against a God is counter-intuitive to our knowledge of observance and probability wave collapse.
Ok... if your concept of God is ONLY 'something that was the initial creator' then sure, maybe such a thing existed.... Do you think atheists dispute this or even really care? If you believe God is a toaster, then sure I believe in toasters.
 
Last edited:

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I feel so cold.

I don't even know where to begin in this thread anymore because I feel as if we've diverted so far from a coherant argument, we nearly need to start again.

In dot form though. I work best with dot points.
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Schroedinger said:
I put it to you that the god of the abrahamic religions does not exist. I cite numerous cultural and social precedents as well as history to outline that the texts are not divinely inspired.

Your move, good sir!
But the Bible says!



Check mate.
 

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Schroedinger said:
I put it to you that the god of the abrahamic religions does not exist. I cite numerous cultural and social precedents as well as history to outline that the texts are not divinely inspired.

Your move, good sir!
The apostles saw Jesus resurrected first hand
They then went on to die horrible deaths for their beliefs
No human would die for something they knew was false
==> Jesus really is the Son of God!
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
By the way, for Malfoy if she sees this... people like phatchance are a big part of the reason why I could never go easy on those even with the most liberal perspectives on God, he's extremely liberal in his beliefs but his arguments are imho batshit.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top