Does God exist? (19 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

By the way, in the last census 15.5% of australians had no-religion. This was larger than any other group other than christians.

 

[gerhard]

yeah but it was still like 70% christians

 

[gerhard]

from the '96 census

Agnosticism (8801); Atheism (7496); Humanism (4075); Rationalism (1380), No Religion, not further defined (2,927,139)

All these were lumped together (2,948,891, 16.48%)

not many people actually call themselves athiests. then again athiesm isnt really a religion, and athiests would often write no religion anyway.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think most people who would clearly define themselves as atheist etc are just the more vocal ones, where as those whom are atheist but aren't as vocal (don't care as much for the argument) would just put down no religion.

 

[SashatheMan]

Do you listen to Bill Hicks?

whos that . some comedian?

 

[Generator]

from the '96 census

Agnosticism (8801); Atheism (7496); Humanism (4075); Rationalism (1380), No Religion, not further defined (2,927,139)

All these were lumped together (2,948,891, 16.48%)

not many people actually call themselves athiests. then again athiesm isnt really a religion, and athiests would often write no religion anyway.

The 2001 census would be the better point of reference (the following is only a summary) -

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9658217eba753c2cca256cae00053fa3?OpenDocument

 

[gerhard]

ah sweet yeah i couldnt find anything like that site
good work

 

[gerhard]

there was a huge jump in non religion from 66 to 71. Went from 0.8% where it had been roughly for the last fifty years to 6.7%. Thats like an 8fold increase. Seems to corresponds with beatlemania, hippies, youth etc.

Also anglicans have lost out heaps. Seems catholics are much more likely to stay catholics.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

there was a huge jump in non religion from 66 to 71. Went from 0.8% where it had been roughly for the last fifty years to 6.7%. Thats like an 8fold increase. Seems to corresponds with beatlemania, hippies, youth etc.

Also anglicans have lost out heaps. Seems catholics are much more likely to stay catholics.

Think - Immigration.

 

[gerhard]

are other countries more likely to be non religious though?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I meant more in relation to the anglicans losing out. It's hard to know whether other countries are more non-religious or not because there are some countries that persecute non-believers.

 

[googooloo]

I believe humans evolved from apes. Cos when you think about we arent so different from animals. We eat, drink, and sleep just like animals. I mean every believes we didnt evolve because we are so smart, = but thats stupid! the animals know quite a bit remember in the tsunami, none of the animals drowned on one island - they all left long ago, not thats intelligence.

Humans have similar characteristics, we are all greedy we want more. which is like animals they want more food, and more fun.

on the other hand people simply believe that we didnt evolve in the name of religion.

but because i believe in evolution that doesnt mean i dont believe in god. GOD is screwed over anyway, think about it, why would GOD create us? why would he have angels and devils? is GOD black or white? maybe GOD is a DOG>

GOD is nothing liek you imagine him to be. No where near such a thing. IF you saw god now, you'd never stop weaping due to the beauty of GOD. You'd probably be so overcome, you'd become comatose(soz dont ko how ot spell that word).

 

[googooloo]

Wow, a whacko that believes in destiny but still probably believes in free-choice.... Must be a theo`

Edit: And as for those two who responded to me by saying "And that's why you don't believe", that is the most obvious statement ever presented on these forums. My point was why the hell do others still believe in a religion with so many problems?

It's true. You choose soemthings, but others will jsut happen. But what I meant by that was that people don't choose Islam, Islam is choosen for certain people, by God. It is writen before you are born, and then you will become so at the point in you life where is has also been written to happen so.

I think this quote is from a movie, but it is so true, mabye the mommy..."It doesn't matter how you die, but what you do during that time before it."

 

[SashatheMan]

GOD is nothing liek you imagine him to be. No where near such a thing. IF you saw god now, you'd never stop weaping due to the beauty of GOD. You'd probably be so overcome, you'd become comatose(soz dont ko how ot spell that word).

and you know this will happen how?

 

[SashatheMan]

..

 

[somechick]

Yeah, it's called Islam.

What a cheap insult.
They say that people used to throw stones at Mohammed (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh), and you know what they did?
They threw flowers back.
Keep it coming.

As regards your signiture, why don't you read the Quran, AND critical commentaries? That is called rational research methodology... Before you can have a rational opinion on a text you usually understand the concepts and detail of what you are dealing with ie your subject.

And emphasis on the "from the LITERARY point of view", that is a man-made and developed concept. Literary criticsm is a result of human development, it has been brought about and influenced by hundreds of years of movements: romanticism, postmodernism, modernism, etc. Therefore, it is not a reliable variable of measurement, as it is untable. It will change to suit the linguistic environment of its context. You need a stable variable to make an accurate conclusion. Therefore, what that statement is doing is assuming that literary criticism is stable and fixed in form, that it does not differ across time and space.

Furthermore, you cannot measure God's words with the intellect of man. Man is limited in his knowledge (just think about how we only use something like 10% capacity of our brains), and to whatever extent at the end of human development, he will be.

Moreover, if you can produce something to rival the Quran, it is encouraged that you do so. If you think it's not a valuable text, men of any intellect are encouraged to produce a book to rival it. Would an irrational book encourage you to do that?

 

[Wolfowitz]

Literary criticsm is a result of human development, it has been brought about and influenced by hundreds of years of movements: romanticism, postmodernism, modernism, etc. Therefore, it is not a reliable variable of measurement, as it is untable.

Literary criticism is unimportant and unreliable? Are you on crack?

Furthermore, you cannot measure God's words with the intellect of man.

You annoy me because you're just like all the other daft f-witts who think the Q'ran is God's word. He didn't write it. People think Dan Brown's a God. Do you think people will be bowing down before his infinite knowledge 3000 years from now?

Man is limited in his knowledge (just think about how we only use something like 10% capacity of our brains), and to whatever extent at the end of human development, he will be.

10% is used for cognitive thinking. The other 90% is used for processing higher emotions and bodily functions. By thinking that brain size equates to intellectual capability, you may be right. But by thinking that larger brains (infinitely larger ones even moreso) can break the laws of physics is stupidity.

Moreover, if you can produce something to rival the Quran, it is encouraged that you do so. If you think it's not a valuable text, men of any intellect are encouraged to produce a book to rival it. Would an irrational book encourage you to do that?

The Q'ran, like most religious texts is a terrible base for sociomoral practise. It contradicts itself. It rambles. It tries to make its society a model for universal perfection. But worst of all, it fails to acknowledge the fact that it is ONLY a book of thoughts. It commands, orders, instructs, decides and processes ways of living for all people of all time.

A stupid proposition.

I'm no Atheist. But a healthy Anglican cynicism has given me one thing...the ability to remain critical.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Man is limited in his knowledge (just think about how we only use something like 10% capacity of our brains), and to whatever extent at the end of human development, he will be.

That's just a stupid myth, like your entire faith system.

 

[veterandoggy]

That's just a stupid myth, like your entire faith system.

which part of that is stupid? the part where it says we use 10% of our brains capacity, or the fact that man is limited in his knowledge and will always be?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Man is limited in his knowledge /= There is no need for using the knowledge we have to provide deductive reasoning.