Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[impervious182]

I think it's easy for you to say it's all God's will and they have this hope and whatnot, because you've been born into one of the richest countries in the world. Had you been born in say, sub-saharan africa, you would not be thinking the same thing.

I might be.

Christianity offers hope to all and there are many African Christians who have had to survive through great hardship. What's brilliant is that God loves each of us equally and infinitely.

 

[impervious182]

You're basically saying 'I like it here, won't move even if there are other religions that would suit me more, I'm too scared of change'.

I'm saying, I have faith that this is the right religion. In time I will explore other religions as well, though I'm quite confident I won't change.

Why fix what isn't broken. Why would any person change religion if they feel they are in the right one? It's not like a laptop where better ones come out every year.

 

[tommykins]

I'm saying, I have faith that this is the right religion. In time I will explore other religions as well, though I'm quite confident I won't change.

Why fix what isn't broken. Why would any person change religion if they feel they are in the right one? It's not like a laptop where better ones come out every year.

Results of researching into other religion -

1. Reassurance that you're previous/initial religion is correct (Win)
2. A change that shows that you've accepted a new religion (Win)

I don't see it as a 'fix', but more so an improvement.

 

[nikolas]

Why not? And rational by whose definition? How would we know if God were 'rational'? The whole basis of Christianity is that we, as humans, can not always understand the purpose of the decisions of the Lord... so rational is not a very good adjective to use. And what does 'good' mean? What would a 'good god' act like?

By rational i meant he does not suddenly decide to throw me into hell even if i was a good christian for example.

Then that's it. Case closed.

The basis of Christianity is faith, just like the basis of any belief in the big bang, structure of atoms and so on. You say that you won't have faith, but you already do, even to believe in science. What's required for something to be proven by your standards? What would be suitable proof that God existed? A sample of heavenly cloud (lol)? An angel wing?

I agree, case closed. Faith=ignorance.
Faith
1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof

You see the difference between Science and religion, is that Science is based on facts/evidence and what not, religion has nothing but appeals to authority, emotion, logical fallacies and false proofs.

You can cite Russel's teapot and negative proof fallacy as much as you like, but the fact is, the burden of proof is not on me at all. I am content believing in Christianity; whether or not you do is beyond me.

The whole idea of a burdon of proof for me, in actuality, is quite ridiculous. I am making an assertion, if you wish to challenge this assertion, you should present evidence to contradict it. As it stands, like in a court of law in Australia, one is innocent until proven guilty - by the same notion, the onus of proof is on you if you wish to challenge the statement I have made. This is not a scientific proof, which works the other way. If you want it proven yourself you'll have to find your own answers...

Are you retarded? You have used this whole analogy ...well ...er ...stupidly.

In a court of Australia, if i claim someone is guilty of a crime, it is up to to me to prove it. Otherwise he is innocent until proven Guilty.

In your logic, i could basically say "You are Guilty of murder, prove me wrong". Which is NOT Innocent until proven guilty but the reverse. Guilty until proven innocent.

Way to go and lack basic understanding. Halfwit.

And as for faith, I don't agree. Just because one can't explain something, doesn't mean one has jumped to a conclusion. Some things are beyond both human understanding and expression; it's as simple as that.

I agree here. It would be foolish to think we already have the answers in a 2000 year old book now wouldn't it.

 

[nikolas]

Erm... last time I checked, everyday Christians aren't resurrected/reborn. Erm... last time I checked, like I said before, Christianity doesn't say that our actions determine our position in this life, don't limit us in terms of a caste. That's a major difference between Buddhism and Christianity...

I'm curious though... why is it, that any Christian has to have a great knowledge of every other religion? If we're comfortable we've found the correct religion, why is it that a great knowledge of others is somehow our obligation to have? Yet it is alright for atheists to remain willfully ignorant? Just another example of hypocrisy on your part.

Now tbh you are being idiotic.

You accuse us for being willfully ignorant yet you say

I'm curious though... why is it, that any Christian has to have a great knowledge of every other religion? If we're comfortable we've found the correct religion, why is it that a great knowledge of others is somehow our obligation to have?

 

[nikolas]

I think that even if we could prove it you would not believe it

So you cannot prove it, well, thats too bad.

btw

i think that even if we could disprove it you would still believe it.

 

[CyanideChrist]

Why not? And rational by whose definition? How would we know if God were 'rational'? The whole basis of Christianity is that we, as humans, can not always understand the purpose of the decisions of the Lord... so rational is not a very good adjective to use. And what does 'good' mean? What would a 'good god' act like?

Then how can you use the adjectives "loving" or "righteous"?

The whole idea of a burdon of proof for me, in actuality, is quite ridiculous. I am making an assertion, if you wish to challenge this assertion, you should present evidence to contradict it. As it stands, like in a court of law in Australia, one is innocent until proven guilty - by the same notion, the onus of proof is on you if you wish to challenge the statement I have made. This is not a scientific proof, which works the other way. If you want it proven yourself you'll have to find your own answers...

Wait a minute. You don't have to offer proof for your assertion, but I have to offer proof for mine? Hell, I don't even want to make an assertion, I just want to see proof for yours.

 

[KillerIsMe]

I might be.

Christianity offers hope to all and there are many African Christians who have had to survive through great hardship. What's brilliant is that God loves each of us equally and infinitely.

Okay I'm not even going to bother arguing with that I think I'm just going to go vomit everywhere.

 

[gibbo153]

So you cannot prove it, well, thats too bad.

btw

i think that even if we could disprove it you would still believe it.

i think her comment was a bit out of line. you guys aren't just arguing for the sake of arguing, you and tommy would believe it if we had proof as you have said previously.

disproving god would be hard even if there was no support of god and few christians in the world.

something i believe about god is that he chooses for it to be this way, no absolutely conclusive argument either way, that way we need to make a choice about it.

Matt 10:34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

again i don't claim that you can't easily just say 'ohh thats convenient, you somehow don't need to prove anything just because you say there isnt supposed to be proof' but thats more or less how it is

 

[gibbo153]

when you edit a post is it automatically viewed to others with 'edit:' in front of it? or do you need to do that yourself

 

[nikolas]

i think her comment was a bit out of line. you guys aren't just arguing for the sake of arguing, you and tommy would believe it if we had proof as you have said previously.

I fail to see your point.

disproving god would be hard even if there was no support of god and few christians in the world.

something i believe about god is that he chooses for it to be this way, no absolutely conclusive argument either way, that way we need to make a choice about it.

We don't need to disprove anything, i thought i went through that already.

Matt 10:34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

again i don't claim that you can't easily just say 'ohh thats convenient, you somehow don't need to prove anything just because you say there isnt supposed to be proof' but thats more or less how it is

I don't understand what you are trying say, are you saying there is proof? if so please share.

 

[veloc1ty]

something i believe about god is that he chooses for it to be this way, no absolutely conclusive argument either way, that way we need to make a choice about it.

I'd be fine with that, if it weren't for the fact I'm condemned to eternal and relentless torture merely for being atheist, despite there being no conclusive argument that he exists by your own admission.

 

[impervious182]

By rational i meant he does not suddenly decide to throw me into hell even if i was a good christian for example.

God doesn't throw good Christians into hell. Whatever gave you that impression is, to the best of my beliefs, entirely false.

I agree, case closed. Faith=ignorance.
Faith
1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof

You see the difference between Science and religion, is that Science is based on facts/evidence and what not, religion has nothing but appeals to authority, emotion, logical fallacies and false proofs.

What are facts/evidence? They are all based on assumptions that we have made, based on our own understandings. Much of science is actually just theory, which can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven - just like religion. You show hypocrisy by supporting one and yet claiming that it is irrational to support another.

Tell me, I assume you accept the model we're taught in chemistry about what atoms look like and the shell structure of them? Why is it that this is somehow more factual than Christianity?

You'll no doubt say something like, because it explains our observations - it's like a theory of best fit. Just as religion explains our cause, our purpose on earth. Just as religion explains, what science can't, about how the universe began (and science will never be able to explain this... for the simple reason that it's impossible for nothing to create something)... about what happens after death... and so on.

Are you retarded? You have used this whole analogy ...well ...er ...stupidly.

In a court of Australia, if i claim someone is guilty of a crime, it is up to to me to prove it. Otherwise he is innocent until proven Guilty.

In your logic, i could basically say "You are Guilty of murder, prove me wrong". Which is NOT Innocent until proven guilty but the reverse. Guilty until proven innocent.

Way to go and lack basic understanding. Halfwit.

My analogy went over your head - it wasn't meant to be a brain-bender either, I might add. Christianity is my belief, you're accusing me of being wrong, hence the onus of proof is on you to disprove it, or move on.

The analogy works, and I constantly link back to this. However, by saying Christianity is false, you are questioning the integrity of all those who have prayed to God and felt like they've been answered, who have seen God and those who wrote the Bible. So you are accusing them of being guilty of fallacy or misrepresentation at the very least.

So by the analogy that I used, you are the one accusing people of being guilty and hence the burdon to prove your stance is on you.

 

[impervious182]

I'd be fine with that, if it weren't for the fact I'm condemned to eternal and relentless torture merely for being atheist, despite there being no conclusive argument that he exists by your own admission.

Only if the millions of Christians around the world are correct. Otherwise, by the atheist notion, we will just die and that'll be the end of us.

Personally, I wouldn't want to risk being wrong.

Many things have no definitive evidence. You could take Christianity as a science theory if you truly were science orientated. Adopt it, as a religion of best fit and test it yourself; if you could prove it false, then you would adopt another belief of best fit... that way, you're being scientific and rational about it.... that's only if, of course, you really do believe in the scientific process which you guys are constantly referring back to.

 

[impervious182]

I'm fairly certain if you can empirically prove something then it is essentially irrefutable. Even if it were the case I would still be disgusted at the morality of the bible and the actions of the christian god. Pedantic toddler-like creature.

That's not true.

You shouldn't make assumptions based on a few verses of the Bible, which are taken out of their context. If you were truly being open-minded then you would read through the whole Bible. Then you would see that God is nothing like what you described.

 

[nikolas]

God doesn't throw good Christians into hell. Whatever gave you that impression is, to the best of my beliefs, entirely false.

I never said he does dickhead. Re-read the replies.

What are facts/evidence? They are all based on assumptions that we have made, based on our own understandings. Much of science is actually just theory, which can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven - just like religion. You show hypocrisy by supporting one and yet claiming that it is irrational to support another.

Shown ignorance on what Theory in scientific context is. Check.

Tell me, I assume you accept the model we're taught in chemistry about what atoms look like and the shell structure of them? Why is it that this is somehow more factual than Christianity?

Because the model is based on fact and evidence. Go back to year 7-8 science if you don't understand this.

You'll no doubt say something like, because it explains our observations - it's like a theory of best fit. Just as religion explains our cause, our purpose on earth. Just as religion explains, what science can't, about how the universe began (and science will never be able to explain this... for the simple reason that it's impossible for nothing to create something)... about what happens after death... and so on.

Ignorance on what Theory in the scientific context yet again.

2nd of all. Why do jump to the conclusion that there is a purpose?

Religion tells us nothing about the universe (cept god did it), this is an appeal to ignorance. (i.e Just because we don't know how it works doesnt mean you should get to jump to the conclusion that "god did it")

I'll tell you what happens after death...you rot in a hole.

My analogy went over your head - it wasn't meant to be a brain-bender either, I might add. Christianity is my belief, you're accusing me of being wrong, hence the onus of proof is on you to disprove it, or move on.

Just because it is your belief does not shift burden of proof to me until you provide evidence. This is the equivalent of me in a global warming thread saying "Global warming is my belief, you are accusing me of being wrong, hence you have burden the of proof."

Clearly this is wrong and i have to provide arguments and evidence to convince you that Global warming is real.

The analogy works, and I constantly link back to this. However, by saying Christianity is false, you are questioning the integrity of all those who have prayed to God and felt like they've been answered, who have seen God and those who wrote the Bible. So you are accusing them of being guilty of fallacy or misrepresentation at the very least.

The analogy works...in my favor.

and please stop the fucking appeal to majority.

So by the analogy that I used, you are the one accusing people of being guilty and hence the burdon to prove your stance is on you.

No you are the person with the claim, so in the analogy you are the one accusing.

 

[impervious182]

I never said he does dickhead. Re-read the replies.

Shown ignorance on what Theory in scientific context is. Check.

Because the model is based on fact and evidence. Go back to year 7-8 science if you don't understand this.

Ignorance on what Theory in the scientific context yet again.

2nd of all. Why do jump to the conclusion that there is a purpose?

Religion tells us nothing about the universe (cept god did it), this is an appeal to ignorance. (i.e Just because we don't know how it works doesnt mean you should get to jump to the conclusion that "god did it")

I'll tell you what happens after death...you rot in a hole.

Just because it is your belief does not shift burden of proof to me until you provide evidence. This is the equivalent of me in a global warming thread saying "Global warming is my belief, you are accusing me of being wrong, hence you have burden the of proof."

Clearly this is wrong and i have to provide arguments and evidence to convince you that Global warming is real.

The analogy works...in my favor.

and please stop the fucking appeal to majority.

No you are the person with the claim, so in the analogy you are the one accusing.

You're rude and wrong. This is a debate on religion, why is it that so many people seem to resort to profanities at a whim and get so angry when people have a different point of view? (It's rhetorical by the way.)
'
The only reason I've reproduced your post is because I disagree with every single line you have said... which believe me, does not occur often.

 

[nikolas]

Only if the millions of Christians around the world are correct. Otherwise, by the atheist notion, we will just die and that'll be the end of us.

Personally, I wouldn't want to risk being wrong.

Many things have no definitive evidence. You could take Christianity as a science theory if you truly were science orientated. Adopt it, as a religion of best fit and test it yourself; if you could prove it false, then you would adopt another belief of best fit... that way, you're being scientific and rational about it.... that's only if, of course, you really do believe in the scientific process which you guys are constantly referring back to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

FFS READ IT.

How about you actually find out what a scientific theory is before you tell me to treat religion as one.

 

[impervious182]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum[/URL]
FFS READ IT.

How about you actually find out what a scientific theory is before you tell me to treat religion as one.

That wasn't my argument. My argument is that it fits the observations and is not contradicted by science. Hence it is a religion of best fit, just as a theory must fit observations, so does Christianity. Why don;t you adopt it, test it and then if you feel you can disprove it, do so.

It is also not an argumenetum ad populum because I didn't cite the writers of the Bible as supporting Christianity for no reason, so other people should. Rather I cited them, because their stories amount to testimony in a sense, because they are first hand accounts of events. I didn't mean to suggest, thousands of people support Christianity, so they must be right... I meant that the disciples met Jesus and described these events, many other people witnessed them - this constitutes evidence.

There is a very vital difference between the two. I don't think it's your fault that you mistook me, maybe I was being unclear. Maybe I still am being, but instead of making wild accusation, just tell me if you still don't get it. If I have time, I'll try to reply again tonight.

 

[nikolas]

You're rude and wrong. This is a debate on religion, why is it that so many people seem to resort to profanities at a whim and get so angry when people have a different point of view? (It's rhetorical by the way.)
'
The only reason I've reproduced your post is because I disagree with every single line you have said... which believe me, does not occur often.

Let the issues be the issues.

Care to share with me why I'm wrong instead of crying a bit more?

and its not your point of view that angers me, its your total lack common sense.