Does God exist? (20 Viewers)

[TylerDurden09]

Having said what I did above, we must always be skeptical of any methodology which claims to "give knowledge" and accept that the scientific method in itself is not indispensable. Yet, pragmatically it provides the best explanation we currently have for the understanding of natural phenomena. It is still an epistemic position though.

Edit: Though you'd have a hard time explaining how it is that electricity runs from the main house supply to the circuit in this computer without using the scientific methodology. These facts are undeniable, or if denied, present a lot of work for the detractor.

 

[Cookie182]

Edit: Though you'd have a hard time explaining how it is that electricity runs from the main house supply to the circuit in this computer without using the scientific methodology. These facts are undeniable, or if denied, present a lot of work for the detractor.

Completely agree.

 

[asdfpoiu]

Also, I'd argue that they are psychologically more healthy then yourself. If we posit that human happiness is the greatest achievement, and they are legitimately happy, surrounded by other individuals, forming bonds, learning with each other and quite often helping the wider community, they are operating in congruence to the meaning of life.

This is a far greater accolade then a bitter, social reject deluded by a false sense of self-enlightenment & certainty (you think your right) who masturbates over every opportunity to break it to creationists that they are in fact an African ape. Is this life really that fun?

If we posit that anyone whose user name is TylerDurden09 is an idiot, then you're an idiot.

 

[tommykins]

wow cause like kfunk would really bother making a fake acc. hey rofl

 

[ad infinitum]

I'm not 'comingupforair'.....? However, religous people are known to be quite paranoid and almost always wrong in their conclusions. So I'll forgive you.

 

[Cookie182]

I'm not 'comingupforair'.....? However, religous people are known to be quite paranoid and almost always wrong in their conclusions. So I'll forgive you.

It's funny, after how embarrissing "comingupforairs" post was above, your quick to separate from him.

i know your not him, but you must at least concede, you two share (almost) the same views, at least on religion, and write with zealous condemnation of any religious position interwined with insults.

what drives you to show so much online anger? That's a psychological question that I am really intrigued about. Why, as a fellow atheist, do I not also feel the need to insult, to ridicule & be little every theist I meet?

 

[Cookie182]

If we posit that anyone whose user name is TylerDurden09 is an idiot, then you're an idiot.

Always post a reply that extends the discussion beyond what your quoting, not simply detracting from it (this post exempt as I'm being instructive )

Epic fail at humour.

 

[ademayd]

Who will lose more if they are wrong?

 

[Cookie182]

Who will lose more if they are wrong?

The religious.

Imagine not having sex till your married, lol.

 

[ademayd]

The religious.

Imagine not having sex till your married, lol.

My question about 'who will lose more if they are wrong?' is not asking between the religous and not religous, its asking between those that believe that god exists and those that don't...?

 

[KFunk]

My question about 'who will lose more if they are wrong?' is not asking between the religous and not religous, its asking between those that believe that god exists and those that don't...?

And what if it is a god which happens to reward people who tend towards evidenced beliefs (even if this excludes god) whilst ignoring/punishing those who take on irrational beliefs for which no evidence is forthcoming.

The moral of this suggestion: Pascal's wager is premised on the assumption that if god exists they will be such that belief in god will be rewarded by an eternity of pleasure (an perhaps non-belief by an eternity in hell). Pascal's recommendation becomes rediculous when we realise that god might reward a whole number of things from leading a moral life (according to which system, if any?), to reproducing as much as possible, to leading an intellectual life which emphasises evidence and scientific rigour.

If one is unable to show that we have a good reason to believe that 'if god exists then he must be such that all those who believe in god will be rewarded with an eternity of pleasure' then Pascal's argument for belief in god fails rather quickly.

 

[Cookie182]

And what if it is a god which happens to reward people who tend towards evidenced beliefs (even if this excludes god) whilst ignoring/punishing those who take on irrational beliefs for which no evidence is forthcoming.

The moral of this suggestion: Pascal's wager is premised on the assumption that if god exists they will be such that belief in god will be rewarded by an eternity of pleasure (an perhaps non-belief by an eternity in hell). Pascal's recommendation becomes rediculous when we realise that god might reward a whole number of things from leading a moral life (according to which system, if any?), to reproducing as much as possible, to leading an intellectual life which emphasises evidence and scientific rigour.

If one is unable to show that we have a good reason to believe that 'if god exists then he must be such that all those who believe in god will be rewarded with an eternity of pleasure' then Pascal's argument for belief in god fails rather quickly.

That is a short and sweet summary why Pascal's wager fails. Actually from memory I think as a joke there is an "atheist's wager" somewhere on the internet, basically reverses it, I can't remember where I read it though.

I always think if god is cruel enough to condemn anyone to hell, and no one knows of his nature, wouldn't the cruelest act actually be condemning the believers for fun?

 

[Cookie182]

omg everyone, cant we all just agree to disagree with one another and give this whole "does god exist" nonsense a rest? we all have our individual beliefs, so who are we to challenge anyone else's? i for one, am aethiest, so no matter how much a "churhy" tries to convince me that god exists, i will forever remain adamant that no god exists, not that i am close minded but because its my personal belief. just as well, i cannot challenge one person's belief in god, when they were brought up from birth to believe that he/she exists. in conclusion, live and let live

You wrote this useless plea to simply be ignored.

So your really admitting to blind ignorance. Let's accept that every should have beliefs based on no reasoning at all...

 

[Unsatisfied]

omg everyone, cant we all just agree to disagree with one another and give this whole "does god exist" nonsense a rest? we all have our individual beliefs, so who are we to challenge anyone else's? i for one, am aethiest, so no matter how much a "churhy" tries to convince me that god exists, i will forever remain adamant that no god exists, not that i am close minded but because its my personal belief. just as well, i cannot challenge one person's belief in god, when they were brought up from birth to believe that he/she exists. in conclusion, live and let live

you clicked on the 'does god exist' thread to tell us to stop discussing whether or not god exists?

well done

 

[Lukybear]

you clicked on the 'does god exist' thread to tell us to stop discussing whether or not god exists?

well done

... You clicked on the "does god exist" thread to tell that person to stop discussing; not discussing whether or not god exists?

And i am here to tell you to stop discussing; discussing others not discussing whether god exists or not.

kthxbye

 

[asdfpoiu]

Always post a reply that extends the discussion beyond what your quoting, not simply detracting from it (this post exempt as I'm being instructive )

Epic fail at humour.

It was not supposed to be funny >.>
Besides, what I replied to was not even discussion on the topic. He was just dissing some other guy and sucking up to KFunk (which seems to be all this thread is about nowadays).

 

[deviousgeek]

You guy's should hire out/watch a movie called "Religulous" by Bill Maher. He questions most of the major religions today. As well as being a comedy, its actually quite informative and makes you question your current religious beliefs.


IMDB: Religulous (2008)

Official: RELIGULOUS

 

[Riot09]

warning!!! rant/vent ahead proceed with caution.

my number one reason in not believing in a god would be that a "god","entity" or any "omni-anything".In my opinion is to subjective and untangible(if that is a word).

hypothetically if god did exist and this is proberly due to my age(ignorence/inexperience) why do bad things happen in the fisrt place and why is that in a universe of a "supernatural god" only "unsupernatural things happen"? (this isn't rhetorical it really is a adament question i am asking to any one of faith.)

-also i find that every culture has a religion and i really don't find that a co-incidence.one of my own personal theories is that god is a "feeling" or a sense that you have to thank someone for existing/being alive" which is why many people who dont believe in god still remain agnostic or unsure because of this feeling.

I myself also have this feeling whether it be cultural bias or my childhood(because i used to pray everyday with my mum untill year 1).but i am a true believe in science and empirical evidence proberly worser than Antoine Lavoisier when it comes to stuff like this.i believe in the big bang and evolution,however i also believe in reincarnatin and in the afterlife however i believe that these theories need to be proven somehow.

reincarnation-because some american children believe they are dead pilots fromt the pacific war-theres a video in it on youtube and countless other documented cases ive read that make me a believer in this theory.howeve if this is"supernatural"-would be counted as natural if it occurs in nature-unartifitially.

so what do you think of my theory? of god being a intuitive feeling.also i remember a few years ago that some guy was saying f god over and over agian outloud 4 some reason and i felt a diminished feeling in my stomach and felt like punching him or knocking him out.so i believe it is this "feeling" why many people rebuff theories of evolution and the big bang or advocate a god not on a scientific based argument,but with a foundation on rhetoric or
religous zest under their tongue.

anyway if god did or didnt exist would it really make a difference?.despite "emotions and feelings" i don't see any other to reason to belive in god.

fianlly what proof is there? from what ive scene people who advocate the existence of god only find clauses and hole in the english language,philosophy and rhetoric and point out the imperfections of evolution or the "cause and effect" loop-de-de-loop.

you know what what makes you so sure? put simple i dont f**kn know a 100% for
sure what would happen when i die or how life started and where did all matter originate from.

end rant,nothing personal.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

omg everyone, cant we all just agree to disagree with one another and give this whole "does god exist" nonsense a rest? We all have our individual beliefs, so who are we to challenge anyone else's? I for one, am aethiest, so no matter how much a "churhy" tries to convince me that god exists, i will forever remain adamant that no god exists, not that i am close minded but because its my personal belief. Just as well, i cannot challenge one person's belief in god, when they were brought up from birth to believe that he/she exists. In conclusion, live and let live

+1000000

EDIT: Im goin with the evidence and saying no. What god would cover up their own existence by making the world appear millions of years old (faking fossils and shit) if it's supposed to be only 6000 years old.

 

[deviousgeek]

In some cases, although not as apparent in 1st word countries, religion completely takes over peoples beliefs, morals and ethics.

You can use a plethora of different extremist religions to back this.

Just take Islam for example. Some people are willing to take their own lives in the name of someone they haven't seen nor heard. They can live with the fact that there isn't any proof of their god existing.

Religion changes the way people think and feel, it can create cultures and destroy civilizations.



If Christianity has been proven wrong (which is has), then I'm willing to say that there is no god.