Do you believe in Heaven?

humanji

Not sure

But then there's always the argument that we believe in gravity and that the earth revolves around the sun, but has anyone here ever proven it? Or do we believe it because it's what we're told? This also goes towards belief in a god, people just assume it's true.

mickoneill30

Not sure

humanji wrote:

But then there's always the argument that we believe in gravity and that the earth revolves around the sun, but has anyone here ever proven it? Or do we believe it because it's what we're told? This also goes towards belief in a god, people just assume it's true.

There might be that argument but it's wrong. We believe in gravity or the Earths rotating around the sun because it's what other people have proven. It's not the same as religion. People believe because they have faith (as they call it).
I'm happy to believe in whatever religion you want if somebody can prove the existence of god or heaven.

indough

There is still an element of faith in science though, in that you have faith that those other people have proven those theories. I agree we don't really want to go too far down that road because otherwise we'd be questioning the nature of even the smallest most insignificant scientifically accepted theories. Noone would get anywhere if that were the case.

Zaph

Not sure

Well as Talking Heads once sang, Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

Not that I believe it exists anyway, we're all just worm food IMO, but if it did I agree with David Byrne that it would probably be a boring place, and who wants to hang around somewhere boring for all eternity?

Orange69

Not sure

humanji wrote:

Funny, I'd group of people who believe 100% in there being a god, with those who 100% don't believe in a god. Neither side has proof, but have somehow come to the conclusion that they must be right and quite often (like yourself) think that the other side must be crazy or stupid.

There is a slight flaw in your argument...

One side operates from a position of reason and logic utilizing a solid base of scientific fact and theory...

The other side believe in a book full of ridiculous tall tales with ZERO evidence or proof to back any of it up.

Why don't you tell me which one is crazy and stupid?

Nailz

No

Atari Jaguar! ATARI FúCKING JAGUAR!

Naikon

MooseJam wrote:

don't believe in heaven, the poll results don't reflect general society though, most people believe in heaven, I guess most internet using youngsters don't

Take a look at this:

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/27/world-religiosity-iii-belief-in-heaven-and-hell/

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

Alter-Ego, Anto McC, Archeron, beans, Blue_Lagoon, CathyMoran, Clare Bear, comongethappy, coyote6, dancor, Devil5434, Diarmsquid, digitally-yours, Dreamer 7, estebancambias, Eyespy, Feral Mutant, jay_haych, jergam, jjbrien, Lainey, maple, mdebets, Mizu_Ger, Mr.Nice Guy, nice1franko, Orlee, patrickc2006, pretty-in-pink, princess-lala, rovers_runner, Savman, ScienceNerd, Scoobydoobydoo, Stargal, Steyr, The guy, the_syco, vorbis, xabi, xzanti


:-/

Dave!

Not sure

indough wrote:

It's funny that's the first thing you blurt out, it's the usual atheist response (I am an atheist myself, but always challenge my beliefs or lack thereof). Next comes "well if God created the Universe, who created God?"

They're both legitimate points, so I don't see what difference it makes that they're "usual atheist reponses". Good for you that you question your beliefs, I should do that more often.

indough wrote:

I already know that you can't prove a negative already, but it's not really a fair to just say that and not provide conclusive evidence for your own theories. Science has give us a lot but we shouldn't ever get complacent about what we think we know.

You're obviously of the frame of mind that religion should be afforded special privileges and given slack when it comes to proof. If anyone made any other crazy claim, you'd be pushing them for evidence before you could take them seriously, but because it falls under the umbrella of "religion", you think everyone else should be expected to prove it wrong. It may not be "fair", but if anybody wants to bring religion into the realm of logical debate, then they have to play by the rules, and that involves actual evidence to support a claim.

indough wrote:

Remember that just because you may not be able to prove someone guilty, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent.

So true.

nice1franko

No

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Alter-Ego, Anto McC, Archeron, beans, Blue_Lagoon, CathyMoran, Clare Bear, comongethappy, coyote6, dancor, Devil5434, Diarmsquid, digitally-yours, Dreamer 7, estebancambias, Eyespy, Feral Mutant, jay_haych, jergam, jjbrien, Lainey, maple, mdebets, Mizu_Ger, Mr.Nice Guy, nice1franko, Orlee, patrickc2006, pretty-in-pink, princess-lala, rovers_runner, Savman, ScienceNerd, Scoobydoobydoo, Stargal, Steyr, The guy, the_syco, vorbis, xabi, xzanti


:-/

Very good, Tar.

I think we already knew it was a public poll though.

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

Just as I am shocked to see that somebody on the list posted that.
Anyway, obviously that is not what my post is about underling.

Dave!

Not sure

What were you underlining exactly.......

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

That something is afoot, something most foul.

nice1franko

No

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Just as I am shocked to see that somebody on the list posted that.
Anyway, obviously that is not what my post is about underling.

Your post underlines so much that, unfortunately for us plebs, it's not immediately obvious what it's underlining. A list of people who voted 'yes' in the poll and and the highly verbose :-/ could mean more than one thing.

We all know you're extremely clever. Your intellect soars above everyone elses... and with such ease too. I wonder if your misspelling of 'underlining' was a Freudian slip. What do you think?

humanji

Not sure

Orange69 wrote:

There is a slight flaw in your argument...

One side operates from a position of reason and logic utilizing a solid base of scientific fact and theory...

The other side believe in a book full of ridiculous tall tales with ZERO evidence or proof to back any of it up.

Why don't you tell me which one is crazy and stupid?

No, one side have been told what to believe, and the other side have been told what to believe. Both sides are stupid and/or crazy if they'll take what others say and assume it's the truth. Nobody can say for sure whether or not there is any afterlife, you can only decide what you feel is most likely.

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

Well a lot of poeple don't just 'believe' what others tell them and prove the science for themselves...

It's not like the science behind making this computer is faulty and should not be taken for granted either.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5792/bugfix335916vt7.jpg

humanji

Not sure

But most people will believe what they're told. Hence the large amount of religious people in the world.

Mr.Nice Guy

No

DaveMcG wrote:

How is that an argument that an afterlife exists? "Because lots of people believe it"?..... Has anybody alive ever been to this afterlife? Ever experienced it? So how would the fact that alot of people believe in an afterlife demonstrate in any way that one exists? All it shows is that the concept of an afterlife has been prevalent in alot of civilisations. Nobody argues that.

Well it's a while since I've done philosophy (which I hated with a passion) but I think it's called the 'mark of the artisan' argument. Basically it proposes that we believe in a God because we were designed that way. I think there's truth in it myself.

Dave McG wrote:

Do you know how many sun and sky gods there have been in history? All different civilisations and continents...

Egypt, India, Africa, Indonesia, China, America (natives), the Aztecs, the Celts, the Greeks........

Does that mean that the sun is a god? Which god is real and which are bogus? And why does nobody worship any of them anymore?

Could it possibly be to do with scientific advancement, and the fact that we actually understand the sun now?

I'm sure there's a similar number of water deities, yet nobody worships them anymore.

I see what you're saying but I would say the fact humans worshipped at all indicates there is a God. As a Catholic and thus a Christian I believe that Jesus showed us the true way to follow God. Obviously others disagree and that's their right.

Dave!

Not sure

Fair enough. I can't find anything on the mark of the artisan unfortunately. I hate philosophy also.

Mr.Nice Guy

No

DaveMcG wrote:

Fair enough. I can't find anything on the mark of the artisan unfortunately. I hate philosophy also.

I've probably got the term wrong. I only got 45%.

leninbenjamin

Not sure

is there a heaven: who give's a sh*t. what difference does it make if there is or not? people will still behave the same.

Dave!

Not sure

I certainly wouldn't... If I knew there was a heaven then I'd spend my life trying to find out the criteria by which you gain entry to said, and then endeavour to live my life (and encourage my family and friends live their lives) by those criteria.

Orange69

Not sure

humanji wrote:

No, one side have been told what to believe, and the other side have been told what to believe. Both sides are stupid and/or crazy if they'll take what others say and assume it's the truth. Nobody can say for sure whether or not there is any afterlife, you can only decide what you feel is most likely.

Oh FFS... So in your world nothing is true unless you derive it and prove it personally...

What about the computer you are using, do you believe in that? do you believe in the airplane that takes you to another country..? Do you believe that other countries exist at all unless you have seen them? Do you believe in your internal organs?

Thats possibly the most moronic argument since the big bang.. seriously..

Anyone with an intellect greater than that of a mollusk can see the point i was making in my original post..

Sam Vimes

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I believe in Heaven and I believe in God. I'm surprised at the amount of people who have voted No in this poll.

Most human beings throughout history have believed in an afterlife even though they have been separated by oceans and continents. This continues to be the case in the present day. If there's no heaven then why is it that so many people were convinced that there was? Those in Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond. Presumably an atheist thinks they were ALL wrong. I don't agree with that.

well as a catholic (i'm assuming you're catholic), you believe they're all wrong EXCEPT the one that your parents believed in? Which is more logical? To believe that they're all wrong or to believe that you were lucky enough to be born in the country that believed in the one true religion?

indough wrote:

There is still an element of faith in science though, in that you have faith that those other people have proven those theories. I agree we don't really want to go too far down that road because otherwise we'd be questioning the nature of even the smallest most insignificant scientifically accepted theories. Noone would get anywhere if that were the case.

yes we all have faith that these theories have been proven because we don't have the time to prove them ourselves but its different to religious faith. If i decide that i don't accept the theory of gravity i can go to a scientist who can show me the proof. Who proves it to me if i decide i don't accept the theory of religion?

basically i'm saying that believing because you're too lazy to look up the proof is different to believing despite no proof existing

eoin5

dan719 wrote:

But it's so small to be invisible to the naked eye- where will you fit?;)

When you die you become very very small, didnt you know that :P

Zillah

Not sure

I would say the fact humans worshipped at all indicates there is a God.

Can I borrow that argument for a second? I just want to prove the existence of the tooth fairy, Santa and Dracula.

Oh wait, it didn't work. You sure this thing works?

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

Your post underlines so much that, unfortunately for us plebs, it's not immediately obvious what it's underlining. A list of people who voted 'yes' in the poll and and the highly verbose :-/ could mean more than one thing.

We all know you're extremely clever. Your intellect soars above everyone elses... and with such ease too. I wonder if your misspelling of 'underlining' was a Freudian slip. What do you think?

I think I said underling for a reason, what do you think that is?
Yes, I know I'm rather above the rather intelligent, no need to mention it.
I did best all of Britain in test the nation, don't you know? I have a plaque saying so on my wall, quite like simu's intelligence plaque.
The use of my intelligence quite properly gives me pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When I think well, I feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy. Thanks Mr Sagan.

--

The belief in heaven is a general weakness/flaw that is prevalent in our species, we need something to hope for etc, for the most part.
I am an Alatrist since I gave up Christianity at oh, about 8 years old. So I was never really one.
An alatrist is an agnostic that would not worship a god even if a god could was proved to exist.
My agnostic beliefs also edge towards atheism, and I find religion to be for weak people(No offence.). Weak in a way that they can not be blamed for, some people need something to believe in, to repress fear.
I also find the term god to be a paradox, and as such, a god could not exist to me. It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
Logic is just ignorance by numbers, but it is far superior to any other ignorance.

There are many forms of intelligence, that is to say, different types. From the type that allows me to get the root of 27.4 in my head, to the ability to pick up subtle nuances around you, to the ability to be in a system of evolutionary psychology and brainwashing, and step outside it etc etc.
Being intelligent is also just perspective.
I am of the opinion that since people here were brought up catholic they believe in that god, if you were brought up in Islam, that god, etc etc, ranging to Zeus...(minor exceptions due to circumstances in individuals lives occur)
Then Christians, or whoever, will go and say they have a personal relationship with their god, and that is all the evidence they need that he is real(How could he not be if they feel it in their hearts I hear them cry), a god that says that he is the only god to exist... whilst some people of other faiths have the exact same belief that they have a personal relationship with their god and therefore no other god could exist.
Ah my ramblings...do keep reading.

When I say I wouldn't worship a god, I mean I would not worship anything, nothing specific, as with my fellow Alatrists I'm sure. Also, 'god' is indeed a paradox. As I said above, It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
This thing that might have created the universe etc, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
What makes something a god for you and something not a god? How powerful would it have to be?
Since it would have to have infinite power I imagine, it can not exist. I think 'god' is not tenable, for me.
How and ever, what may be a god to you, is not a god to me, so a 'god' could exist to you.
I contend that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of 'god' in part, rather than the words themselves. As what constitutes a 'god' is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.

I think there is a contradiction in the way that the more advanced a 'god' is, the more it is worthy of an old grovel, yet the more advanced it is, surely the less it will think that it deserves one... worship being an inane human idea.
The Abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving.
If something was a supreme being as you put it, would it have a desire to be worshiped, or would it not need it and not yearn for it?
Something that created us and wants worship is not worthy of it and something that created us that does not need worship, does not need it.

An alien race with vaster intelligence aren't gods, any more than we are gods compared to dogs or bacteria. That isn't what the term "god" means. We obey the same rule of nature and physics as anything else. A god wouldn't, by definition. Why would it be subject to ego, or even thought?
It's like the Christian god naming pride as a mortal sin but him being guilty of it himself. It is a paradox.

There are so many paradoxes to a god existing, it's just impossible under most peoples definition of a god, for said god to exist.
Omniscience for instance. Is it impossible for him to know something which he does not know? (IE, knowledge of an omission is itself a knowable fact, so by implication, there must be at least one omission of which he's aware. Is it possible to reconcile this by saying that the fact of which he's unaware is the fact of the existence of this same omission?

There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. yet a lot of theists find beliefs like mine untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?
Lets take Let's take vampires for a moment.
I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.
But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However people seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.

Nailz

No

I love believing there would be a life after life were all your friends are so you can live without a care and you could do anything you want.

Red Hand

As Ambrose Bierce said, we are but wormsmeat. We were wormsmeat in the past and we will be wormsmeat in the future again.

Religion/afterlife are just distractions from this fact-so, no, I do not believe in heaven.

Terry

Not sure

Jesus, Tar.
You could have just told him you were being sarcastic.

As for the vampire thing, I think there are a few emo kids who would disagree with you about that. Joss Whedon has a lot to answer for.

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

Terry wrote:

Jesus, Tar.
You could have just told him you were being sarcastic.

As for the vampire thing, I think there are a few emo kids who would disagree with you about that. Joss Whedon has a lot to answer for.

I think I like to mess with people my way terry, hush up, the response is usually good

Parsley

Not sure

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think I said underling for a reason, what do you think that is?
Yes, I know I'm rather above the rather intelligent, no need to mention it.
I did best all of Britain in test the nation, don't you know? I have a plaque saying so on my wall, quite like simu's intelligence plaque.
The use of my intelligence quite properly gives me pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When I think well, I feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy. Thanks Mr Sagan.

--

The belief in heaven is a general weakness/flaw that is prevalent in our species, we need something to hope for etc, for the most part.
I am an Alatrist since I gave up Christianity at oh, about 8 years old. So I was never really one.
An alatrist is an agnostic that would not worship a god even if a god could was proved to exist.
My agnostic beliefs also edge towards atheism, and I find religion to be for weak people(No offence.). Weak in a way that they can not be blamed for, some people need something to believe in, to repress fear.
I also find the term god to be a paradox, and as such, a god could not exist to me. It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
Logic is just ignorance by numbers, but it is far superior to any other ignorance.

There are many forms of intelligence, that is to say, different types. From the type that allows me to get the root of 27.4 in my head, to the ability to pick up subtle nuances around you, to the ability to be in a system of evolutionary psychology and brainwashing, and step outside it etc etc.
Being intelligent is also just perspective.
I am of the opinion that since people here were brought up catholic they believe in that god, if you were brought up in Islam, that god, etc etc, ranging to Zeus...(minor exceptions due to circumstances in individuals lives occur)
Then Christians, or whoever, will go and say they have a personal relationship with their god, and that is all the evidence they need that he is real(How could he not be if they feel it in their hearts I hear them cry), a god that says that he is the only god to exist... whilst some people of other faiths have the exact same belief that they have a personal relationship with their god and therefore no other god could exist.
Ah my ramblings...do keep reading.

When I say I wouldn't worship a god, I mean I would not worship anything, nothing specific, as with my fellow Alatrists I'm sure. Also, 'god' is indeed a paradox. As I said above, It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
This thing that might have created the universe etc, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
What makes something a god for you and something not a god? How powerful would it have to be?
Since it would have to have infinite power I imagine, it can not exist. I think 'god' is not tenable, for me.
How and ever, what may be a god to you, is not a god to me, so a 'god' could exist to you.
I contend that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of 'god' in part, rather than the words themselves. As what constitutes a 'god' is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.

I think there is a contradiction in the way that the more advanced a 'god' is, the more it is worthy of an old grovel, yet the more advanced it is, surely the less it will think that it deserves one... worship being an inane human idea.
The Abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving.
If something was a supreme being as you put it, would it have a desire to be worshiped, or would it not need it and not yearn for it?
Something that created us and wants worship is not worthy of it and something that created us that does not need worship, does not need it.

An alien race with vaster intelligence aren't gods, any more than we are gods compared to dogs or bacteria. That isn't what the term "god" means. We obey the same rule of nature and physics as anything else. A god wouldn't, by definition. Why would it be subject to ego, or even thought?
It's like the Christian god naming pride as a mortal sin but him being guilty of it himself. It is a paradox.

There are so many paradoxes to a god existing, it's just impossible under most peoples definition of a god, for said god to exist.
Omniscience for instance. Is it impossible for him to know something which he does not know? (IE, knowledge of an omission is itself a knowable fact, so by implication, there must be at least one omission of which he's aware. Is it possible to reconcile this by saying that the fact of which he's unaware is the fact of the existence of this same omission?

There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. yet a lot of theists find beliefs like mine untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?
Lets take Let's take vampires for a moment.
I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.
But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However people seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.

+1

Orange69

Not sure

Human beings are nothing more than evolved biological systems..we are animals... Its amazing that we exist but given the scale of the universe it is was also inevitable... Its just a matter of the right ingredients, existing on the right planet, in the right system at the right time..

There is no god, no afterlife, nothing.. i agree with Tar, Religion is a weakness, a hangup from a time when people were less enlightened by science and reason.. a vestigial remnant which will be lost as more and more people become properly educated and learn how to think for themselves..

Personally i believe that anyone who disagrees is an idiot..

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Not sure

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

MooseJam

Not sure

Mordeth wrote:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

most informative page I've ever seen on the subject of God, many thanks

nice1franko

No

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think I like to mess with people my way terry, hush up, the response is usually good

It was an impressive post alright but, not to knock your ego, your spending an hour or two writing an essay on atheism doesn't "mess" with anyone. You should really try to keep that ego of yours in check. It spills over into a lot of your posts and, I'll hazzard a guess, real life interactions too. It isn't a good attribute.

You know, I didn't think you'd be able to resist flexing the muscle and, luckily enough, you'd all Saturday night to do it Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed yourself. I hope you can acknowledge to yourself that it was purely a bit of mental maturbation though: you didn't break any new ground there. Bar the few personal details in your post, it's all been said before. Many, many times.

So, at this stage, we all know both sides of the argument and, in the end, it boils down to faith (or not), and thus, a stalemate. I'm sure you've seen the pattern emerge by now.

I don't need religion as a crutch or to stave of fear; I'm not brainwashed, weak in character or in mind. I've a logical brain (need one as a programmer) but I still believe that whatever the rules of this universe, whatever we understand about it - and, with this amazing information era still only in its infancy, that is precious little - there is a God.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

there is a God.

Prove it.

Dave!

Not sure

It's about faith, dude......

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

Oh sh1t, how do I disprove that?

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

It was an impressive post alright but, not to knock your ego, your spending an hour or two writing an essay on atheism doesn't "mess" with anyone. You should really try to keep that ego of yours in check. It spills over into a lot of your posts and, I'll hazzard a guess, real life interactions too. It isn't a good attribute.

You know, I didn't think you'd be able to resist flexing the muscle and, luckily enough, you'd all Saturday night to do it Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed yourself. I hope you can acknowledge to yourself that it was purely a bit of mental maturbation though: you didn't break any new ground there. Bar the few personal details in your post, it's all been said before. Many, many times.

So, at this stage, we all know both sides of the argument and, in the end, it boils down to faith (or not), and thus, a stalemate. I'm sure you've seen the pattern emerge by now.

I don't need religion as a crutch or to stave of fear; I'm not brainwashed, weak in character or in mind. I've a logical brain (need one as a programmer) but I still believe that whatever the rules of this universe, whatever we understand about it - and, with this amazing information era still only in its infancy, that is precious little - there is a God.

I'm sorry if you think I wasted Saturday night on you, but well, that was something I had to write for my education, I then had to give a speech on it.
I just copy and pasted all of that from another forum, I did change half the first line though. Oh, the flexing.
As for mental masturbation, that is why I had that Carl Sagan quote paraphrased at the start of my post.

People who I mention and who you say you are not, do not know they are, that is a quite obvious point.

nice1franko

No

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

...
People who I mention and who you say you are not, do not know they are, that is a quite obvious point.

That's true. Given that, what can you do convince them otherwise or are you wasting your time?

edit: I didn't think you wasted your Saturday night on me... my point was that you spent it on yourself. Also, Have you a link to the thread in the other forum so people can read through it without duplicating its contents here?

Orange69

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

there is a God.

Do you believe in the "Devil" too?

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

If one were so inclined to convince somebody like this, against the very core of what they are, one would have a very difficult time. Not many would or could come around. In fact, when beliefs are challenged in someone that holds them dear, they usually lash out - this helps nobody. Sometimes erratically, Wolfesbane on teh Christianity forum for instance, he thinks all of science is a conspiracy against creationism, as it conflicts with his views. I don't try to convince people of anything in this regard, I don't see much point. They can believe what they want. I do like debating and discussing it though(in official debates usually).

nice1franko

No

Orange69 wrote:

Do you believe in the "Devil" too?

Do you know what "quotes" are for?

Orange69

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

Do you know what "quotes" are for?

yes

Tar.Aldarion

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

That's true. Given that, what can you do convince them otherwise or are you wasting your time?

edit: I didn't think you wasted your Saturday night on me... my point was that you spent it on yourself. Also, Have you a link to the thread in the other forum so people can read through it without duplicating its contents here?

I didn't spend it on myself, I spent all day with my gf, she was reading a thesis for 10mins so I replied to you...
I originally posted it on a private forum on boards, however here is some other discussion I had where it is posted.
As you can see, I'm too lazy to rewrite things and use something I wrote in primary school...
http://forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=275&start=45

5uspect

Not sure

Nope, I don't believe in heaven or much else for that matter.

The evidence suggests that certain theories about the way the world is are sufficiently accurate to be useful for predicting and understanding the world. Unfortunately there are millions of hypotheses of which heaven is just one.

I see no reason to believe in it. Funnily enough I have to call myself an Atheist because I don't give the ideas of some bronze age sky dictator worshipers and credence. What would I call myself if I didn't believe in [Insert random idea here]? As San Harris nicely pointed out we don't have a name for folks who don't believe in astrology.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

Do you know what "quotes" are for?

Nice way to dodge the question.

Plug

Not sure

The only God is a bit of minge on a saturday night;)
Sorry holy freaks.

When everyone dies you go in a hole in the ground, your body rots and decas into micro-organisms. Before someone says something about a soul just remember the time your parents said the toothfairy wasen't real:(

nice1franko

No

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Nice way to dodge the question.

Thanks. Tried to dodge it cos I suspected he was trying to set me up for ridicule. His clumsy approach made it fairly easy to sidestep though.

Also, and much more importantly, it was just going round in fukcing circles, wasn't it? I mean, I'd just explained why I thought discussion on the subject (and in AH of all places) was futile and then slackjaw pipes up "do you believe in the 'Devil' too?"