How do people still belive in God?

gbee

Brendog wrote: »

Rat Poison is to rats as Pope Benedict is to Catholisism. Basically Preists just make up stories to make god more attractive to people...

This is also known as "Putting cheese on the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

Yes, but I do hand it to the Roman Catholic Church for being consistent. You may know that the RCC was founded by Romans ~ not St Peter and that the RCC has absolutely nothing to do with the Church that Christ ordered Peter to found.

Time accuracy is a contentious issue but St Peter would have had to be nearly 400 years of age as the RCC was founded in approx 360AD. It was a shelter for the collapsing Roman, Western Empire [The Eastern Empire was doing grand but split from Rome] ~

The late days of Rome are full of the worst type of decadence and it was these people who proclaimed to the advancing hordes that they had converted to the true religion and now had the hand of God at their side to smythe any enemy.

Seems to have worked, they are still here over 1,600 years later, a big round of applause is deserved, I think.

Craptacular

aidoh wrote: »

1. Read all my post.

2. Not justifying this with any more of a response. Im generally not one to call people who I know nothing about idiots. But you come across as an absolute dolt dribbling out this sort of rhetoric.

I hope that your post was meant to be funny or something. If it was I apologise.

I did read all your post. You're completely missing my point but trying to cover up or deny the things that science can't do by pointing out science was behind my keyboard baffles me.

I'll spell it out for you.
There are many things science can not prove and that inability does not make those things true or false. For example my ridiculous dinosaur claim can not be proven or disproven but that doesn't make it true or false. That being the case the "prove it is" "no, you prove it isn't" argument (particularly about god) is stupid.

There are many people who are as blind about science's flaws as religious fundamentalists are about the contradictions of religion. You did a fine impression of one by throwing the keyboard statement in.

jackiebaron

What I'd like to know is if believers in "God" really feel that they should be left in peace to follow their faith and not be harassed by atheists then why was it that the early God believers (let's call them Christians) persecuted and forbade those who believed in multiple gods?

Why do/did you not extend the same tolerance of belief to the paganistic believers that you expect to be extended to you by the atheists?

Cullen82

I'm not a believer myself but I think people take this Atheist view too far sometimes. Such as the type of people who insist on announcing to everyone how they think religion etc is bull&%$£ (almost as if its the cool or done thing) - That's just insulting other peoples mentality, Is there any need for it?.....the answer is no

TBH though, I don't have much time for listening to people who swear or live by the Bible we know but on the other hand I think anyone who insists there is no such thing as a God is also being a little naive - There's endless possibilities that will never be discovered in this life so fact is - nobody knows fcuking anything!


"each to their own"

Craptacular

jackiebaron wrote: »

What I'd like to know is if believers in "God" really feel that they should be left in peace to follow their faith and not be harassed by atheists then why was it that the early God believers (let's call them Christians) persecuted and forbade those who believed in multiple gods?

Why do/did you not extend the same tolerance of belief to the paganistic believers that you expect to be extended to you by the atheists?

Centuries ago people did something so why do people now expect something different? Is that really your question?

gbee

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do/did you not extend the same tolerance of belief to the paganistic believers that you expect to be extended to you by the atheists?

You are mixing up beliefs and ruling power implementations.

A Church/Religion has ruled the World for a long time, in what we call the west we have grown a certain tolerance and a freedom of speech.

This tolerance and freedom of speech was denied by the ruling kings and governments, through the Roman Church.

It was a power trip made [obviously] by madmen, no different from Hitler's illness in the recent past, not excusable of course, but he who has the power lays down the law.

You can believe in what you want, you always could ~ but you could not openly proclaim so under the 1,600 year Roman Rule.

jackiebaron

kjl wrote: »

good, but please give it 50 pages.

Read the Dancing Wu Li Masters as well

stupidusername

Cullen82 wrote: »

nobody knows fcuking anything!

I think this sums it up nicely.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of god amongst many other things, so why ask people to justify their belief? It's just an attempt to make people feel stupid. I'm an intelligent person and if I choose to believe in god, or anything else then that's my choice. Only thing is I'm not shoving my beliefs down other peoples throats. If people choose to believe in something you don't that's their business, and it's not anybody's place to suggest they're wrong.

I'm all for having a discussion about all these things, but generally people starting a conversation with 'prove to me this is a fact' when you know it can't be proved or disproved, isn't a discussion.

AudreyHepburn

jackiebaron wrote: »

What I'd like to know is if believers in "God" really feel that they should be left in peace to follow their faith and not be harassed by atheists then why was it that the early God believers (let's call them Christians) persecuted and forbade those who believed in multiple gods?

Why do/did you not extend the same tolerance of belief to the paganistic believers that you expect to be extended to you by the atheists?

On the flip side why do atheists expect people of faith to just change their beliefs like that because they(athiests) don't share them and think they're stupid? And why should people who believe respect and accept your ideas when you don't do the same for us?

You see my point.......it works both ways here.

smash

I hate telling people who believe in God to watch Zeitgeist because although I like a good conspiracy theory, I don't really get wrapped up in them.

But f*ck it... Go and watch Zeitgeist!

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I see where this is going :rolleyes:

As I said before I believe he exists but I don't KNOW that he does. I choose to believe though.

My issue was with those who say there is proof he doesn't exist and I just mean that for me there isn't enough to make me doubt or for me to want to change what believe.

I'm saying to you, you need to reassess where the burden of proof lies. Also, the probability of his existence.

AudreyHepburn

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm saying to you, you need to reassess where the burden of proof lies. Also, the probability of his existence.

What do you mean where the burdern of proof lies? Are you saying that it should be up to those with faith to prove he does exist?

And probability is not proof of anything.

Ush1

orourkeda wrote: »

Perhaps there is a scientific consensus and I must admit to not being hugely knowledgeable on that particular aspect. At the same time it isnt hugely conclusive either.

What sort of conclusion are you expecting exactly? God, along with an infinite number of other things can not be disproven, this does not make them likely.

AudreyHepburn

Ush1 wrote: »

What sort of conclusion are you expecting exactly? God, along with an infinite number of other things can not be disproven, this does not make them likely.

Doesn't make him unlikely either.

It just means no-one can know for sure either way. You just believe whatever you want to.

dlofnep

jordan.. wrote: »

for God to exist there must be evil. Right now it is clear evil rules the world!

What?

Logic fail.

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What do you mean where the burdern of proof lies? Are you saying that it should be up to those with faith to prove he does exist?

And probability is not proof of anything.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you're claiming something, it's up to you to back it up. Otherwise, it's all just hot air.

Probability is based on evidence, and the probability for God isn't high. The evidence for him is non existant.

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Doesn't make him unlikely either.

It just means no-one can know for sure either way. You just believe whatever you want to.

What??? How have you come to that?

It makes him unfathomably unlikely.

Pittens

The problem with this debate is that it is, in fact, logical. I am sure that most people posting are logical - it is the atheist forum after all. Most people in the general world are not. We have a religious gene. You can no more quash it than you can general human sexuality.

Sea Sharp

A: You don't need a god to explain anything from the big-band until now.
B: Yeah but what about before the big bang?
A: /facepalm. If there's no evidence of a god's intervention from the big-band until now then the idea of a god before the big-bang is just as negligible as an infinite number of possibilities.
B: I'll just ignore this, hard questions mean I'm being tested by the devil.
A: So what do you have to say about that?
B: Yeah but what about before the big bang?
A: /facepalm. I can't argue like this, I give up.
B: Praise be to Jesus, you helped me win this argument with the wicked non-believers.
A: Go fcuk yourself you idiot.
B: Wow, that's not very Christian. I was right, you're conspiring with the devil to test my faith. Praise be to Jesus.

George Orwell 1982

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Doesn't make him unlikely either.

It just means no-one can know for sure either way. You just believe whatever you want to.

Look I could say ' How do you know you are not just a brain in a jar of liquid being controlled by some mad scientist and everything around you is not real. Its just in your mind." You can't disprove this. You can't disprove the idea that our world is being controlled by aliens. Same with God. The idea is just so outlandish that there is no way to test if it is true or not true. The idea has no link to reality.

AudreyHepburn

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you're claiming something, it's up to you to back it up.

In that case prove to me he doesn't exist.

As I have already said I cannot prove that he exists and I never said I could. I do believe he exists and that's my right.

George Orwell 1982

Pittens wrote: »

The problem with this debate is that it is, in fact, logical. I am sure that most people posting are logical - it is the atheist forum after all. Most people in the general world are not. We have a religious gene. You can no more quash it than you can general human sexuality.

There has been killing and maiming from time immorial as well. Does that make it right? Does this mean there is a gene for killing and maiming?

Utter BS.

AudreyHepburn

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

The idea is just so outlandish that there is no way to test if it is true or not true. The idea has no link to reality.

In your opinion the idea is crazy.

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In that case prove to me he doesn't exist.

As I have already said I cannot prove that he exists and I never said I could. I do believe he exists and that's my right.

Sorry, no credible scientist has ever claimed to disprove God.

It's your right absolutely, but if you think the probability of God existing and not existing is 50-50, you are sadly mistaken.

AudreyHepburn

Ush1 wrote: »

]Probability is based on evidence, and the probability for God isn't high. The evidence for him is non existant.

Again show me this evidence.......

George Orwell 1982

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In that case prove to me he doesn't exist.

Can you prove you are not just a brain in a jar of liquid being controlled by a mad scientist? As I said before the idea is just so outlandish, with no tangible link to the here and now, that it is impossible to even test if it is true or false.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As I have already said I cannot prove that he exists and I never said I could. I do believe he exists and that's my right.

Well believe whatever you want then. Just don't pretend its reasonable or rational. It isn't.

AudreyHepburn

Ush1 wrote: »

Sorry, no credible scientist has ever claimed to disprove God.

You see?! You have no more proof than I do so saying I should be the one to produce the evidence is hyprocritical at best and worst completely non-sensical and just ridiculous.

It's your right absolutely, but if you think the probability of God existing and not existing is 50-50, you are sadly mistaken.

I never said anything like that. Re-read my post.

George Orwell 1982

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In your opinion the idea is crazy.

Yes because there is absolutely no rational basis for the idea at all. None.

To say that you are just a brain in a jar of liquid being controlled by a mad scientist is every bit as plausible as saying there is a God.

meditraitor

Hitler was an athiest




















lock me now:P

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Again show me this evidence.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

It's the lack of evidence that's the key. This makes something improbable.