Does Anyone In This 'forum' Believe In God?

[jfreeman420]

Christians are the ones that are selfish IMO. It is quite selfish to believe that you are the only group that is right and everyone else is wrong. It is selfish to push your beliefs on everone else. It is selfish to teach your children things that you cannot prove and are contradicted by science. It is selfish to expect 10% of your earnings for "tidings".

Religion is all about being selfish. Atheism is about having free thought. All atheists gather their own conclusions about the universe and life based on fact not fairy tales. It is selfish to expect everyone to think the same way. I believe that is what Hitler wanted.

[Craytonic]

..so choosing to do good for others makes me a selfish person..

I can live with that.

People can't choose religion with an acceptance of everything implicated?

It is prideful to say you exist for whatever purpose you choose. Making that purpose helping others is not however, selfish. You are moving to the second point to get away from the first.

[Craytonic]

Christians are the ones that are selfish IMO. It is quite selfish to believe that you are the only group that is right and everyone else is wrong. It is selfish to push your beliefs on everone else. It is selfish to teach your children things that you cannot prove and are contradicted by science. It is selfish to expect 10% of your earnings for "tidings".

Religion is all about being selfish. Atheism is about having free thought. All atheists gather their own conclusions about the universe and life based on fact not fairy tales. It is selfish to expect everyone to think the same way. I believe that is what Hitler wanted.

Off topic, we are discussing the existence of God, not the +/- of christianity. Although you raise some points that may merit response, that would be more appropriate in a different thread.

[Pugwash]

If you are an atheiest your only purpose can be your own.

I will bite. How am I implying an athiest can't love?

See above.

If you have children and decide to devote the rest of your life to improving their life, in what way is your purpose your own? Giving your life for another is possible, regardless of faith. To deny us selfless acts like this because we do not believe in a higher power is a little arrogant.

[Craytonic]

You have made your purpose your children because you chose to do so (internal). You have no reason to do so other than your own (internal) processes. With athism everything is internal (the individual), with God there is an external factor. I don't believe it is arrogant to point out this difference.

[Everythingape]

So.. How can I be without faith and still not be prideful? Is it possible at all?

[Raijor]

Christians are the ones that are selfish IMO. It is quite selfish to believe that you are the only group that is right and everyone else is wrong. It is selfish to push your beliefs on everone else. It is selfish to teach your children things that you cannot prove and are contradicted by science. It is selfish to expect 10% of your earnings for "tidings".

Religion is all about being selfish. Atheism is about having free thought. All atheists gather their own conclusions about the universe and life based on fact not fairy tales. It is selfish to expect everyone to think the same way. I believe that is what Hitler wanted.

Living is about being selfish. Accumulationg resources for survival and fighting to live and pass on your genes is selfish. Interestingly, Charles Darwin and the Catholic Church postulate the sole purpose of all animals existance including humans is to pass on their genitic code to the next generation through procreation - itself a selfish act.

Selfish Selfish Selfish - Atheism is better than Christiany but Islam is best of all - can you not see where this type of thinking ultimately leads? BOOM BOOM BOOM

[ratchpot]

Here's the one that got me. I realised one day that if there were a god, he wouldn't only allow you to believe in the the one true religion based purely on the location of the birth of your parents.

So, how come the Australian Aborigines didn't have a concept of Jehova until they got presented with it along with alcohol and syphilis?

I don't believe in god, but for different reasons to you. I don't believe in god because there's no evidence that a supernatural being created everything.

if there were a god, he wouldn't only allow you to believe in the the one true religion based purely on the location of the birth of your parents.

An easy way to rebut your argument is to simply ask: how do you know what a god would or wouldn't do if god did indeed exist? Obviously, the answer is that you don't. Therefore the argument falls apart.

[Craytonic]

I don't believe in god, but for different reasons to you. I don't believe in god because there's no evidence that a supernatural being created everything.

Technically, there is no scientific evidence he didn't either...

I see what looks like evidence to me all the time. Although not "scientific proof," it says a lot to me. Different people see God in different places. Math, nature, etc.

[Pugwash]

Technically, there is no scientific evidence he didn't either...

There is no scientific evidence I didn't create you but are you willing to believe that too? In fact, I've decided I'm your new god. Accept it or I'll consider you a heretic.

[Craytonic]

What are you getting at, I was responding to ratchpot that he was making a weak argument... I guess thanks for re-inforcing that?

You have considered me a heretic for a long time

[Pugwash]

What are you getting at, I was responding to ratchpot that he was making a weak argument... I guess thanks for re-inforcing that?

You have considered me a heretic for a long time

You're mistaking me for TTK.

ps. yes, it was a weak argument.

[Craytonic]

You two aren't alter egos of the same person? When you started saying you were god I put a little more stalk into that theory (kidding!!!! and running and hiding)

Yeah, should have made that more clear. I just think that particular argument is a moot point either way. Sure there is no evidence God exists, but there is no evidence he doesn't (as in something you can put next to "God" in the dictionary sense of the word)

[jkarpas]

I used to be agnostic, but I eventually became atheist.

+1

[ratchpot]

Technically, there is no scientific evidence he didn't either...

Sure there is no evidence God exists, but there is no evidence he doesn't

Your counterarguments are based on a logical fallacy, so your point about my argument being weak is unsubstantiated. Furthermore your statements in no way help your own argument.

[Craytonic]

It isn't weak why? I don't see how you can go either way on this on "evidence" argument outside of people that don't believe because of some great tragedy (perhaps there was a reason they don't understand) or people that believe because they see evidence in math, nature, beauty, etc. It is just a clever little thing to say, not something to base your beliefs on.

By analogy there is no "evidence" that a perfect circle exists or has ever existed - take it to a high enough level of precision and any circle will be off. I can represent it conceptually and mathematically, and I don't think I would say I don't believe in a perfect circle because there is no actual evidence of one.

[fotoman]

ok - i'm going to step in - unfortunatly some of these issues were already covered in my post that never showed up.

To all the religious folks arguing logic - Go read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - he carefully does away with any logical argument for religion or god.

Pointing out that religion holds an absurd presumption in our society being the only subject to which the ones with no evidence of existance force everyone else to Prove a negative. For instance. if i chose to "believe" that little purple men live on the planet mercury - I don't force the religous to prove they DON"T exist.

2nd - relating to the argument about If there were a god he wouldn't require belief in only 1 system.

Ok - if were going to take the construct of a god that is "perfect" or "all knowing" you would have to assume that a perfect or higher being wouldn't be subject to some of Man's most common frailties - and ones that ancient books would seem to outlaw - like, Ego.

So, in fact if there were a perfect being, it would be highly UNLIKELY that we would need to worship him or her.

ALso - have you noticed how Jelous and small the god of the bible is? - What is the #1 rule of #1 rules? THat there is 1 god and you shall not worship any others (the ten commandments)

and if that wasn't enough a 2nd of the 10 most imporant rules of all time says you shall not take the name of the lord in vein.

HOw much of an ego maniac do you have to be to forbid people speaking of you unless it is in a formal context

by the way does anyone here believe that the appropriate compass for moral value comes from the bible? either old or new testiment?- cause if my children followed the example shown in the bible - First there is no doubt that children and family services (i.e. the state) would come take them away - and i know they would be severly punished by me.

The bible (especially the old testiment) is a horrible book with example after example of the worst way to run a life.

those who base their beliefs on ancient books can't with any intellectual honesty explain why certain parts of the book are sacrosanct - divine and must be followed and some is - just not that relevent. - THe moral values of society have evolved and "the good book"has be reinterprited to fit the current moral zeitgeist.

When i was young i was amazed that words written 2000 or 5000 were still relevent today. - Well, there are some wonderful books out there that pin the basics of our "moral values" / the universal nature of our accepted societial rules can be explained with darwinian cause/ and effect.

FINALLY, - if you still don't think that "organized religions" were not just a local scam ran by the power elite in their towns/ societies - check out the subject of Cargo Cults.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cults There is no clearer example of what our ancient ancestors went through - and our ability to have observed it with our modern understandings.

especially check out the cult of John Frum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum - if your interested at all in religion you must understand this subject.

this book which has a part to play in the upcoming documentry by james cameron - the jesus tomb - has gotten some good reviews and the author has a part in the whole deal. its called the Jesus Dynasty and it is a look at the historical jesus http://www.jesusdynasty.com/

The best example i give to people is - even under the current church understanding of when the new testiment was written it was 50 years after jesus death. - That is the equivilent of writing a history of world war II - Today -

and with no media to record the occurences -- i don't know about you, but my wife and mother can't keep a story straight from the middle of the day to that evening. - 50 years?

ok - again - if your a believer and are offended by what i'm writing - then you should be able to take comfort in the fact that i will burn

i recomend everyone to look for themselves at the information that is out there, at historical understandings of ancient civilizations and a clear picture of what we were and who we were is pretty transparent.

besides if there was a god wouldn't he/she have given me the ability to spell?

[Craytonic]

A writer & movie making money off religion by talking about how others make money off religion? Irony?

[fotoman]

A writer & movie making money off religion by talking about how others make money off religion? Irony?

James cameron doesn't "need the money" he is going to make if anything on this documentry

the religous folks that have the potential to lose their industry is a whole other subject.

DId you know that Jerry Falwell told his followers that the Lord WANTS him to have a private jet, so he can do all the good works fo the lord.

If you want to talk about putting on a show check out who hired the best ancient inventors to create "miracles" in order to woo followers

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=det...pisodeId=211049

"Gods and religion played an extremely important role in antiquity. The problem with so many religions being worshipped by the Greeks and Romans was how would the priests of these temples pay for their upkeep? Great scholars such as Philon, Ctesibius and Heron were patronized by the temples to create "magic". In return, they created intriguing and mind blowing objects. It was a heavy mix of religion and science. One of the most famous illusions was found in Alexandria at the temple of Serapis, where an iron chariot was suspended in mid air. It appeared to be the work of the gods."

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

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeronAlexandria2.htm

with these magic tricks like turning Water into Wine (you may have heard of that one) and creating artificial thunder noises in the church on cue ancient religous leaders duped followers into believing that they had supernatural connections and powers.

The sad part is with all the resources money food people that were put into ancient mysticism - sacrafices edifices ect ect and with all of the modern money that goes into praising the almighty you could stop using societies resources tword that and do some really great things.

again, i don't really want to upset anyone on the board, i usually resist from making these sorts of points cause generally i just upset people and they don't change thier opinions. - but, i figure, if you have been following th thread this long your coming here knowing what concepts will be challenged and should be able to deal with it not being personal.

[fotoman]

It isn't weak why? I don't see how you can go either way on this on "evidence" argument outside of people that don't believe because of some great tragedy (perhaps there was a reason they don't understand) or people that believe because they see evidence in math, nature, beauty, etc. It is just a clever little thing to say, not something to base your beliefs on.

By analogy there is no "evidence" that a perfect circle exists or has ever existed - take it to a high enough level of precision and any circle will be off. I can represent it conceptually and mathematically, and I don't think I would say I don't believe in a perfect circle because there is no actual evidence of one.

a person of science and math would ABSOLUTLY say that if there is no evidence of a perfect circle one doesn't exist.

Not only is there no evidence of a higher being, but - the evidence that does exist would point against any intelligence designing the world.

Humans for instance are not ment to stand upright - there is too much stress placed on our lower backs because we - well, the old we- the primates walked on all 4s

thats why so many of us have bad backs.

there is plenty of "stupid or useless" things in nature - most likley the result of a trait that is left over and was once darwinianly important. - i haven't read through the thread specifically to see from which angle you are approaching the issue - but, i could point you tword some very convincing books laying out evidence that of the examples that exist in the world/ universe they point to there NOT being a single consciousness or almighty.

and - lets say thee is a god and he or she is responcible for writing the bible.

Do you really want to take your cues from someone who believs that one of the best that man kind can offer - lot, who god saw fit to send 2 angles to save before destroying his city. His daughters sometime after leaving decided to get him drunk and have sex with him in order to impregnat them. 1 on one night and the other the following night.

is this the family that god sees fit to save from destruction ?

fact is, the world is an amazing and wonderous place - science is amazing, people are amazing, flowers are amazing - and i don't need them to have been Divinely created in order that i can appreciate them. And i also don't need to be threatend with eternal suffering just to keep from shooting everyone on my block.

[Craytonic]

a person of science and math would ABSOLUTLY say that if there is no evidence of a perfect circle one doesn't exist.

Not only is there no evidence of a higher being, but - the evidence that does exist would point against any intelligence designing the world.

While soo easy to define, all the points equidistant from a fixed point on a plane (or something to that effect), as we have both pointed out, it is not known to exist. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in it; I visualize it so easily! And without our definition and concept of a perfect circle, we would not be able to define all the non-perfect ones that exist in reality and merely approximate the perfect one. Harkens back to Aristotle, the forms, and perfection.

I really think you chose your conclusion and then found some things you agreed with to justify it. You mix religion, religions, religious leaders, belief, God, faith, and man in a big jumble to condemn them all. For one, we are talking about God - not religion.

I think the only way to go about this, as some other members appear to have done, is from A --> B --> C (I exist (y/n). If I exist, how did I come about? How did what/whom created me come about (and all the way back to square one)? If I exist, do I exist for a purpose (y/n), if I exist for a purpose, what is that purpose?, etc) (I realize those aren't the best questions or the best order, but you get the idea). That is the only way you can really discuss this because it is very logical and you can analyze each step independently. Otherwise it is just a jumble everyone skims and if they like the conclusion shakes head yes.

[fotoman]

While soo easy to define, all the points equidistant from a fixed point on a plane (or something to that effect), as we have both pointed out, it is not known to exist. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in it; I visualize it so easily! And without our definition and concept of a perfect circle, we would not be able to define all the non-perfect ones that exist in reality and merely approximate the perfect one. Harkens back to Aristotle, the forms, and perfection.

I really think you chose your conclusion and then found some things you agreed with to justify it. You mix religion, religions, religious leaders, belief, God, faith, and man in a big jumble to condemn them all. For one, we are talking about God - not religion.

I think the only way to go about this, as some other members appear to have done, is from A --> B --> C (I exist (y/n). If I exist, how did I come about? How did what/whom created me come about (and all the way back to square one)? If I exist, do I exist for a purpose (y/n), if I exist for a purpose, what is that purpose?, etc) (I realize those aren't the best questions or the best order, but you get the idea). That is the only way you can really discuss this because it is very logical and you can analyze each step independently. Otherwise it is just a jumble everyone skims and if they like the conclusion shakes head yes.

i disagree there is no such thing as a perfect circle. Maybe there isn't one naturally composed and maybe you can't draw one, but you definatly can make one. check out nanotubes

I haven't confused anything, but in many instances i have lumped religion, god, and spirituatlity together because in many instances they are the same.

As i said before, i wasn't sure from which viewpoint you were approaching this, i should havebeen more specific as a defender of religion, or god or spirituality.

We can take a look at your questions-

However, there is only 1 important one to examine as it is the basis for the discussion - who created the first whatever. The question of whether we exist is irrellivent because if we don't exist, then any answer we would have given to the question would also equally not exist.

the question is - who created the universe. THe reason for teh question is, our brains as humans are small and were not built to comprehend the concept of infinity. everything we know and can observe has a finite begining and finite ending.

The question is one that can no be answered, but- can be reasoned to have 1 answer more likley than not.

The problem of the chicken and egg is exactly that. If you state that there is a god because who created all of this. I would retort with, well, then who created god. And if it is possible that god was always there, then why isn't it equally possible that the matter in the universe was always there. just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now - why would i say there is a higher probability tword god NOT existing at least one of conciousness as described in the bible, or as generally understood as some sort of concious creator - there is no evidence of such that is observable.

however, we can observe the impact and reality of the laws of physics and matter. Although more convienent and conforms the laws of the universe in a model that our small brains can understand, the concept of a conscious creator is not supported by observation or logic. However, physics is.

So i say that it is therefore more liklye that the universe was "just always there" as opposed to some other supernatural being who was always there and "created" the universe.

[Dani]

]"Oh, we've spared no pains and we've spared no dough;

And we've dug at the secrets of long ago;

And we've risen to heaven and plunged Below,

For we wanted to make it one Hell of a show."

[Pugwash]

ok - i'm going to step in - unfortunatly some of these issues were already covered in my post that never showed up.

All those sources and arguments against God? Satan created them to cast doubt. He got to you, you're going to burn.

See? You can't argue against that.

[fotoman]

All those sources and arguments against God? Satan created them to cast doubt. He got to you, you're going to burn.

See? You can't argue against that.

casting doubt is the hobgoblin of the curious mind.

remember satan is the provider of curiosity and critical thought (see the apple of knowledge)

god has punished all of us for asking questons and being curious bykicking us out of paradise

does it really make sense that a creator would create the human brain hard wired with a sense of curiosity and a "need to know" for the purpose of living in complete ignorance? the church would have you believe so.

also for a similiar retort see the wizard if oz

"pay no attention to that man behind th curtain"

pug if there is one thing i can get right in this f-ed up world its arguing the rest i just fake good enough to get by