do you believe there is a GOD?

[gotakun]

<p>

@ikillers

But that’s the thing. Faith is not about witnessing some supernatural reality in the way you describe it. It’s deeper than that.

I understand what you’re saying. What I’m saying is that before I could cross over into that mindset, I would have to witness some sort of proof (in my eyes), which is exactly how you would feel about every other belief. You make an exception for your religion that is incongruent with EVERY other aspect of your life. If you can think of any other situation, that does not relate to your religion, where you put absolute faith into a belief for which you have no proof (besides maybe anecdotal evidence), I’d be interested to hear.</p>

<p>

I’m not sure if that’s right. Being different has always been a cause of opposition from a majority.

Why do you assume it was never in the norm?
[Homosexuality</a> in Ancient Greece - ReligionFacts](<a href=“http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/ancient_greeks.htm]Homosexuality”>Homosexuality in the World's Religions - ReligionFacts)
Even in cases where it isn’t the norm, it wasn’t necessarily opposed. The idea of opposing it only comes into play when it is given a moral value.</p>

<p>

They just reveal insecurity.

Lmao… Trust me, there is ZERO insecurity on this issue. I would not be so open to evidence of the contrary or challenging arguments if I was insecure. You, on the other hand, have ignored everything that’s been said, apparently on the assumption that a “good” theologian would have answers that you don’t. Have you EVER witnessed a debate between a respected religious authority and a prominent atheist? If you have, and have EVER seen the religious participant come out ahead or even make any valid points whatsoever, please send me the link. When will you understand that it is NOT possible, just as it is equally impossible for every other religion to accomplish the same thing?</p>

<p>

Everything you say in that paragraph is either absolutely untrue, could be debunked by any decent theologian or historian, is insignificant, is blown out of proportion and significance, or true and of some significance but not enough to make serious people abandon their faith.

/facepalm</p>

<p>

Someone very well thought out, whom I respect, would have to reasonably and respectfully introduce well-formed arguments against faith in God. I haven’t found much on this thread. When you spout out vitriol or blanket statements about those with faith, your arguments don’t gain any credence.

It depends on your definition of “respectful,” I suppose. If going up to a schizophrenic person in a mental hospital, listening to their outlandish version of reality, and responding with “I respect your opinion, but this is how reality is for me,” is respectful, then we do not share the same idea of respect. On a matter that is not subjective, I respect you more by telling you the absolute truth in a non-judgmental manner than by giving you the false impression that your belief is anywhere close to valid.</p>

[futurenyustudent]

<p>No. There’s no rational, scientific proof.</p>

<p>Nobody has been able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of God.</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>Yes, you would have to be a moron to think the Constitution meant bear-arms just as you have to be a moron to pick and choose which passages of Leviticus you have to follow.</p>

<p>By the way, one hebrew study found that “Leviticus verses do not deal with homosexuality but rather the Canaanite sex rituals performed by Molech’s male priests/ prostitutes who dressed up as women, wore goddess vestments, and goddess masks and whose customers were male- hence laying with a male as though a female.”</p>

<p>Not to mention, according to Leviticus (who was about as holy as my last fart) — it is also an “abomination” to eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fibers. I hope you haven’t had any shrimp recently or worn any polyester. Further proof the Bible is a steaming pile.</p>

<p>Anyway, why do people emphasize and scream and shout about the homo passage, but there is not a word on shellfish, mixed fibers, or divorce?</p>

<p>It is because they don’t care about shellfish or mixed fibers or divorce. They only ever cared about being afraid and intolerant of homosexuals, before they ever read one word of Leviticus, and now, bigoted and cowardly as they are, they are hiding behind the Bible.</p>

<p>I am saying, the Bible doesn’t cause bigotry, though it may certainly support or enhance it. It’s certainly not doing any good for the matter.</p>

<p>But get rid of the Bible, and the bigots out there will still exist.</p>

<p>And I’ve stopped caring about who has faith in who. We’ll all be rotting in the ground soon enough (~70 years).</p>

[LogicWarrior]

<p>

here i’ll start:

• atheists are super insufferable (who knew that you could be so passionate about believing in nothing?)
• some atheists like namedropping ideas like logic without understanding what they really mean . . .

</p>

<p>Now that I think about it, the number one reason I believe in God is not wanting to be associated with atheists. Thanks for putting my view into words, silence.</p>

[ABR1190]

<p>

Have you EVER witnessed a debate between a respected religious authority and a prominent atheist? If you have, and have EVER seen the religious participant come out ahead or even make any valid points whatsoever, please send me the link.

</p>

<p>I am an agnostic, but William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, has won pretty much every debate he’s partaken in.</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert 1/12](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qh98DX3-L0]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qh98DX3-L0)</p>

[ikillers]

<p>

@schaden

Don’t be sorry, just know not having the time to do it and not having an argument are virtually equivalent.

</p>

<p>That doesn’t make any sense. I’m just pretty busy.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

Lol cute. I made it very clear both exactly what I meant and how in-depth my knowledge was in the OP. It’s not my fault if people want to respond and talk about math. Anyway, I’m pretty sure I used it correctly in the first place.

</p>

<p>haha no you didn’t. ‘illogical’ isn’t another way of saying ‘i don’t like this’.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

Now that I think about it, the number one reason I believe in God is not wanting to be associated with atheists. Thanks for putting my view into words, silence.

</p>

<p>internet atheists are way more annoying than evangelical christians–and this is coming from someone who doesn’t believe in god</p>

[eastafrobeauty]

<p>Okay question for all the atheists out there:</p>

<p>say what IF when you die you find out that God really exists? And then what if you’re doomed for an eternal lifetime in hell?</p>

<p>Aren’t y’all scared of that possibility happening?</p>

<p>(i believe in God(Allah) btw).</p>

[Icarus]

<p>^ basically what you’re talking about is Occam’s razor. But don’t you think that to feign belief simply in order to gain favor with god on the off chance that he/she/it existed would be more likely to incite some form of vengence if god did exist than if you were true to the fact that you don’t believe?</p>

<p>I’ve always found it interesting that belief in god is a prerequisite to the afterlife for (the vast majority of) theists. Imagine if Mother Theresa were Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish - nothing else different about her - still did all the things that she did - just a different faith. The vast majority of Christians would say that she would be bound to an eternity in hell. I’d love to know how this works when the concept of god is an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-present and completely good being. This isn’t an argument for or against the existence of god, just pointing out one of the absurdities of religion.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@LogicWarrior

Now that I think about it, the number one reason I believe in God is not wanting to be associated with atheists. Thanks for putting my view into words, silence.

Anything in specific? Is it our closed-mindedness? Maybe our judgmental disposition?</p>

<p>

@ikillers

That doesn’t make any sense. I’m just pretty busy.

Actually, it does make sense. If you have to take time to construct an argument, it means you don’t have one currently.</p>

<p>

@silence_kit

haha no you didn’t. ‘illogical’ isn’t another way of saying ‘i don’t like this’.

I never said it was. I specifically referred to logical proofs in the OP. The assumption that was made to make the inference I was misusing the term was invalid. That was a cute laugh, though :). “haha”</p>

<p>

@eastafrobeauty

Okay question for all the atheists out there:</p>

<p>say what IF when you die you find out that God really exists? And then what if you’re doomed for an eternal lifetime in hell?</p>

<p>Aren’t y’all scared of that possibility happening?</p>

<p>(i believe in God(Allah) btw).

Assuming you mean the Christian god… To be honest, if that happened, I think living my pure life of righteousness and good deeds would make me much more likely to be forgiven than any “believer” who knowingly sinned their whole lives. In that respect, I think pretending to believe in a god for the sole purpose of the possibility he might exist is a very cowardly way to live and isn’t going to carry much weight when the time comes to confront him and explain your guilt-ridden endeavors. It’s the difference between deliberately disobeying and mistakenly disobeying. You might as well either be all in or all out. You’ll probably be much happier anyway.</p>

[ikillers]

<p>“If you have to take time to construct an argument, it means you don’t have one currently.”</p>

<p>Well first of all I’ve given rational arguments for God’s existence earlier in this thread, whether you believe they are or not. And i Just don’t have the time or motivation again to write out a whole in depth argument, most of which would just be rehashed from earlier.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>Well, when you have the time, I would appreciate a summary :). Religious debates tend to go like this: atheist makes a point, theist makes a counter-point, atheist invalidates counter-point, theist makes another counter-point, atheist invalidates counter-point, etc, until an atheist makes another point, then repeat. So by the end of the debate, atheists have constructed quite the argument, but the theists have been invalidated throughout the entire debate, leaving them with nothing in the eyes of atheists.</p>

<p>At least, that’s how I feel… I guess I can’t speak for others…</p>

<p>For instance…
There is no evidence of a god (+1 atheists)
There is no evidence of the non-existence of a god (+1 theists)
Avoiding the burden of proof by demanding proof of the contrary is a logical fallacy (-1 theists)
Without religion there would be no morals (+1 theists)
I’m atheist, and I have morals; the least violent country is non-religious (-1 theists)
There is proof of Jesus’ existence (+1 theists)
The “proof” is a known forgery (-1 theists)</p>

<p>Total valid arguments:
Atheists: 1
Theists: 0</p>

<p>I’m sure a few valid arguments were made on behalf of theists, but literally just a few.</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>First, Jesus probably did exist. But so did Muhammad, that guy who found those mystical tabulets in Methodism or whoever, and the Buddha. They were all regular ole’ guys. Jesus was exceptional nice so I hear. No connection to a nonexistant being though.</p>

<p>Also, people say that without God, there can be no objective morals. First, this is not necessarily true. Even though we all have subjective experiences of “red” - there still might be an objective red, somewhere. I don’t know. Different debate.</p>

<p>Anyway, even if morals are subjective, or if objective morals don’t exist without God, this doesn’t prove the existence of God. Sure, no God means that morals are just bioligical what-have-you. Yep. 100% accurate.</p>

<p>Here’s some evidence of the non-existence of God.</p>

<ol>
<li>You mind is governed by your genetics/ biology and experience. What is God’s mind governed by? What biological brain structures and synapses control his thinking? Perception and reason and consciousness, as we know them, require brain structures.</li>
</ol>

<p>Simpler still, God’s mind is either bound by some rules or processes (much like our own is bounded by biological rules) or it is unbounded by rules or processes. If it is unbounded, then it is completely and totally random. If it is bounded, then he is not omnipotent/ he is controlled by nature or biology. This is the single biggest disproof of God that there is, in my opinion. It’s based on no premise other than the fact that such a mind cannot exist anywhere, period. Just like red cannot be not red.</p>

<ol>
<li>Not related to God, but in a similar vein, your mind/ perception/ memories/ consciouness require vital brain structures (that have been mapped out) — after you die, there theoretically might be some existence, but it would be devoid of perception (utter blackness and silence - actually not even blackness, blind people percieve a lack of light, you would percieve nothing - not even comprehensible). There would be no thought, no memory (even for a millisecond) of anything. You would have less consciousness than a worm or bacterium might have.</li>
</ol>

<p>How could you possibly “meet” God or feel any pain after you die? You can’t.</p>

<p>Similarly, what if you were born mentally ■■■■■■■■ or you were an aborted fetus? Is that the way you are supposed to live out an eternity? How fair is that?</p>

<p>No God, people. Only us on this rock. We only have each other.</p>

[amarkov]

<p>Your argument is based on a premise that most people don’t actually believe. Philosophers and particularly contrarian extremists (both religious and non-religious) aside, most people agree that free will exists, and that simply cannot be solely a product of biology and experience.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@peter_parker

First, Jesus probably did exist.

Why do you say Jesus probably did exist? There have been people named Jesus but not connected to the character in the Christian bible. I have never seen any reason to even believe the Christian bible is referring to a person in history, whether that person performed miracles or not. I remember when there was some big story on like 60 Minutes (or similar show) that was supposed to be some big discovery about the historical Jesus, and since then I’ve heard people widely confess that he probably existed, just didn’t perform the biblical miracles. Other than that, I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that theory is true, but I’ve been looking for the sources…</p>

[ABR1190]

<p>I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here.</p>

<p>

1. You mind is governed by your genetics/ biology and experience. What is God’s mind governed by? What biological brain structures and synapses control his thinking? Perception and reason and consciousness, as we know them, require brain structures.

</p>

<p>You’re making the assumption that God’s brain must be biological, but God, by definition, is supernatural, or at least the Heavenly Father is according to theology. Since he is non-biological, it is impossible to say that he has a “brain”. A Christian would argue that since we are intelligent, then God, who made us, must be an equal or greater intelligence. Since God is unobservable, then it is impossible to say what his “mind” looks like, other than that he must be intelligent.</p>

<p>

Simpler still, God’s mind is either bound by some rules or processes (much like our own is bounded by biological rules) or it is unbounded by rules or processes. If it is unbounded, then it is completely and totally random. If it is bounded, then he is not omnipotent/ he is controlled by nature or biology. This is the single biggest disproof of God that there is, in my opinion. It’s based on no premise other than the fact that such a mind cannot exist anywhere, period. Just like red cannot be not red.

</p>

<p>That hardly makes any sense. Just because God’s “mind” doesn’t follow our own brain states and processes it must be totally random? What? God decides how nature works, and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (etc.) Therefore, he does not need to process things since he knows everything. Your logic does not follow–please explain why it would be totally random if God were “unbounded” </p>

<ol>
<li>Not related to God, but in a similar vein, your mind/ perception/ memories/ consciouness require vital brain structures (that have been mapped out) — after you die, there theoretically might be some existence, but it would be devoid of perception (utter blackness and silence - actually not even blackness, blind people percieve a lack of light, you would percieve nothing - not even comprehensible). There would be no thought, no memory (even for a millisecond) of anything. You would have less consciousness than a worm or bacterium might have.

[/quote]

A Christian would argue that your memories are within your soul. This is jumping from philosophy to religion to the Mind/Body problem, but a Christian would say that a soul and brain are synergistic, but your “mind” is your soul. </li>
</ol>

<p>

No God, people. Only us on this rock. We only have each other.

</p>

<p>You won’t have convinced anyone with your poor arguing, and I really haven’t seen any convincing arguments from any other atheists. Only thing I’ve seen is blind, dumb arrogance, and that you all really don’t know what you’re talking about. Religious people aren’t stupid.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

I never said it was. I specifically referred to logical proofs in the OP. The assumption that was made to make the inference I was misusing the term was invalid. That was a cute laugh, though . “haha”

</p>

<p>Yeah you did. You never pointed out how being religious (taking ‘god exists’ as your axiom and going from there) requires you to be logically inconsistent. All you said is that you don’t like the idea that god exists and misused the term ‘illogical’ by labeling it illogical. The math dudes wrote like five billion lines trying to explain this to you.</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@silence_kit

Yeah you did. You never pointed out how being religious (taking ‘god exists’ as your axiom and going from there) requires you to be logically inconsistent. All you said is that you don’t like the idea that god exists and misused the term ‘illogical’ by labeling it illogical. The math dudes wrote like five billion lines trying to explain this to you.

“God exists” is not a legitimate axiom. That’s all there is to it…
■■■■■!!! Omg… I have to share this… Just for kicks, I did a search for a logical proof for the existence of a god. Lol…
[Proof</a> That God Exists: logic](<a href=“http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/logic.php]Proof”>http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/logic.php)
That was just too good… I kinda knew it was going to go there.</p>

<p>Anyway, maybe you could explain this to me?
[Gödel’s</a> ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel’s_ontological_proof]Gödel’s”>Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia)</p>

[amarkov]

<p>Why is “God exists” not a legitimate axiom? Anything is a legitimate axiom, so long as it does not contradict other axioms.</p>