Beleif vs. Non-Beleif

[Overdriven]

The difference is that the scientists are willing to teach you to see for yourself. They are willing to have their evidence examined and science is openly discussed. Religious people do none of these things.

That was a really bad argument :c

Not into replying in relgion based threads, as I'm an ex-christian and my views on the matter aren't great.

You're saying that scientists are "willing to teach you to see for yourself." - You think religion is forced down most people's throats these days? Unless your parents are very religious, most non-religious people have the option to read the books, get the understanding (Millions of resources out there) and pick a religion which beleifs would suit them.

I'm not saying there is a reason to believe in a god, or to believe in science (I'm more towards science) but you have no right to say it doesn't exist. No one will ever know, if they do, there will be NO way for us to find out.

What you need to do is stop looking into main religions, and start looking at other ones.

How can you explain Wicca? How can you explain Scientology? (Granted, ST is a bad one) - You can't, everyone has their own views, and calling them an idiot/stupid for having that belief is ignorant.

 

[Golena]

The difference is that the scientists are willing to teach you to see for yourself. They are willing to have their evidence examined and science is openly discussed. Religious people do none of these things.

Actually I think you'll find many of them do (yeah some fanatic's don't but your calling ALL religious people morons not just the fanatics). You'll find they don't tend to do it with people who wander in screaming, your all idiots however, which is why your probably unaware of this.

There's a lot that science can't currently answer, and religion basically guesses at the missing bits. There's nothing that makes alot of it any less credible than any other scenario.

If I asked you what you were going to do tommorow what would you say? I'm guessing your answer would be based on the belief that you wern't going to be dead tommorow. I'm fairly sure you'll be unable to prove that tommorow you'll still be alive so again your living your life based on an unprovable belief.

If you don't have that belief most people would be unable to function. If people want to believe that there's more to life than simply sitting about then dying with nothing to look forward afterwards and that helps them get through the day then it's not particularly stupid. And as long as they don't feel the need to change my life based upon their beliefs there's nothing stupid or wrong with it. Religion is neither stupid or wrong. The stuff that gets done with the excuse of religion is, but that again isn't the point.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Not into replying in relgion based threads, as I'm an ex-christian and my views on the matter aren't great.

You're saying that scientists are "willing to teach you to see for yourself." - You think religion is forced down most people's throats these days? Unless your parents are very religious, most non-religious people have the option to read the books, get the understanding (Millions of resources out there) and pick a religion which beleifs would suit them.

I'm not saying there is a reason to believe in a god, or to believe in science (I'm more towards science) but you have no right to say it doesn't exist. No one will ever know, if they do, there will be NO way for us to find out.

What you need to do is stop looking into main religions, and start looking at other ones.

How can you explain Wicca? How can you explain Scientology? (Granted, ST is a bad one) - You can't, everyone has their own views, and calling them an idiot/stupid for having that belief is ignorant.

No you cant know for sure that there is no god. But i think i covered this one with the spaghetti monster thing.

And religious "facts" are not discussed, they just are. In science you have to have evidence thats good enough to convince others.

Calling someone an idiot for basing his life on something that he has no reason to believe in is not ignorant. Perhaps theres a less insulting way to get the message across but this is my way -,-. Like i stated earlier, you wouldnt respect someone who believed in santa so why would you respect someone who believes in god. No difference there.

 

[Golena]

you wouldnt respect someone who believed in santa so why would you respect someone who believes in god. No difference there.

Back to my previous point.. would you respect someone who believed they would be alive next week?

Now go prove that you will be please.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Back to my previous point.. would you respect someone who believed they would be alive next week?

Now go prove that you will be please.

Oh come on.. -.-


I do get your point there but still that has nothing to do with this ;C

 

[Jeremiah]

Calling someone an idiot for basing his life on something that he has no reason to believe in is not ignorant. Perhaps theres a less insulting way to get the message across but this is my way -,-. Like i stated earlier, you wouldnt respect someone who believed in santa so why would you respect someone who believes in god. No difference there.

Would call people idiots for, say, believing in evolution? After all, this 'theory' is no where near being proved. You may say "No, because it is the most likely answer" but still, you have no 'facts' to believe in this.

Let say the theory is true, can it account for where the chemical elements which make up our matter come from? Do we have the facts? No we dont, and yet this is science.

So in science, we have theories about how life came about, we have some fact-based knowledge that might strengthen these theories a little, but they remain theories. People then believe them to be truth, without them being proved. Guess what that is? Thats faith. Its is the starting point for both religion and science. People have a basis for having faith in a God, just as people have a basis for believing science. They arent opposite viewpoints, they are just trying to discover different things. Science studies the "how we are" part of life, while religion studies the "why we are" part.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Would call people idiots for, say, believing in evolution? After all, this 'theory' is no where near being proved. You may say "No, because it is the most likely answer" but still, you have no 'facts' to believe in this.

Let say the theory is true, can it account for where the chemical elements which make up our matter come from? Do we have the facts? No we dont, and yet this is science.

So in science, we have theories about how life came about, we have some fact-based knowledge that might strengthen these theories a little, but they remain theories. People then believe them to be truth, without them being proved. Guess what that is? Thats faith. Its is the starting point for both religion and science. People have a basis for having faith in a God, just as people have a basis for believing science. They arent opposite viewpoints, they are just trying to discover different things. Science studies the "how we are" part of life, while religion studies the "why we are" part.

Science has no truths, just theories. And yes some things like evolution are considered truths these days but they arent. They are the most likely options.

Religion doesnt study anything. It tells you how things are without prooving anything. For some reason you dont have a problem with that ;o

 

[Jeremiah]

Religion doesnt study anything. It tells you how things are without prooving anything. For some reason you dont have a problem with that ;o

I dont know if you've ever heard of Theology but its a big thing in the religious world =) Thats what religious scholars tend to study.

I know religion usually does itself no favours, with its bad publicity but I think you would find a surprising amount of rationally-thinking people believe in some God (or Gods). They arent brainwashed, they've come to this conclusion through rational thought. And likewise, those who once believed may have stopped because of the same thought process. In the absence of fact, its all we have to go on.

Even athiesm is a faith that nothing exists, but yet can this ever be proven?

Anyway, I think this will be my closing post. Be nicer to people!

 

[aika]

You dont need to prove something that doesnt exist.

 

[Overdriven]

You dont need to prove something that doesnt exist.

*Pats* Try again.

 

[Bugz]

Thats irrelevant. Theres no reason to believe that theres a bearded guy sitting on a cloud and theres no reason to believe that god is everywhere around us. There is no reason to believe that god excists in any form.

And bugz... I think the stupid one here is you. ><

This gets even more amusing by the minute.

It's as relevant as anything. Some Christians base the presence of God on the Big Bang. They say certain parts of the Bible hint towards the Big Bang and that God was responsible for it. Other parts hint towards the fact that 4000 years for God was billions for earth. Some Christians say that God is with us in a spiritual sense and he has no particular image, doesn't exist on a cloud and so on. There's even some that say the Bible is wrong in many places and that science is right, yet they still belong to the religion.

You are so clueless it's unbelievable. How the fuck can you slag something off you have NO understanding of?

 

[Gorbachioo]

This gets even more amusing by the minute.

It's as relevant as anything. Some Christians base the presence of God on the Big Bang. They say certain parts of the Bible hint towards the Big Bang and that God was responsible for it. Other parts hint towards the fact that 4000 years for God was billions for earth. Some Christians say that God is with us in a spiritual sense and he has no particular image, doesn't exist on a cloud and so on. There's even some that say the Bible is wrong in many places and that science is right, yet they still belong to the religion.

You are so clueless it's unbelievable. How the fuck can you slag something off you have NO understanding of?

As i said earlier

there_is_no_reason_to_believe_that_god_excists_in_any_form.

No reason to believe "hes with us in a spiritual sense" No reason to believe that god was responsible for big bang. No fucking reason to believe any of that shit.

And why exactly are you calling me clueless? ;o Im making very rational points here whereas you're just spouting out the same pointless crap. This entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic because all forms of faith are just as dumb. (read the spaghetti monster thing, it'll do good for you.)

Also, i understand religion very well. Trust me.


Overdriven: Posting a sarcastic reply when you're wrong makes you look really dumb

 

[Overdriven]

Overdriven: Posting a sarcastic reply when you're wrong makes you look really dumb

After reading all your replies, and posting the exact same arguments. You can't talk.

 

[Gorbachioo]

After reading all your replies, and posting the exact same arguments. You can't talk.

I post the exact same arguments because morons like bugz dont seem to learn anything, they just keep talking the same trash ;c

 

[Mojo]

Fuck off to somewhere else then if it's a pointless waste of time for you.

Thanks.

Your example is quite neat btw.

How about no.

 

[Bugz]

As i said earlier

there_is_no_reason_to_believe_that_god_excists_in_any_form.

No reason to believe "hes with us in a spiritual sense" No reason to believe that god was responsible for big bang. No fucking reason to believe any of that shit.

And why exactly are you calling me clueless? ;o Im making very rational points here whereas you're just spouting out the same pointless crap. This entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic because all forms of faith are just as dumb. (read the spaghetti monster thing, it'll do good for you.)

Also, i understand religion very well. Trust me.

So if something has yet to be proved, it is absurdly ignorant and fucked up to believe it?

Let's look at this in a deeper context. Love doesn't exist, you feel it. You can't prove that love exists in the world as it's a feeling based on chemicals in the body. Why can't faith be the same? Why can't we say faith exists because chemicals are released in our body related to it?

Let's look at it in an even deeper context. Some people say you have a soulmate. I'm sure most of us have used it before. Why can't we have a God in this respect? You can't prove there's a soul and you can't prove there's a God. Yet one is allowed and one isn't?

By the way, it's nothing to do with me being dumb. It's your shit explaining. You made an idiotic statement of 'ALL RELIGION IS BAD MMMK' and then call others dumb for interpreting it in a different way to what you meant?

 

[Mojo]

Want to share with us your concrete proof that there definately 100% isn't a god. Oh you don't have it.. so why are people who think there is a god any more stupid than you again?

The onus is to prove, not disprove, we don't have to prove there isn't a god.

The only reason we even have the idea of Gods is because enough people are deluded enough to say there is one, although in places such as Europe (thank fuck) people are generally well educated and smart enough to know better. Which is why we have less god worship in western Europe than anywhere else.

 

[Mojo]

This gets even more amusing by the minute.

It's as relevant as anything. Some Christians base the presence of God on the Big Bang. They say certain parts of the Bible hint towards the Big Bang and that God was responsible for it. Other parts hint towards the fact that 4000 years for God was billions for earth. Some Christians say that God is with us in a spiritual sense and he has no particular image, doesn't exist on a cloud and so on. There's even some that say the Bible is wrong in many places and that science is right, yet they still belong to the religion.

Thats call "twisting the story to fit the emerging evidence provided by science"

There are hundreds of Christians and people for other religions all with their own theory and story and ideas about there holy book and there religion. The fairly new idea of creationism and intelligent deign are just 2 examples of how the religions bend a flex the story to fit with science, go look at creationism and intelligent deign and see what their arguments arm themselves against, these are designed to counter specific science.

 

[Gorbachioo]

So if something has yet to be proved, it is absurdly ignorant and fucked up to believe it?

Let's look at this in a deeper context. Love doesn't exist, you feel it. You can't prove that love exists in the world as it's a feeling based on chemicals in the body. Why can't faith be the same? Why can't we say faith exists because chemicals are released in our body related to it?

By the way, it's nothing to do with me being dumb. It's your shit explaining. You made an idiotic statement of 'ALL RELIGION IS BAD MMMK' and then call others dumb for interpreting it in a different way to what you meant?

Ok here goes:

Yes, its absurdly ignorant and fucked up.

Love is a feeling caused by chemicals in your body. If we all feel it, then why wouldnt i be able to prove it?

And uh.... what the fuck is this supposed to mean? "Faith exists because chemicals are released in our body related to it"

What the hell?

I said that believing in a god/religion is stupid. And yes that does not include religions that have no superior being or any magic stuff in general. (I suppose your chemical religion is one these? )

edit: Soulmates are bullshit.

 

[aika]

*Pats* Try again.

sorry? You dont need to prove that something doesnt exist. It doesnt exist until you prove it exists. It's kinda basic logic

 

[Golena]

sorry? You dont need to prove that something doesnt exist. It doesnt exist until you prove it exists. It's kinda basic logic

So Pluto didn't exist until someone saw it with a telescope?
Did it just pop into existance at that moment?

I believe my Toe exists.. is it also moronic of me to believe this until I take off my sock and also prove it to you?

(I don't believe a divine being exists either, but the arguments used against it here are just utter utter crap! Sorry)

 

[Bugz]

Ok here goes:

Yes, its absurdly ignorant and fucked up.

Love is a feeling caused by chemicals in your body. If we all feel it, then why wouldnt i be able to prove it?

And uh.... what the fuck is this supposed to mean? "Faith exists because chemicals are released in our body related to it"

What the hell?

I said that believing in a god/religion is stupid. And yes that does not include religions that have no superior being or any magic stuff in general. (I suppose your chemical religion is one these? )

edit: Soulmates are bullshit.

When someone is in love or has a luffy-duffy moment, chemicals are released through the body.

When someone has faith in God and is praying etc., chemicals may also be released through the body.

What's the difference?

If love exists because of these chemicals (since afterall - that's the ONLY thing we can base love on - since emotions are caused by the release of chemicals and so on), why can't faith exist? It's the same logic.

Furthermore, if they say you have a soul which defines you as a person and 'holds' your emotions, then why can't we have a God? Some scientists believe in both, yet are unable to prove both.

Once again - whats the difference?

Sorry if this is making you think outside of your box of ignorance

 

[Azurus]

When someone is in love or has a luffy-duffy moment, chemicals are released through the body.

When someone has faith in God and is praying etc., chemicals may also be released through the body.

What's the difference?

If love exists because of these chemicals (since afterall - that's the ONLY thing we can base love on - since emotions are caused by the release of chemicals and so on), why can't faith exist? It's the same logic.

Furthermore, if they say you have a soul which defines you as a person and 'holds' your emotions, then why can't we have a God? Some scientists believe in both, yet are unable to prove both.

Once again - whats the difference?

Sorry if this is making you think outside of your box of ignorance

That's like saying what's the difference when you take a Placebo to when you take real medecine.

 

[Gorbachioo]

So Pluto didn't exist until someone saw it with a telescope?
Did it just pop into existance at that moment?

I believe my Toe exists.. is it also moronic of me to believe this until I take off my sock and also prove it to you?

(I don't believe a divine being exists either, but the arguments used against it here are just utter utter crap! Sorry)

Pluto did exist before that, but there was no reason to believe that.

Perhaps there is a god, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that he exists.

The arguments used here are very much valid, and if you cant see that then im sorry for you ;O)

 

[Gorbachioo]

When someone is in love or has a luffy-duffy moment, chemicals are released through the body.

When someone has faith in God and is praying etc., chemicals may also be released through the body.

What's the difference?

If love exists because of these chemicals (since afterall - that's the ONLY thing we can base love on - since emotions are caused by the release of chemicals and so on), why can't faith exist? It's the same logic.

Furthermore, if they say you have a soul which defines you as a person and 'holds' your emotions, then why can't we have a God? Some scientists believe in both, yet are unable to prove both.

Once again - whats the difference?

Sorry if this is making you think outside of your box of ignorance

So faith that only exists in your head? Its only the emotions you get when praying?

Sure. I can live with that. Sadly just about no one agrees with you there. 99.9% of believers do not believe this way so why are you even talking about this?

They are still just fooling theirselves, but i guess its ok since people do take anti depressants aswell. ;o

I hope i understood this correctly. Though, you could leave the personal insults out when you're making pretty shit arguments yourself. Makes you look kinda retarded xd

There is no such thing as a soul.

 

[Mojo]

(I don't believe a divine being exists either, but the arguments used against it here are just utter utter crap! Sorry)

Any and every argument against it here is completely valid, in fact we really shouldn't even be arguing against anyways because the whole concept of gods was pulled from someone arse thousands of years to explain things away, sun rise, sun set, death famine for example, since then not a single shred of evidence has ever come to light that gods of any description are real, not one, not ever for any god of any religion in the existence of mankind.

Yet people (and you who apparently don't believe in gods) still entertain that they might exist, still expect people to respect "believers" right to believe and still put the onus back on to people to disprove or at least accept that there might be a god based simply on the idea that until we prove categorically that there isn't one we have to accept that possibility that we may discover one some day somehow.

Please tell me, what else in this world is afforded such a position, in what other area of our lives do we continue to approve of such mass delusion over such a long period when absolutely not one shred of evidence has ever come to light, when no religions can actually agree on anything and when science has started to explain so much of this horse shit away?

If you want to see some good arguments/discussion on religion then check out one of the many religious discussions we have had here in recent months. (we've all been round the block a few times on this topic)

Most people posting here were party to them and most are not repeating themselves in detail in this thread as we have pretty good idea of others standpoints also some haven't given any opinion in this thread so you might want to read them if you havent, you might be missing out.

 

[Golena]

Yet people (and you who apparently don't believe in gods) still entertain that they might exist, still expect people to respect "believers" right to believe and still put the onus back on to people to disprove or at least accept that there might be a god based simply on the idea that until we prove categorically that there isn't one we have to accept that possibility that we may discover one some day somehow.

Please tell me, what else in this world is afforded such a position, in what other area of our lives do we continue to approve of such mass delusion over such a long period when absolutely not one shred of evidence has ever come to light, when no religions can actually agree on anything and when science has started to explain so much of this horse shit away?

I respect people's right to believe in it. A large portion of people who follow religion would find their lives fairly empty if they didn't have it. Who am I to take that away from them purely on the basis that it's fairly unlikely.
I agree that when people start trying to force their beliefs down other people's throat and alter others lives based upon their religion then that goes way too far, and I certainly don't agree with many of the political descisions that are based upon religious grounds.

I think that in most cases religion was probably something invented to help control a population. Getting people to believe in an all powerful god is a much better way of getting people to do what you want than just shouting it from your palace. For most religions then many of it's "rules" are still good sensible things to follow, and so if it's still helping enforce those then it's probably doing more good than harm.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I respect people's right to believe in it. A large portion of people who follow religion would find their lives fairly empty if they didn't have it. Who am I to take that away from them purely on the basis that it's fairly unlikely.
I agree that when people start trying to force their beliefs down other people's throat and alter others lives based upon their religion then that goes way too far, and I certainly don't agree with many of the political descisions that are based upon religious grounds.

I think that in most cases religion was probably something invented to help control a population. Getting people to believe in an all powerful god is a much better way of getting people to do what you want than just shouting it from your palace. For most religions then many of it's "rules" are still good sensible things to follow, and so if it's still helping enforce those then it's probably doing more good than harm.

If you need to tell yourself lies to be happy about your life then you should be focusing on how to make it better, instead of fooling yourself.

 

[liloe]

Some people mentioned that the Bible was just a writeup of stories from different people all over the world, but let me ask you: What happens if you put 20 authors seperate from each other and let them write a book? Right, they will all be very different from each other.

No matter where you look though, the description of God and the prophecies in the Bible stay the same, which would - in the case of random writing - be more than totally unlikely, so there must be something behind that.

Let me give you another example of that. I guess most have heard of the Edda, which is the norse guidebook for Skalds. Interesting enough, the Edda contains events like the Flood and the creation of the world generally takes the same steps as in the Bible (earth+water, plants, animals, mankind). Also the Norns are presented as trinity, like God in the Bible. There is also talking about the Asgard-serpent that surrounds the world, where the Bible speaks of the Leviathan as giant creature in the water, that god slays at some point.
Now the next smart answer will be: "Ok, why not believe in the Edda then"? Well the point is, the Bible has a thread going through from the beginning to the end, whereas the Edda is - and nobody claims it to be more - a simple collection of stories.

You shouldn't forget aswell, that everything we know scientifically about our forefathers and how they lived is a lot of scriptures that were found all over the world, yet it is such a big problem to believe the same thing, when it's in the Bible?
I mentioned the "Daniel" scriptures found in Qumran, but nobody cared to reply up till now. As I said, Daniel describes a very exact picture of the time going ahead in his prophecies with some prophecies containing exact numbers of years. Even scientists admit, that the book contains knowledge, that exactly fits cuneiform writings from ancient Babylon.

I's also bet my ass that 90% of the people bashing religion here haven't even read the Bible and just repeat stuff they've heared. It's no problem to me if people don't like religion, but I refuse to be randomly insulted cause of it. I'm not running around on these forums calling everyone else stupid moron, just cause they have a different view on some things and if I start to talk about things, I make sure I read a bit about it xD

P.S. I really thought a long time if I should reply, as Gorb will prolly come up with some "you're a real moron" reply anyways...

 

[Gorbachioo]

Some people mentioned that the Bible was just a writeup of stories from different people all over the world, but let me ask you: What happens if you put 20 authors seperate from each other and let them write a book? Right, they will all be very different from each other.

No matter where you look though, the description of God and the prophecies in the Bible stay the same, which would - in the case of random writing - be more than totally unlikely, so there must be something behind that.

Let me give you another example of that. I guess most have heard of the Edda, which is the norse guidebook for Skalds. Interesting enough, the Edda contains events like the Flood and the creation of the world generally takes the same steps as in the Bible (earth+water, plants, animals, mankind). Also the Norns are presented as trinity, like God in the Bible. There is also talking about the Asgard-serpent that surrounds the world, where the Bible speaks of the Leviathan as giant creature in the water, that god slays at some point.
Now the next smart answer will be: "Ok, why not believe in the Edda then"? Well the point is, the Bible has a thread going through from the beginning to the end, whereas the Edda is - and nobody claims it to be more - a simple collection of stories.

You shouldn't forget aswell, that everything we know scientifically about our forefathers and how they lived is a lot of scriptures that were found all over the world, yet it is such a big problem to believe the same thing, when it's in the Bible?
I mentioned the "Daniel" scriptures found in Qumran, but nobody cared to reply up till now. As I said, Daniel describes a very exact picture of the time going ahead in his prophecies with some prophecies containing exact numbers of years. Even scientists admit, that the book contains knowledge, that exactly fits cuneiform writings from ancient Babylon.

I's also bet my ass that 90% of the people bashing religion here haven't even read the Bible and just repeat stuff they've heared. It's no problem to me if people don't like religion, but I refuse to be randomly insulted cause of it. I'm not running around on these forums calling everyone else stupid moron, just cause they have a different view on some things and if I start to talk about things, I make sure I read a bit about it xD

P.S. I really thought a long time if I should reply, as Gorb will prolly come up with some "you're a real moron" reply anyways...

And here it is:

The bible/stories in it have been edited so its no wonder that they are more or less consistant.

Im not familiar with the "Daniel scriptures" and thats why i can be sure that they are bullshit. Because if this man had truly been a prophet then i would have heard this argument before. For some reason the prophets always turn out to be frauds. If you make enough guesses, one of them will be correct.

And no, i have not read the bible. Only parts of it.

Untill now the discussion was about the existance of God. I thought that we were all smart enough here to know that the bible is bullshit. Appearantly not