I enjoy reading and occasionally contributing to the God debate, and various other religious/political debates despite the fact that everybody involved already knows what side they're on. Sometimes I get humor out of it, if a particularly bad argument is presented, but mostly I find it interesting how people have come to their conclusions. Personally, having been raised Catholic, I decided at around 13 years old that the Catholic church was speaking nothing but bullshit to me(and I've always suspected that the guys in charge know its bullshit too), but at the time I was not against the idea of religion mostly because I thought everyone had their god, and I simply needed to choose a different one. Years went by before I realized that no other religion was any better, and I realized that none of the above was a valid answer to the "what god do you believe in?" question, that was all I needed to throw the whole idea away. Now, coming from that perspective, I like these debates because I truly understand why both parties think the way they do, and I've been on both sides of the fence. I've heard every argument both for and against, but everyone who isn't parroting Dawkins or their pastor has their own spin on the argument that I enjoy hearing. Plus, there's always a couple of people out there like I was at 17 years old, showing up with curiosity, and perhaps leaving with thoughs to keep them awake for two days straight.
If I said to you that I believed a teapot was orbiting the Earth then, If I expected you to believe me, I would need to provide some proof. I should not expect to convince you by simply saying it, and then stating that you cannot disprove it. Even if I got the rest of the world, bar you, to believe that a teapot was orbiting the Earth, then I would still not expect you to believe just because a larger number of people believed it. The same principle would still apply as before. I'm not going to believe you without proof, and you saying I can't disprove it isn't going to persuade me, because you sir are the one who claimed the belief, not I. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you believing a teapot is orbiting the Earth, just don't expect me to believe it. It's your belief, not mine.
I don't see what's wrong with believing in God. What's the point in being atheist. I just don't get why you can even say so strongly that God is just a fake when in reality He has led billions of people to do mostly right in the world. It only gets bad when it comes to taking it personally. When you take the personal things and just use religion to support yourself. It causes hatred. Evilness.
Religion gives people some self-righteous power, which they feel they have to incorporate into the world. Converting others to their views may take some terrorism and slaughter, but what great things don't, right!?
On the micro-level religion offers a lot of peace and comfort but on the macro-level is causes a myriad of social and political problems. Religion has never been a source for good, you can find that from the bible. There are plenty of genocides committed. There are no problems with a personal belief in god but when you let that belief dictate your life and allow others who believe in the same god to influence your life, you set yourself up for disaster. Look at the evangelicals. Their vote rests solely on faith, not on the ability to lead a country. Meaning an atheist super genius matched up against a Christian hick, the evangelicals would vote for the Christian. We also have problems when we support Israel for purely religious reasons. It's early and I have to go to school so I can't make this post as complete as I want it to be.
that stinks, i'm just going to bed now On Topic (sort of): So when you take religion to an extreme, then it can be wrong. If you take hatred and turn it into "religious" hatred (i.e. holy wars) then you've gone way too far. More On Topic: But as I stated before, I don't think that there's any absolute way to prove God.
If you're anything like me you love family guy. Even if you don't you might have seen this episode. In the episode, Stewie gets taken by child services and is adopted by a family who has a multicultural household (an Indian, Asian, African, etc.). Peter, to get Stewie back, falls down the chimney, to the children's surprise. One of the children claims that he is Santa Claus, but the Indian rejects this idea because Peter is white and the parents told him Santa was Indian. The Asian stands up and corrects him and states that Santa is an Asian. One of the other children stands up and says something to the effect of, "Oh you can't be right because of-" and then proceeds to make a stereotypical remark. The children begin to brawl and the close ties they once shared were ripped apart by a difference in opinion. An opinion that didn't matter because we know Santa doesn't exist but even if he did, it's the idea of Santa that should matter, not necessarily his nationality. I don't know if this was their original intention but I find this extremely analogous to religion and god. Let's say for a moment the parents also told the children that if they didn't believe Santa was their specific nationality that he would not bring them toys, he would bring them coal. This seeks to harden the belief because they don't want a negative reaction associated with their beliefs, so they believe in the positive belief to get the positive reaction from Santa. One Christmas Eve the children saw the parents putting their presents under the tree and noticed the handwriting on the gifts is awfully similar to their parents. From that point on they should understand that Santa isn't real, that it was their parents' doing all along, instead they believe just to be safe, because if they tell their parents they don't believe or if they truly don't believe in Santa; Santa will bring them coal. What should you do? Be true to yourself or reap the rewards of something you believe is fictitious but believe anyway because you fear punishment? If there is a god, I believe he would reward honesty and an open approach to all situations rather than callous ignorance.
Nitrous, I would like you to listen to me for one last time. This will be our last good conversation, I am sorry to say. I would like you to prove how Illogical it is for a man to be crucified for the good of another. The use it is for a man to lay down his life for another, in the idea that his friend will be able to survive the given situation. And the formal Pardon will leave the Criminal that was let free the potential to finally fix every error they had commented. And how the day can be new as because the events before its change to a passing night will be so dark that light some how is brought to it all. Please Do explain the loss of words, loss of logic, and loss of common valor. Because with out Uncommon valor Will anything new be brought? As I close this last comment, I will be and forever more griped by the fact of how much we debated. Praying for one day you might see the side of view I have, I must go....
santa exists.... jk but I felt the need to say that. If people are happy believing something exists, good for them. We know not if a bigger being does or doesn't exist. As long as it doesn't interfere with me, I'm fine (although it is right now). I'm not sure how we could possible prove either way though.
The thing though, is that religion does interfere with life. There is/was war and genocide over religion. It's very, very unnecessary. Religion is a personal thing, keep it to yourself. With something that opinionated, you can't expect to make a belief "system" that many will follow completely. Once religion is unleashed past the boundaries of the mind, it turns into conflict.
Religion is in no way personal. And to say someone's beliefs are unnecessary is completly biased and wrong. Religion isn't just a theory of life, its salvation in anything and everything you do. If you chose not to have faith because your to blind to open your eyes, than thats you. And sure most wars have been fought over religion, but its because people are corrupt and power seeking monsters. Sure people that have faith can't truly prove their religion, just the same as you can't disprove it. So you have no right to say such things.
I have a baseball made out of solid gold signed by Babe Ruth. What, you don't believe me? You want me to show you a picture? Well screw that, you can't disprove my solid gold baseball, why should I have to prove it?
So your also saying that because you say something ridiculous i should just assume your lying. That i should have no faith in you what so ever because its improbable? so tell me, what were the chances that the big bang would happen and life would have started over billions of years on earth but no other planet? Yet you probably believe that but not in religion. Did i ever say you have to prove something? I just said dont act like you know everything unless you can disprove.
Yea, that is exactly what I'm saying. If I say something that seems improbable, then you should ask me how I know. And if I can't demonstrate how I know, you can assume I'm lying. Its called skepticism. You should have no faith in me. Faith is belief without evidence, without thinking. Basically faith is accepting "Because I say so" as a good reason for something. I don't want you to have faith that what I say is true, I want you to question everything I say and everything that anyone says. Well, since the universe is here, and astronomers have specific measurements and findings in peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that the universe is expanding from one point, its pretty close to 100% chance that the big bang happened. What are the odds that life started on Earth? Well, I think you and I can both agree that there is, in fact, life on Earth. It's here, and it got here somehow, so it had a start, yes I agree. 100% chance of life on Earth. The fact that these events are unlikely does not mean they did not happen. And in both the case of life on Earth and the initial expansion(big bang) of the universe, they did happen. Nobody knows why they happened, and nobody knows how exactly they happened, but all evidence shows that they did happen. And all I am saying is don't act like you know anything unless you can prove it.
I'm going to restate what a few of us have been saying with our last few posts in a more direct way. Hopefully people will read it and understand to never use that argument again. I'm getting sick of it. You can't disprove ANYTHING. Anybody could say ANYTHING, and by your logic it must be true. We have to believe things based on PROOF! Not the inability to disprove it!! The inability do disprove something is not a valid argument, ever.
Yeah and as soon as omnipotence has to follow logic, people might actually be able to disprove it... damn omnipotence... there must be a reason it's called the god of all gaps...
Omnipotence is impossible. Example: Can God make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift? If yes, he can't lift the rock, therefore not all-powerful. If not, he can't create whatever he desires.
The bigger question: Why would he want to. Aside from that bit of a logical paradox... you're forgetting one thing, omnipotence wouldn't really be omnipotent if it had to follow logic...