Why do you believe that there is a god?

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?

The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.


The truth is it doesnt matter. This debate will never end.

NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING WITHOUT PROOF!
Only when it comes to religion do you not ask for proof!

Look at EVERYTHING YOU KNOW. 

Don't you ask engineers to prove that their bridges are safe?

Don't you ask for chefs to prove their food is cooked properly?

Don't you ask for proof that money was deposited in your account?

Don't you ask for proof that someone murdered someone else?

Don't you ask for proof that this high school BB player will be worth bringing to the NBA?

Don't you ask for proof that you were speeding when the cop pulls you over?

Don't you ask for proof that your answer on a test was wrong? 

Don't you ask for proof that lightening is caused by electric discharge between the clouds and not "god"???

Yet when it comes to people who say "god is real and it exists" you DO NOT ASK FOR PROOF

IF YOU ASSERT SOMETHING YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM.

RELIGION OR YOUR "FAITH" DOES NOT ...I REPEAT...DOES...NOT... GET A PASS 

whew! I'm glad you were here to explain to me EVERYTHING that I know. Now I know where my intelligence begins and ends. Thanx.

People say things all the time without proving their statements.

Big Bang Theory. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
Existence of Aliens. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
Space/Time continuum. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
Worm holes. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
Migraine Headaches. Researchers have ideas about the causes, but none have been proven.
Cerebral allergies. Researchers have ideas about what cause them, but none have been proven
cytotoxicity testing, subcutaneous provocative challenge, immune complex assays,IgG subclass assays, are all unproven methods to diagnose food allergies.
People claim to know how old the universe is. But yet every so often the number changes. Because they cant prove the distances of redshifts are accurate.

The list goes on and on. So yes people do say things without proving them.
So my question to you is: why does it matter to you what another person believes? Do you.

So Nyuh Shi Dae wrote:
There is no scientific explanation of "creation". There are scientific explanations of how life began. Perhaps that's what you mean? Those explanations are supported by what we know through science, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.

The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THESE CLAIMS TO A DEGREE OF RELIABILITY.
Science does NOT claim absolute truth. 

This is where the evidence points to.

People who BELIEVE these things are wrong. I will take credit for science not explaining itself HONESTLY.

Science will never understanding everything. it attempts to understand everything as much as it can. It merely attempts to explain things to the best of its ability. There is always a degree of reliability that must be introduced.

This is why its hard for people to understand.

Even in medicine, there are MILLIONS of things that are not completely understood...if you even knew you might crawl under a desk and be afraid to come out...i'm dead serious. But we can understand things to an extent and try to understand them better based on the data and compile it explain phenomena. 

Evidence leading to supporting a conclusion proves things only to an extent! Thats the point. 

WE ARE TRYING! We're not just accepting things with ONE explanation and ending it.

There is a difference with accepting doctrine in which NONE of the claims have evidence. That is inaccurate and dishonest. 

It matters to me what someone else knows because if its WRONG and there is no EVIDENCE society runs into the dangerous problem of accepting things that haven't been even reasonably supported by evidence. 

There is no need to be a smart ___ about it. You know exactly what you're trying to do.

If you don't value evidence and empirical models then you could assert anything and NEVER be wrong. Get out of here with that trash argument. You know better than that.

Its about being intellectually consistent and honest. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak



The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?

In a discussion that involves supernatural and natural explanations for the existence of the universe, creation typically refers to the supernatural event where god created everything. So, no.

Regardless of what you feel is "typical," that is not what I asked you.
The answer is yes. The Big Bang Theory is science's explanation of the creation of the universe, by any definition.

Slaptastic wrote:
It really scares me to the length some people will go to defend religion. No logic, no answers, no reasoning, nothing. The answer for them is "just because". Not only that, then they try to disprove Science? Really? Science? Something that is literally all fact based you don't want to believe because a 2,000+ year old book about a magician in open-toed sandals that has been translated and slightly re-written countless times told you so?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Science is literally all fact based? Yeah. ok. The thread is about the existence of God, not belief in religion. Try to keep up
Me personally, I am not trying to disprove science. I believe science has made wondeful discoveries, that improve and enhance our lives everyday.
Things like modern medicine.
But what I am doing is pointing out how athiests always want religious people to prove their beliefs, then turn around and put their faith in things that also cannot be proven.

Thats why its called the THEORY my dude.
Thats what the evidence suggests! 

Rapid red-shift expansion of various parts of the observable universe to cosmic background radiation to being able to calculate various subatomic particles through mathematical models.

WE DO NOT COMPLETELY KNOW...however citing the EVIDENCE, that is the most probably conclusion. 

Its about gathering EVIDENCE and making conclusions. 

Just accepting that god did it is a claim with NO evidence. Thats the damn problem. You know it too. 

 

[sillyputty]

 

[mycoldyourdone]

Originally Posted by Kramer

Whatever you wanna call it. Uranium or whatever blowing up and creating galaxies and life. You can't repeat that

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak



The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?

In a discussion that involves supernatural and natural explanations for the existence of the universe, creation typically refers to the supernatural event where god created everything. So, no.

Regardless of what you feel is "typical," that is not what I asked you.
The answer is yes. The Big Bang Theory is science's explanation of the creation of the universe, by any definition.

Slaptastic wrote:
It really scares me to the length some people will go to defend religion. No logic, no answers, no reasoning, nothing. The answer for them is "just because". Not only that, then they try to disprove Science? Really? Science? Something that is literally all fact based you don't want to believe because a 2,000+ year old book about a magician in open-toed sandals that has been translated and slightly re-written countless times told you so?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Science is literally all fact based? Yeah. ok.
Me personally, I am not trying to disprove science. I believe science has made wondeful discoveries, that improve and enhance our lives everyday.
Things like modern medicine.
But what I am doing is pointing out how athiests always want religious people to prove their beliefs, then turn around and put their faith in things that also cannot be proven.

Seriously though.  We've been over this so many times in this thread.  Atheism merely means a LACK of belief in god(s).  Atheism DOES NOT require a belief in science.  If you ask us how did the universe come to existence, we'll go to the top scientific minds on that and try to give you an answer.  We could also just say no.  Just because we don't know how the universe started, this does not mean that god(s) did it.

If scientists want to claim something, THEY MUST PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.
If religious people want to claim something, THEY MUST PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.

Evolution is a FACT.
The Big Bang is a FACT.

Both of these things occurred.  The Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS what evolution is and how it works.  The Big Bang Theory EXPLAINS what the Big Bang is and how it happened.

Once again, if science has not been able to explain something, THIS DOES NOT MEAN GOD(S) DID IT.  If someone wants to claim that god(s) did it,  they must present evidence that supports their claim.

Don't get mad at atheists for demanding evidence for baseless claims.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by imthekang

one can have a relationship with God but it doesn't have to be in a organized religion....

False.
Your ENTIRE notion of a god is crafted by a religious affliation.

Where your god is, what you call your god, how you relate to your god, how your god intervenes and acts is all crafted by a religion.

You just choose to follow the god or gods of a particular religion but don't want the association of that religion.

You're picking and choosing. 

So in order to have a relationship with god, I have to follow all of the tenants of a certain religion? #$%%

 

[kramer]

Silly putty wrote





Now you're definitely trolling the hell out of me. 




You mean to tell me ancient romans stabbing at brains meant they knew what they were doing?




No sit your dumb ____ down. 




We have only in the last 100 years been able to effectively do brain surgery and know what the hell was actually going on.




Youre a fool. I won't even apologize for that. You're offending the doctors who devote their lives to actually understanding how things work with your blind and sheer ignorance. 




So god was just watching as millions died because the technology to save them didn't exist?




Isn't that a sadistic and sick bastard instead of an all loving being? THINK for a second!




So its more plausible for a god to point at stuff and make stuff?!


[color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-surgery.php Read this. Romans did do some stuff with brain surgery. So now you're callin me a fool for nothin. And they didn't care if they died if they're goin to Heaven. How am I offending doctors?

[/color]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by imthekang

one can have a relationship with God but it doesn't have to be in a organized religion....

False.
Your ENTIRE notion of a god is crafted by a religious affliation.

Where your god is, what you call your god, how you relate to your god, how your god intervenes and acts is all crafted by a religion.

You just choose to follow the god or gods of a particular religion but don't want the association of that religion.

You're picking and choosing. 

So in order to have a relationship with god, I have to follow all of the tenants of a certain religion? #$%%

You wouldn't have learned about a god in the first place without the context of a god as defined by a particular religion.
Thats my point.

You want to assume the existence of a god in the pretense of the religion(s) you've encountered without abiding or adhering to the principles of that religion. 

Even taking 10 seconds to look at the different froms of christianity looks at that perspective. 

Your INTERPRETATION OF THAT GOD IS BASED ON A PARTICULAR RELIGION. 

 

[boys noize]

I'm really glad this thread exists and is thriving.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Kramer


Silly putty wrote





Now you're definitely trolling the hell out of me. 




You mean to tell me ancient romans stabbing at brains meant they knew what they were doing?




No sit your dumb ____ down. 




We have only in the last 100 years been able to effectively do brain surgery and know what the hell was actually going on.




Youre a fool. I won't even apologize for that. You're offending the doctors who devote their lives to actually understanding how things work with your blind and sheer ignorance. 




So god was just watching as millions died because the technology to save them didn't exist?




Isn't that a sadistic and sick bastard instead of an all loving being? THINK for a second!




So its more plausible for a god to point at stuff and make stuff?!


[color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-surgery.php Read this. Romans did do some stuff with brain surgery. So now you're callin me a fool for nothin. And they didn't care if they died if they're goin to Heaven. How am I offending doctors?

[/color]

BRUH



ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!




I KNOW NEUROSURGEONS. I HAVE FREAKING WORK UNDER A FEW.




JUST BECAUSE THEY STUCK STUFF IN PEOPLES BRAINS DOESN'T MEAN THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.




WE DIDN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT HANDLED  VARIOUS ACTIONS OF NERVES AND DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES BEFORE 150 YEARS AGO!




US REPRESENTATIVE GABBY GIFFORDS IS ALIVE AFTER THAT ARIZONA SHOOTING BECAUSE OF MODERN NEUROSCIENCE...SHE TOOK A BULLET TO THE FREAKING DOME SON!




SERIOUSLY YOU'RE PISSING ME OFF WITH YOUR ______ IGNORANCE.




SHOW SOME REAL RESPECT TO THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

1. Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?

The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.


The truth is it doesnt matter. This debate will never end.

whew! I'm glad you were here to explain to me EVERYTHING that I know. Now I know where my intelligence begins and ends. Thanx.

People say things all the time without proving their statements.

1. Big Bang Theory. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
1. Existence of Aliens. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
2. Space/Time continuum. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
2. Worm holes. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
3. Migraine Headaches. Researchers have ideas about the causes, but none have been proven.
4. Cerebral allergies. Researchers have ideas about what cause them, but none have been proven
5. cytotoxicity testing, subcutaneous provocative challenge, immune complex assays,IgG subclass assays, are all unproven methods to diagnose food allergies.
6. People claim to know how old the universe is. But yet every so often the number changes. Because they cant prove the distances of redshifts are accurate.

The list goes on and on. So yes people do say things without proving them.
So my question to you is: why does it matter to you what another person believes? Do you.

So Nyuh Shi Dae wrote:
There is no scientific explanation of "creation". There are scientific explanations of how life began. Perhaps that's what you mean? Those explanations are supported by what we know through science, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.

The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?
What in the EFFIN heck are you talking about? I swear you just all of a sudden came back to this thread with a vengeance and instead of addressing the countless comments and questions we made previously to you, you up and go post THE EXACT SAME nonsense you have been posting trying to call out science, when in actuality you are calling out a lot of pseudoscience, and some of the "science" you are calling out doesn't even make sense.

THAT'S CALLED DEFLECTING!! This thread isn't about science, It's about God.

AND HERE WE GO AGAIN. Let me address all of your "science" statements:

1. First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it. NOT every scientist believes in the Big Bang Theory. Which is misnamed, it actually is a hypothesis. We can't prove the BBT is correct but at least we have theoretical models, and mathematics that support it. The existence of God has NONE! THE TRUTH IS yes some scientist believe in things that can't be tested at the moment, but they believe in those things because of all the indirect supporting evidence and theoretical models. For example the existence of aliens is based on OUR existence. If WE exist and WE are a tiny speck in the universe it doesn't sound so improbable that other life exists on one of the other billions of planets. There are a lot of scientists who don't believe that aliens exist as well as the BBT. There aren't a lot of religious individuals that don't think a God exists. That's the difference in why you need proof of an existence of a God and scientists don't need (even though they have some) proof of hypotheses being true. Why again? because THEY ARE HYPOTHESES.

2. METAPHYSICS, like sillyputty stated, GO read the rest of the thread. Or in fact just go read my posts. I address metaphysics and its pseudoscience BS that philosophers throwout. Yes, some theoretical physicist research and discuss this field, but there is NO consensus to what is true and if these things actually exists. SO scientists, don't believe in these things. Only some hypothesize over it, and some theories have been created based on our knowledge of quantum mechanics, so in actuality there is a little evidence, because we can apply quantum mechanic models and mathematics.

3. The human body is unique and there are a lot of different kinds of causes for the same type of pain. There are a lot of known causes of migraine headaches, and successful treatments. But, just because we can't diagnose every single persons migraine doesn't mean they are not true and we can't believe in migraines.

4. First off when you discuss allergies, they vary so much between all individuals. It all depends on your genetics, and immunological system. Whatever you adaptive immune system decides to recognize as foreign vs. self will determine what you are allergic too. That's why only some people are allergic to peanuts, etc... So to answer your question short, WE DO KNOW a lot of causes of an allergic reaction to the brain. Usually, something has to pass the blood-brain  barrier, which is unlikely unless it is a small chemical, or things enter your blood stream and cause a neurotransmitter to signal and causes your body or brain to go haywire.

5. OMG please SHUT the EFF UP about things you don't know about. Cytotoxicity  is anything that is toxic and kills cells, but usually refers to something that affects cell function or gene expression. Anything from dichloromethane to Paclitaxol. subcutaneous provocative challenge... WTH LOL.

If you mean testing for the presence of antibodies by subcutaneous injection of antigens to a certain microbe or allergen, then that is a proof in itself. Immune complex assays and IgG subclass assay are proof in themselves of the immune system and antibodies to food allergen and microbe immunity or presence so what the hell are you trying to say? YOU ARE SERIOUSLY pissing me off, where the hell do you get off at saying these are unproven methods of testing? Do you think we don't have an immune system? that antibodies are fake? Antibody testing is one thing in science that can't be refuted and has been researched to be fact. Testing for allergens through IgE assays is well proven and works great. As well as other developed assays to test for allergens.

6. Im not even going to address 6 I am so done with you. YOU MY FRIEND ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED.

the only thing I ask of you is please please please stop talking about things you have no clue about. Basically, stop talking about science and even pseudoscience like metaphysics.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by sillyputty


False.
Your ENTIRE notion of a god is crafted by a religious affliation.

Where your god is, what you call your god, how you relate to your god, how your god intervenes and acts is all crafted by a religion.

You just choose to follow the god or gods of a particular religion but don't want the association of that religion.

You're picking and choosing. 

So in order to have a relationship with god, I have to follow all of the tenants of a certain religion? #$%%

You wouldn't have learned about a god in the first place without the context of a god as defined by a particular religion.
Thats my point.

You want to assume the existence of a god in the pretense of the religion(s) you've encountered without abiding or adhering to the principles of that religion. 

Even taking 10 seconds to look at the different froms of christianity looks at that perspective. 

Your INTERPRETATION OF THAT GOD IS BASED ON A PARTICULAR RELIGION. 

Strawman much?
Just because the concept of god is man made (which I don't agree with anyway), it still doesn't make my interpretation of god man made also. 

Reading a book now that discusses that the need or desire for god could very well be genetically ingrained in humans. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by kix4kix

So in order to have a relationship with god, I have to follow all of the tenants of a certain religion? #$%%

You wouldn't have learned about a god in the first place without the context of a god as defined by a particular religion.
Thats my point.

You want to assume the existence of a god in the pretense of the religion(s) you've encountered without abiding or adhering to the principles of that religion. 

Even taking 10 seconds to look at the different froms of christianity looks at that perspective. 

Your INTERPRETATION OF THAT GOD IS BASED ON A PARTICULAR RELIGION. 

Strawman much?
Just because the concept of god is man made (which I don't agree with anyway), it still doesn't make my interpretation of god man made also. 

Reading a book now that discusses that the need or desire for god could very well be genetically ingrained in humans. 

No its not a strawman dude.
What are you using to interpret or support the notion that a god exists? 

Furthermore if man didn't create the man concept, how do you explain the THOUSANDS of independent god concepts that have existed and that people currently believe in? 

Just because theres is a need to explain things or assert some sort of creation or want to come to a complete explanation does NOT prove it.

Thats the point.

You can't dodge that point.

in NO other aspect of thinking do you skip over using evidence...yet when it comes to religion, you skip over the need for it. 

You can THEORIZE all you want, but if there is no evidence then your claim FAILS. 

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by kix4kix


Reading a book now that discusses that the need or desire for god could very well be genetically ingrained in humans. 

.... So why are there so many humans who reject a god/ gods? We're all missing something or what?

 

[boys noize]

 

[antonlavey]

As a result of their "opposite" and "backwards" thinking, religious people keep making it seem like atheists are tryna prove that there isn't a God. How do you disprove something that has no proof to begin with? That's like people saying, yo adults are always tryna prove that there isn't a santa claus and unicorns

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by xEpikRain

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Kramer

Whatever you wanna call it. Uranium or whatever blowing up and creating galaxies and life. You can't repeat that

lolwat. Do you make straw mans and actually expect to be taken seriously? Not being able to repeat the Big Bang doesn't mean that we can't study the evidence that the Big Bang left behind. 

How can you prove that the Big Bang actually left behind that evidence though?

They hypothesize through observation of what the universe is doing now. For example the universe is expanding in different directions, like an explosion. Then they use theoretical models and mathematics for the interpretation.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by kix4kix


Reading a book now that discusses that the need or desire for god could very well be genetically ingrained in humans. 

.... So why are there so many humans who reject a god/ gods? We're all missing something or what?

Isn't the idea of rejection implicating that there is something to reject? 

The concept is pretty interesting to me actually, it is more so that we are genetically inclined to have a desire for a god, this doesn't mean we are genetically inclined to believe in one. Different people react to different things.

Also, lets not forget the other aspect of this, religion usually = big group. Bigger group = more chances you pro create, and create off spring. Genetically, and even in a darwinian society,  religion may serve a purpose. 

@ Sillyputty, you are proving my point bruh 

 Maybe a desire for God IS natural, hence the various interpretations dating back thousands of years, and culturally diverse societies. Could it not be that religion is the man made concept, to cope with the inexplainable urge we have for something more?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by xEpikRain

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

lolwat. Do you make straw mans and actually expect to be taken seriously? Not being able to repeat the Big Bang doesn't mean that we can't study the evidence that the Big Bang left behind. 

How can you prove that the Big Bang actually left behind that evidence though?

They hypothesize through observation of what the universe is doing now. For example the universe is expanding in different directions, like an explosion. Then they use theoretical models and mathematics for the interpretation.

QFE
However...this is just EVIDENCE...it doesn't mean that is what happened...but you can't assert a god did it with no proof. 

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak



The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?

In a discussion that involves supernatural and natural explanations for the existence of the universe, creation typically refers to the supernatural event where god created everything. So, no.

Regardless of what you feel is "typical," that is not what I asked you.
The answer is yes. The Big Bang Theory is science's explanation of the creation of the universe, by any definition.

Slaptastic wrote:
It really scares me to the length some people will go to defend religion. No logic, no answers, no reasoning, nothing. The answer for them is "just because". Not only that, then they try to disprove Science? Really? Science? Something that is literally all fact based you don't want to believe because a 2,000+ year old book about a magician in open-toed sandals that has been translated and slightly re-written countless times told you so?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Science is literally all fact based? Yeah. ok. The thread is about the existence of God, not belief in religion. Try to keep up
Me personally, I am not trying to disprove science. I believe science has made wondeful discoveries, that improve and enhance our lives everyday.
Things like modern medicine.
But what I am doing is pointing out how athiests always want religious people to prove their beliefs, then turn around and put their faith in things that also cannot be proven.
Problem with that statement is a lot if it can. Just because you don't know how its proven doesn't disprove it. YOU should go out and see the evidence and proof for yourself. Things that can't be absolutely proven are called hypotheses and not all scientists agree. Until we get the tools to be able to prove these thing, which we are working to create, we can't prove them indefinitely. But, there is still much more indirect evidence and theoretical evidence that give some validity into thier beliefs (like aliens existing). God has NO proof or evidence.

 

[vslackin]

Didn't read anything. Just going to throw my 2 cents and say I don't believe in a wizard that can magically create things and give sight to the blind, etc.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by kix4kix


Reading a book now that discusses that the need or desire for god could very well be genetically ingrained in humans. 

.... So why are there so many humans who reject a god/ gods? We're all missing something or what?

Isn't the idea of rejection implicating that there is something to reject? 

The concept is pretty interesting to me actually, it is more so that we are genetically inclined to have a desire for a god, this doesn't mean we are genetically inclined to believe in one. Different people react to different things.

Also, lets not forget the other aspect of this, religion usually = big group. Bigger group = more chances you pro create, and create off spring. Genetically, and even in a darwinian society,  religion may serve a purpose. 

@ Sillyputty, you are proving my point bruh 

 Maybe a desire for God IS natural, hence the various interpretations dating back thousands of years, and culturally diverse societies. Could it not be that religion is the man made concept, to cope with the inexplainable urge we have for something more?

Is rejecting the notion that Santa or Big Foot or the chupacabra or etc exists mean that those things exist to reject?



Cut the smiley face ____ out. You know damn well that makes no flippin' sense.




Bruh...how does this show that there is a god that exists? 




Furthermore, how does this prove that the god YOU exist in exists over other gods? 




Wanting there to be one doesn't PROVE it or MEAN one even EXISTS.




How does being in groups prove religion is true or a god exists?




There are ethnic groups of people that share similar culture and demographic. Does that mean there is a god? 




DESIRE itself is natural. I actually have a hankering for some wet, mushy, plump poon right now but does that make it mean that i'm going to get some?




You have a desire to be able to fly...does that mean you can? 




WANTING something really bad doesn't make it so my dude. You're too damn grown to even attempt to justify this. 




We all have unrealistic desire only to realize that reality sets in and we have to accept the here and now and suggest only what we can PROVE WITH EVIDENCE.




Thats where your argument fails.




The fact that you're "reading a book" on something doesn't make it more plausible or provide evidence for something. 




If you read a book of BS it doesn't make it more true. Its still a book of BS. 

 

[sillyputty]

 

[sillyputty]

 

[kix4kix]

You are so bent on arguing dude, I am was here just to debate, but you are obviously intent on skewing my words, Where did I say any of the stuff I wrote proved anything at all???????????
Keep posting your gifs and essays.